martindc1

Look at the neck line.....definate chop job. Nice to look at anyways!

That's what I noticed after everyone clued me in on it.

did you actually think that was a real picture?

Yup...in just a quick look, but yup. I was skeptical though.

Eli,,,, In 1958, Cleon Skoussen, former FBI agent, revealed in his book, THE NAKED COMMUNIST, the long term goals of the communist agenda. This information is also contained not only in the Congressional Record (August 1963), but also in the Communist Manifesto itself. For the sake of brevity, only a few of those goals are listed here:

 

That is where I got the list, If you search for "communist agenda" on the web you will find this list or one similar to it several places, all referencing this book and author.

No doubt there are extreme liberals with a communist (or nearly) communist agenda. We (as citizens) must be very alert to those groups who will use parts of the Constitution to promote their agenda (like the 1st Amendment) but at the same time will go against the Constitution and do things like reduce our rights to protect ourself (2nd Amendment). Or use the 1st Amendment to REDUCE citizen's right to free practice of religion.

Now as far as religon in schools, and the federal govenment. The federal govenment has little to do with schools. Public schools are state run and funded, the feds do little with education, which is why I question all the money the the fed claims to spend on education, because it doen't go to schools. I believe that it's put into federal grants for higher education in reality. So constutuional law, has little effect at that level. It says that government shall make no law, I don't remember seeing a law saying that you HAD to say under God. Look hard, I bet you can't find it either. Nor have I ever seen a law imposing prayer in school. But there are now laws, referencing the constitution that prohibit it. And those laws ARE unconstutional, because they do specify religon, lack of religon or promote Atheism. It depends on how you look at it, but it's still a law, specific to religon.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Therefore the states can enact any law that is not specifically prohibited by the Constitution. Regardless of where the feds. spend their money, the Constitution has the final precedent. It protects the citizens (to a point) against things like a state that has an unusually high proportion of some demographic that would use its high percentage to push it's agenda.

I have not seen a law imposing prayer or forcing a student to say "...under God..." But what I have seen (and experienced) are SCHOOL policies forcing prayer and the statement of "...under God..." Since the school is in the public domain, those policies are specifically prohibited by the Constitution. I fail to see how a law of prohibiting the force of religion on someone promotes atheism. Martin Luther didn't write his 95 Thesis and the Pilgrims didn't break away and come to America for nothing. They did what they did to break the oppression of religion from authoritative figures. The Constitution is an extension of that movement that specifically gives the citizens of the United States protection from the imposition of religion by authority. By no means should students in the public schools be forced to practice religion, however it is also in violation of the Constitution to disallow those same students to practice religion in their own will in the public schools. I have heard of Muslims being allowed to practice religion in public schools where Christians are not. I don't know how true that is, but if it is true, that would be in violation of the Constitution and Brown v. The Board of Education.

Moreover, removing prayer and the pledge of allegiance from schools violates the other part of the first amendment clearly "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" removing the name of God, Alaha (sp?) Budda, Jesus Christ, or any other religous icon is clearly unconstutional.

No its not unconstitutional. Forcing kids to say the pledge that religious groups placed "..under God..." into is a violation of the Constitution. Not allowing kids to have the right to practice religion in school under their own will is unconstitutional. Forcing kids to practice religion is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the Constitution also allows people to turn their back to the flag during the National Anthem. As mad as that makes me, the best thing for real Americans to do is show respect to the flag and use our rights as set forth in the Constitution to make sure that the integrity of the Constitution is ever-protected.

The largest disaster relief besides the red cross in this country are religious organiztions.

Tech?

Best I could find with a quick google search was this:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2005-09-12-katrina-corporate-giving_x.htm

Which is from the 12th of September. Wal-mart alone has contributed over $30 million in goods and cash.

Where does all the money that the Red Cross is contributing come from? From what I can tell private donations.

Edit: Where is it stated that this country was founded on religion? I see this in the 1st Ammendment to the Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Forcing kids to recite "under God" in the pledge is a violation of the Constitution. No where in the Constitution does it say that this country was founded "on religion." The Constitution protects the citizens from having religion forced upon them by the government. As stated before "under God" was put into the pledge under the influence of groups with a religious agenda. According to the Preamble of the U. S. Constitution that states:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The securing of liberty of the right to the free exercise of religion can not go far enough that it inhibits the liberty of another. I agree that anyone who doesn't like this country can go somewhere else and I also agree that this was a trivial law-suit that probably ate away thousands of the tax-payer's dollars but the writing is on the wall within the Supreme Law of the Land.

Show how much OSU dominated on defense?They gave up 382 yds (OSU had 255) and 25 points.I hope their defense doesn't "dominate" the rest of the games this season.

I don't know I think that stat is skewed. From the time following the 10 points texas put up to when we missed the field goal our defense was great. Our defense played a game that would have beat many teams but our offense didn't pull through. The best defense is the one that is not on the field and unfortunately we couldn't control the ball to make that happen. Don't forget our defense even came up with a goal line stand to give us another chance. If our offense could have scored another touchdown on one of the half-dozen chances it was given then the game would have went the other way.

