Andy9o8

There's a huge difference in the SCOTUS justices appointed by Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes, versus those appointed by Clinton and Obama. I do think a President Gore would have gone after al-Quaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I seriously doubt he would have invaded Iraq. President McCain would still have us deeply involved in Iraq. Ironically, he might have had the guts to shut down Guantanamo by now, a promise Obama reneged on, to the deep chagrin of those who voted for him. On the other hand, in Justice Department policy re:, say, civil liberties, police powers, etc., I haven't seen a whit of difference since Obama took office.

It depends: Legislation: If the president is Party X, and both houses of Congress are Party X, you'll see a lot of "X-ish" laws getting passed. That is all the more so if party X has a filibuster-proof super-majority in the Senate. Lacking this, however, Party Y in Congress will have some success at keeping some of the President's X-ish agenda in check, either via parliamentary blockage, or by forcing compromise. Administrative regulations: i.e., regulations put out (and/or enforced - or not enforced) by agencies like the FTC, FCC, DEA, EEOC, etc. Such agencies regulate an awful lot of things that directly affect the lives of people and the affairs of businesses. They are also all part of the Executive branch, so the President's administration can have a great deal influence over what they do, and do not, do. Federal trial- and appellate-level judges, and the US Supreme Court: The President has a huge amount of influence over who gets on the bench, because all of these are appointed by the President (subject to confirmation by the Senate). All federal judicial appointments are for lifetime, so presidents can use this power to indirectly affect public law and policy for literally decades after they have left office. So if you care about who will be on the SCOTUS, it really does matter who you vote for, for president.

Indeed you are. (In addition to the above points,) if it's easy for NIMBYs to run a tandem DZ off an airport, no DZ will be safe from attack. As the old saying goes, "freedom isn't free". So for everyone's sake every one of these attacks has to be fought.

http://www.theworldsbestever.com/2011/04/15/duck-burgers/

Ya, as if dying without having to face the consequences of your actions is so courageous...I bet any coward would just love that. Uh, you misunderstood his post. He means having the courage to face that death is the end; in other words, to not try to draw comfort from a belief in a hereafter, "better place", etc.

Screw that. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16459489

Wiki is your friend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_germany

Props to StreetScooby, who started it. 12 Reasons to Vote Republican in 2012 Not sure who you're going to vote for in 2012? Well check out this list and see if you aren't convinced to vote Republican! 12 Reasons to Vote Republican in 2012: 1) Because Jesus said "Thou shall give tax cuts to the obscenely wealthy." 2) If you believe the government should stay out of your life! Unless of course, it's at the doctors, at the church, in the bedroom, involves guns, or a woman's body. 3) Because despite the only reference to God in any government documents from the Founding Era is the word "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence, which isn't actually a governing document, we are a Christian Nation founded on Christian principles! 4) Because even though gay marriage wouldn't affect my marriage, it's still wrong! (Look what Jesus said about it! Oh wait...) 5) Because women don't NEED rights, dangit! 6) Because we need to help those who were born able to help themselves! 7) Because rich people need tax breaks more than poor people need food! 8) Because we need to invade countries and outspend the rest of the world combined on defense instead of fixing our schools! 9) Because lower taxes magically increases jobs and increases revenue!* 10) Because lower spending magically increases jobs and increases revenue!* 11) Regulations are for European hippies! God will save the environment! Jesus Jesus Jesus, God, the Bible, guns, Amen. 12) Because science is a global conspiracy. We don't need to ejumacate our kids about no evolution or no global climate change! God will save the environment! Jesus Jesus Jesus, God, the Bible, guns, Amen. *Giving more guns to everyone would also have the same effect. See, don't you get it now? We all have to vote Republican in 2012 to save 'Merica!

When he does shit like this: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/06/kansas-house-speaker-apologizes-for-calling-first-lady-mrs-yomama/ Certain right-wingers in here get real hard-ons pointing to some Democrat acting like an asshole, and then asking, "Why are the liberals silent about this? The silence is deafening!" Republicans who conscientiously care about their party should step up and call this kind of shit out for what it is, and what it does to the image, and the future, of their party. (Barry Goldwater, for example, certainly did, during the last years of his life.) And that includes calling-out the people who reveal their own closet racism by habitually bleating "Race card!" to those who do call it out.

You have to read it to believe it. http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/05/seattle-sues-attorney-for-requesting-pol

As long as weed remains illegal, and drug-testing in the workplace remains common, a comparison re: usage is difficult. The increasing prevalence of workplace drug testing has probably contributed to far more abstinence over, say, the past 10 years or so than mere illegality ever has. Repeal the illegality and ban non-safety related drug testing in the workplace, and you'd have a genuine choice. And Quade makes a good point: when I'm out to dinner, do I choose between a stout or an IPA? A chianti or a pinot noir? Single malt, neat? A margarita on the beach? I'm not willing to give all that up for Panama Red.

