Ducky

The intent to steal firearms solely is existant. They won't be stolen from an Armory. With that said; you are a target if you own a gun. What you are doing is not releasing new guns and cracking down on illegal gun sales. We would be reducing the outflow of firearms; not changing the amount we take in from criminals considering we must aprehend them first. We can do significant things about it. You don't want to though. A taser gun wouldn't do that just as well? You won't be raped or murdered by a stunned person. The analogy (to me) makes no conclusive sense. Rushing into a battlefield doesn't sound preventive at all. When we have subs!@#$%^&*utes that still harm the bad guys equally well but don't cause needless death; it seems irrelevant any arguement most people bring up.

The only part I disagreed with. Despite what happens, people will split off and start something new. Attacks never again? I doubt it. Maybe not to the scale of 9/11; but I certainly don't discount smaller attacks.

Wouldn't it be "Implies that most likely." Tossing sticks into the air and having them form a loosely constructed form that was able to sustain 50 pounds of weight would be possible given the amount of sticks and numerous throws. With your wording, I note that you don't disclude the possibility of the primordial ooze theory; which sounds to me to be about as possible as ID. If you simply just misworded it, I understand. ----------- Unfortunately; the topic was introduced about what should be taught in school. IMO; no one has seemed to mount well enough evidence that ID would be a science instead of simply philosophy. Although Aileron has touched almost every other part of ID than that.

Just a quick note. Frazier Mountain Highschool (California?) sacked it's Intelligent Design Philosophy material with recent outbursts from the community that it was closely bordering state/religion issues. This isn't the main story; but probably one of the main reasons the school just said "!@#$%^&* it." http://www.woio.com/Global/story.asp?S=4351485

Wasn't his pea cross breeding more inline with basic genetics rather than evolution itself. Marking the ratio of pea characteristics when a plant of one type was mated to antoher.

Fair warning though; It will be hard to offer proof of the claim and most staff in most zones will simply tell you to live out the ban.

I like that.

Good thing I never troll these forums.

!@#$%^&*, and all I have to fall back on is philosophy. I'll have to choose a side if I'm going to be intelligent.

I don't necessarily disagree with the statement; but I don't agree either. We are "Winning" in Iraq and most if not everyone I know barely remember we still have soldiers over there because the topic was burned out so long ago. In South Western Pa specifically, you will be hard pressed to find a majority who even care about Iraq other than saying they are for or against. That's hardly a Unified Front.

Without even looking at the links, I can tell you Astro is correct. The Bush administration has said many times that they know Saddam had links to Osama. HOWEVER, it's just spewed bull!@#$%^&* for the most part. Most of the evidence is basically heresay (In my opinion at least) There have been numerous get togethers to vote whether the alleged links were for real or not. The outsome was decided that there was nothing solid. ---------------------------- Being a Liberal myself; I do disagree with numerous other statements Astro made. Native Americans aren't a country; correct. They are a nation however. Different words, the same meaning when applied to this topic. Anti-war persons CAN BE anti soldier. You are actually simplifying a category. I know many people who believe soldiers and the act of soldiering is a waste of both man power and money. WarHawks CAN BE liberal. As I recall; almost everyone wanted to destroy Osama. In the Iraq sequence, liberals also wanted to see him taken out of power. You are demonizing the republican party. There is no new corruption in the political system. It's the same recycled bull!@#$%^&* there has always been. Win Election, jam as many people into office that share your opinion; own the vote using propaganda, misinformation and a sly tongue. Everyone is guilty of this. Democrats (Liberals primarily. Not quite conservative democrats or centrists) have the same message they always have had. Free Market, privacy, and civil justice and equality. That's a unified message. It takes a back seat when it comes to war though. No one ever remembers the issues that effect us daily. When it does come to war though; excluding democratic conservatives; most of us primarily just want to leave Iraq and get our soldiers home ASAP. Suddam was caught; iraq is primarily saved. What's done is done and it's pointless to argue about it now.

