Merlyn_LeRoy

I believe in making decisions *without* the tinfoil hat.

Years ago, we had the Department of Technology Assessment, which advised congress on scientific matters. Newt Gingrich killed it, and the void was filled with junk science. Now we actually have to fight off inroads by creationists. I've seen plenty of governmental decisions based on ignorance and superstition these last few years; having someone who actually pays attention to the scientific community will be a nice change.

TheScout, why is having a cabinet-level science advisor a bad thing?

How many people here think a 700 billion dollar bailout and massive national debt (the national debt "clock" recently had to add another digit) will get magically paid off by the tooth fairy, or someone else? What do you think "debt" MEANS?

Gold Winger writes: The funny thing is that it's apparently okay for the rest of the world to mock us but not okay for us to mock them. This is the usual refrain of someone who hates being criticized by someone else who has the audacity to disagree with their opinion. Being criticized for acting boorish? My heart bleeds for you. Grow up and grow a spine.

What's the 'cool' part? Looks pretty lame to me.

You can pretend that, sure.

I keep posting facts, and you keep posting childish deliberate misspellings and lies. At least we're both doing what we're good at.

Oh, I see. My point went way over your head is all. I'd explain it to you, but why bother?

No, I'm not. You can't read (or spell).

I'm just stating facts; neither Goldwater nor McCain were born in US states. Do you disagree with that?

I guess that means Barry Goldwater wasn't a real American, since he wasn't born in a US state, either. PS: Or John McCain, for that matter.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Here's another example of Republican negativity, courtesy of the National Republican Senatorial Committee: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5AsdYWtKLY Just call me "der Juden"

You mean a democratic and highly liberal president whose parents were both atheists?

By law, political airtime must be sold at the lowest rate the network offers to anyone else. Each of Obama's half-hour buys is just under $1 million for each. He also saves money by doing it before November, because that's a sweeps month when rates are higher.

The Ron Paul march in a World of Warcraft realm wasn't done by Ron Paul, just by some of his supporters. Anybody can do that. After Dick Cheney shot Harry Whittington, I created a warlock named 'vpdickcheney' and ran him into Stormwind and asked people where I could buy a shotgun ('cheney' and 'dickcheney' were already taken). A couple of politicians have appeared in second Life, Mark Warner and George Miller.

Scoutldr, if it weren't for electioneering laws, they could shove leaflets in your face while you're waiting in line to vote. What you're seeing out in the parking lot is the first amendment.

That's pretty standard anti-electioneering legislation, and isn't anywhere near the death of the first amendment, because the restrictions are extremely narrow -- only political messages within a certain distance of polling places on days when people vote.

OGE, the Obama campaign has purchased 30 minutes of prime time for Wednesday October 29 on NBC and CBS (they are also trying to get ABC and Fox). Presumably, he will explain what he would do as president (there hasn't been an official comment on what it will be about, but that's a pretty safe guess).

Well, that sort of thing I wouldn't agree with at all, of course. It's like saying "You can make up your mind on religious question X, but if you get the wrong answer, you're out."

But Rooster7, don't you also realize that your statement, the way it's phrased, would ALSO exclude someone who is certain that their god exists, and they are no longer searching?

I also like Rooster7's second proposed statement, which (not incidentally) doesn't exclude atheists (or anyone else as far as I can tell). His first one excludes a significant fraction of the world's population (exactly who depends on who's judging compliance; a Jehovah's Witness would probably consider most Christians to be polytheists and bar them, for example).

Where've you been Rooster7? The rock or stream nonsense has been around 17 years. http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/bsa-god_policy.html Questions and Answers June 7, 1991 ... Q. Some people maintain that God is a tree, a rock or a stream. Would a person believing such be eligible to be a member of Scouting? The BSA does not seek to interpret God or religion. The Scout Oath states a requirement for a Scout to observe a duty to God, and the Scout Law requires a Scout to be reverent. Again, interpretation is the responsibility of the Scout, his parents and religious leaders.

To confuse things even further, after restrictive covenants based on race/religion were declared unenforcable in 1948, some title companies apparently tried to keep them in effect by informing buyers of the still-extant covenants in the deeds, so most people would tend to follow the restrictions anway. So the federal Justice Dept. threatened to sue title companies that informed buyers that these unenforcable covenants were in the contracts they were signing...

Since restrictive covenants were ruled unenforcable (as opposed to illegal), they aren't automatically removed and require legal action to delete. Since they have no effect and cost money to get rid of, most people don't bother. William Rehnquist owned some land with old restrictive covenants dating back to around 1930, which was brought up during his senate confirmation for chief justice.