I'm sure it's worth a raised eyebrow if you're German, or possibly even EU. Do the Germans care about Sheriff Joe Arpaio? Have they even heard about him? Sorry, but it's just too far removed. And it's not sexy. And it's not about oil. And it's not about Muslims.

The big deal is emobdied in your use of the term "right along side". The only place Creationism should be taught is in a religion class. Most certainly not in a science class. Now, some people will say that it's OK to teach it in Social Studies class, looking at the "comparative history" of the two approaches (or as you phrase it, "here's where X and Y each come from"). But that's bullshit; it's just another thinly-veiled way of teaching (read: enabling the indoctrination of) "creation science", even if the class is not called "science" (or "religion"). Creationism and evolution are not intellectual equivalents, any more than the biblical story of Moses and the burning bush and the science of combustion are equivalents. They're completely separate things, and should be taught as completely separate things.

Hmm, a superior race wanting to take over their neighbors. Where have I heard that before? Dunno.... You may have hit on something, there. For some reason, I'm thinking Europe: 1939 or about. That's one good example, albeit a Euro-centric one, and a 20th Century-centric one. Ask the Chinese or the Koreans, and it's likely their answer would refer to the Japanese. And ponder what the Europeans and their immediate descendants did to the indigenous peoples of the Americas in the 16th thru 19th Centuries. But, being one of the more successful genocides, and what with history generally being written by the victors, etc., it's never really been vilified quite as much.

Bigotry and Tribalism among Kenyans is very common. Ahh, but them Kenyans sure can run can't they? That's why they're good burglars and stuff.

Financial corruption? Trading his position for money? Zzzzzzzzz. Ho hum, how 19th Century. Americans only care about sex scandals. Hookers and blow. Give us Silvio Berlusconi and we'll pay attention.

Pretty much. They have aggressive product placement advertising, an investment which has paid off in sales greater than the investment in advertising. I imagine they also invest some of their revenues in other revenue-growth opportunities. It's pretty basic advertising principle.

And when muslims are allowed to rent Santa costumes. Don't forget the Santa costumes. Define "Santa".

What you refer to as "skydiving schools" are actually drop zones where people of all experience levels jump, and which also train students. I'll bet the vast majority of the VA-area fatalities you found in your research over the past few years were licensed skydivers, not students in training. I'm not going to research it out now, but off the top of my head the only student fatality I can recall in the VA area over the past couple of years was an AFF student who was accidentally collided-with by a licensed skydiver, who was not otherwise involved in the student's jump, while under canopy at a low altitude. That incident really had little or nothing to do with the fact that the deceased was making a training jump at the time. Also, you need to understand that if you come into a forum like this and use a loaded, highly-inflammatory term like "instructors who've led students to their death", you can expect to antagonize people in here. Maybe you should re-think your approach.

Sigh. Oh, fudge.

That's your house. I caught Mommy kissin' Santa Claus. Prove me wrong.

The fact that you still say that proves that either (a) you've been so firmly indoctrinated into that talking point that you simply cannot abandon it, or (b) you have no proper understanding of the concept of logical burdens of proof. So that pretty much halts the discussion in its tracks.

The very term "skeptic", in the way it used used by the faithful to label atheists, is fraught with bias. I urge you to substitute a truly neutral term (and not quibble about the semantics of the concept "skepticism"). To illustrate: I assume you do not, at this stage of your adult life, believe in the existence of an actual, corporeal Santa Claus. You know, fat guy, white beard, red suit, reindeer, North Pole, down-the-chimney, toys to every kid in 1 night, the whole smash. You view his physical existence as a myth, a fable, whatever; but in any event, not an actual being or entity in whom you believe as a mater of personal faith. Would adult society generally label you a "skeptic" for your lack of belief in his existence? Of course not. And yet, if the prevailing religion in society were, say, Santa Clausism, with a little sleigh being the religious symbol people commonly wore around their necks (the Catholic version would have a reindeer, too), you'd be called a "skeptic". Atheists are not skeptics because, as discussed in the other parallel thread, non-believers do not bear the burden (not moral burden, but intellectual burden) of proof to prove the non-existence of the supernatural; rather, the intellectual burden of proof rests solely with the faithful to prove the supernatural. Added: Atheism is not a belief; it is simply a lack of belief. There is no intellectual burden to prove a lack of belief. So I have no more burden to prove that God does not exist as I do to prove Santa Claus does not exist. So every time you talk about atheists' "beliefs", and their not proving the non-existence of a deity, you're turning all intellectually-honest logic on its head.

Christians need to apologize for making Jesus Christ look like a pasty-faced white guy from Amsterdam. http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/2700000/Jesus-Christ-christianity-2752506-375-500.jpg http://www.theworkofgod.org/Images/Jesus.jpg Really, what's with that?

Isn't that where Occam soaks his razor overnight?