No props to swift. He's in it for the moniez

Without the proper credentials, it's murder.

You are warping my analogy to prove that point. I only suggested 2 generations while I was leaning towards multiple. I didn't take the time to jot down the history of a 17 generation family. My bad :-p

It sounds like !@#$%^&*isted suicide would be a hard thing to keep track of and regulate. Obviously someone with the appropriate knowledge would do it for a fee. If the person wasn't full sound of mind (Patient), one's family (I can only assume) would have numerous avenues of legal suits they could file. In my personal opinion, please keep killing yourselves in the old fashioned way. It's not only free, but you can do it in the most humorous ways. Blood splattered knock knock jokes livin the scene of a homicide investigation 10 fold. Knock Knock! Who's there? Not me! Haha, clean it up.

I never mentioned any forms of behavior adaptation. Dodo evolved into a flightless bird. He didn't merely stop using his wings. In my ancestry analogy, they became faster through evolution; they simply did not decide one day "Perhaps if we run faster."

Wouldn't that imply that the species, before dying; would have to find some other distinctly different way of staying alive. Similar to that of an Ostrich or Penguin. What of those animals that could fly previously to migrating to thier current location; finding no preditors and thus not needing a reason to fly any longer. (Dodo) A mother has 3 children. All 3 leave home and venture to find thier own homes. 2 of which get eaten by tigers during thier life time; yet the 3rd was able to dodge the fate and had 4 children of his own. 3 of those were killed by tigers, but another escaped. During the process of this ancestry; originally they were not built well enough to live around tigers. Down the line though, the had become increasingly faster to outrun the preditor. Although the primary line of ancestry is gone through generations and generations; doesn't mean that all are. It just seems to me there are too many Ifs or ands to make a solid conclusion that because a species is weak, there are no longer any ancestry among the current species without intelligent design. ---------------------- I'm not too knowledgable on this subject as a whole, but I would assume Inbreeding would be one of the leading causes of evolution; even more so than the need to evolve. Just my opinion though.

Evolution to webbed fingers would mean that it was a necessity and/or an anomaly, thus it doesn't 'go down' the chain.

Keep a hunting rifle, 1 per person and/or family pending the age of the children who also own. No excuse for not getting rid of hand guns for citizens. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/Taser.jpg

Anti-war, respect the soldiers. You go kill people and do whatever you want for whatever reason, just don't ask that I go do so. Alot of the people that are in the service are there for the money and the security. Simply put.

They have to drink at the sinners water fountain instead of the golden one 2 feet higher labeled Gods kingdom.

I'm confused what purpose that serves.

Oh noes?

The arguement doesn't quite work when you actually define the sanc!@#$%^&*y of marriage as a whole due to different viewpoints. While one may suggest only marriage should be confronted out of love, another might disagree and believe than convenience is a better reason. Both, have equal outcomes whether it be widow or divorce. While on a broad scale, you make sense, you are only stating a fact based on your own opinion which while majority shared; isn't that of everyone.

Parents were divorced. I was already poor previous to the fact. I was just more-so afterwards. Father doesn't pay a dime in child support. Mother worked 1 average low paying full time job to support 2 children fine. Choice of lifestyle has a large part to play in anyones life. I can easily say that I am poor after looking at and comprehending salary comparisons. When I was little though? I hadn't the slightest clue I was poor. The quality of the time presented to me was much more than any entertainment that could have been bought. Had my mother and father not split, I would most likely have travelled the path of alcoholism and have accomplished more criminal activity than I had when I was younger. Both of my parents are close friends with one another despite having gone through what they had. Marriage will be, forever more for myself just a word to determine the legality of a couple. Most of those without religion do not see marriage as a sacred pact, and shouldn't be held to the "Social Standards" of those who do. Had I been divorced, and someone attempted to 'blacklist' me because of it, I would laugh and go about my business. I myself will probably marry the woman I live with, whether I love her won't make much of a difference if the arrangement is more convenient for us both. When we decide to splt? Divorce most likely. No hard feelings or regret.