Oh well, I'll survive. Very rarely have I had any troubles in finding
dates, anyways.


Here's hoping that the spiritual people in this country can get their
act together and mobilize before the sec/progs turn this country into
another Amsterdam.

We could always just start harvesting rapists for their organs.
Proceeds go to their ill-begotten children. THAT would send a message.


Regardless, abortion is an "extreme" case. I can add another one to the
list, though. Medical necessities. If the mother can't survive the
pregnancy, then she should have the option to abort.

You know, if I keep supporting these things- people are going to begin
to think I'm Christian. Oh well, truth is truth.

Ok, maybe not so much "religious" as "purpose-based spiritualists".
Great men never followed the doctrine simply because it was doctrine,
but they followed their faith. And they did have faith. They were hardly
atheist, or even agnostic.


As to the catholic view that Aristotle "proved" God. Perhaps, perhaps
not. But that wasn't the only work of his where he expressed his
opinions of a Creator. Especially in any of his references that brought
up Socratese and Plato.

Aristotle was, in many ways, a very modest man. He almost always
refered to his mentor's works when expressing his views on spirituality.
In contrast, he was happy to claim his scientific recordings.
Nomenclature and taxonomy, most especially.

Ok, so it's not a perfect translation. Since when was anything? We're
humans- not camcorders. Speaking of which, a camcorder would be
comparable to the "higher", logic part of the brain.


And it isn't "by chance" that the witnesses get some things right. The
"chance" lies in the parts that were gotten wrong.

I'd like to shake the hand of whomever wrote this message. Absolutely
brilliant.

Hmm. Try south america or asia. They cook everything else.


And of course they won't give him credit. Because liberals suck like
that. But, to be fair, if it were a democratic president, the
conservatives wouldn't be giving him credit, either.

Besides, this isn't history. Up until the 18th century, anyone older
than 12 was considered an adult, for all intents.

I still take exception to the term "illusion". A video game is an
illusion. What we witness is reality. (If ANYTHING is reality, that
is.... let's not delve into that aspect of philosophy for now).


Now, how we percieve the real event is an issue. Our "translation". But
to call it an "illusion" carries the implication that it never happened
in the first place. Witnesses may not see a crash the same. But a crash
*did*, in fact, happen.

The irony is- "liberals" are supposed to be ANTI laws. Hence the phrase
"liberal". Fascists are the ones who are supposed to like making laws
all the time.

They'd try him for multiple murders. And he'd be found not guilty-
unanimously.

So? Anyone who picks up a gun/bomb/etc and tries to kill complete
strangers can be tried as an adult, so far as I'm concerned.


Put me on his jury. Prove the kid is a terrorist. And I'll personally
suggest the death penalty.

After due process, of course.

He doesn't have a CHOICE. Congress won't give him a bill without that
damned "withdrawal date".

Sounds fun. We'll meet in the airport where I'll know you couldn't
sneak a weapon. I promise I'll defend myself in a purely protective
manner.

Yep. Too bad congress is too political to do what's right and let the
funding through like it SHOULD go through.

Oh, no- I already know this stuff. The statistical numbers, I didn't
know. But I knew the general trends. And methodology.

To quote Paton- "War is hell".


We're making progress. And if Congress stops being about the smear
campaign, and starts looking at facts, they'd drop the "timeline" and
let our military do their job.

Not bad at all. I presume you have the source citing left out of the
version we're reading. Because the teachers around here, at least, will
rip into you for that one.

Yes.

But if we'd have reasonable immigration laws, then they wouldn't have
to.

So the fault is ours, really.

Wow.... you have me on that one. Some genes run double, or even triple
functions. Twitch a blood type here and a kidney function there (or
whatever the combination), and you could get some feature changes that
neither one alone could ever see. Give them time to stabilize, then
spread throughout the population. They'll optimize with other normal
members, and natural selection will run her uncontested course.


You could manage to get considerable jumps. Further than Evolutionary
Theory could explain otherwise. Congradulations, you've got the first
theory ever shared that could explain the "missing link" problems in
evolution.



Now all that remains is the troublesome "irreducibly complex" stuff.
Once that's taken care of, we'll have an evolutionary theory that holds
water. "Sympathetic" mutations notwithstanding, they couldn't create
completely new organs. Much less organelles. Or create a new type of
cell. Or give that new cell type a viable place in the body to do
anything.

But you HAVE filled one grand-canyon sized hole in evolution. We'll see
if it can be done again.