I don't resent Carpenter for his shit talking either. That is the kind of attitude that a defense needs to have and they damn near got it done. OSU just gave Texas one too many oppurtunities.

But its Monday, so they need to get ready for Saturday.

On edit: Did anybody catch 610's post-game call in show or what the talk of the town is regarding this offensive situation?

I don't really blame Smith for the safety. He did take the ball at the 1 yard line.

I know but it just seemed like he didn't run that play at 100%. But like you said before, we had plenty of oppurtunities and it shouldn't have come down to that.

there were sooooooooooooooo many chances that were given so few taken. I in no way blame a new kicker for missing a 50yrd field goal.

Especially when he had already made 4 and kicked so well. I really am ready to blame the quarterback situation though.

I'm sure it will come up about why Tressel chose to kick the FG instead of punt on that play but I'll say this: He put his confidence in a kicker who had previously made 4 FGs and a defense that at that point was having its way with the Texas offense. One can't fault a coach for having confidence in his best assets and going for the points.

Thats awesome.

On a side note I want to put a 3'x5' workbench in the front of my garage but I will have something like 4 inches of clearance front and back, so I haven't decided what I am going to do.

- The Athens City jail is conveniently located uptown, and they won't let you bail your friends out until morning anyway, so party on.

Just make sure as shit you don't get hauled to Nelsonville. I have heard horror stories of people making the WALK back to Athens.

But yeah, been there done that (except for the q-tip and jail parts). Now they just ask me for money.

First of all, don't get any more credit cards, whether they have a balance transfer option or not. ALL cards will have a regular interest rate that kicks in after usually 6 or 12 months. FWIW the only card I have ever seen to have a lower interest rate than the one you are dealing with is an American Express. Credit card APR is often based off the current prime interest rate except it is compounded continuously to have an effective APR of nearly 20%.

Basically you need to make sure that you are paying more per month than spending. The best way out would be to pay it off using either a home equity loan, a personal loan, or refinance the house. Don't feel bad though because I have heard of people six figures in credit card debt.

BTW my little brother (actually my half brother) is autistic.

So in the wake of a major thread hijack here is some interesting links if anyone is interested. I myself should read the first one as I am a little rusty on the subject. The second is this same discussion on Corner-Carvers which managed to stay pretty civil despite its 6+ pages:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://corner-carvers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24716

$3.09 here in Gahanna (just got home from work). The Cobra's staying in the garage for the time being. I'm going to pull down my bicycle that's been hanging up for about 6 years, pump up the tires and see if it still works okay, and I think it's time to start riding to work.

Ha! My Cobra is my good gas milage car. My truck gets like 17-18 mpg.

Hahaha....good one. Tell it again, tell it again!!

Yeah I'll see if I can find any more information about how the govt. thinks releasing oil reserves will prompt big oil to lower the gas price in the wake of a disaster!

I do concede that our oil supply is inhibited by 25%, but the demand has probably gone up by a fair amount too.

So explain to me at what point the distinction between primate and human came about. What common ancestor would have been able to "evolve" into hundreds of other species of mammal?

Basically a species is considered when two individuals can reproduce viable offspring. Viable meaning that the offspring can reproduce. For example a horse and a donkey can reproduce and make a mule, but a horse and a donkey are considered different species because the resultant mule is sterile. I am not real sure if there is a known ancestor of both chimps and humans but there have been bones found of primates that have both the structural characteristics of chimps and humans.

Does this mean that all reptiles came from one common ancestor and "evolved" into thousands of species that spread themselves across the land and sea?

Pretty much.

Careful study of the bone structures of the skulls of various tetrapods (human, fish, turtle, cat, crocadile) would blow your mind. Its all the same bones in the same locations but with similar shape and different sizes. Its even more apparent when you compare similar animals like dogs versus bears or humans versus chimps or neanderthal man.

I disagree with you here Doug. IF evolution has truly been proven, then why are there still monkeys, chimpanzees or whatever they say it is we "evolved" from? I think the term evolution has been highly confused with the term adaptation. As a species we have learned to adapt over the millenia, and yes, the weaker species that has not adapted has died off. But I am pretty sure we didn't start out as another completely different species, and then evolve into what we are today. Yes there may be similarities, there is no denying the proof of that. But like I said, if evolution is how we came about, then all other species which we evolved from should be extinct, right? That would mean no primates, period, because they are the lesser of the two species.

Our ancestors are extinct. The theory of the evolutionary history of humans and other primates are that chimps, humans, and other primates evolved from a common ancestor, not that we evolved from chimps.

The theory of natural selection basically states that individuals with traits that are "selected" for have better suvivorship. Individuals with a better survivorship result in better reproduction. If a population has a birth rate that is greater than or equal to its death rate will survive where as populations with death rates greater than the birth rate will become extinct.

Evolution is not a process by which living things progress toward a higher state or perfection. It is a process by which a species changes over time. Take a whale for example. Whales ancestors were land dwelling mammals with 4 appendages and a tail. Over time the decendants of these ancestors became more water-dwelling and the front appendages became developed as fins, the rear appendages essentially disappeared, and the tail became more developed as a whales main "flipper." Whales by no-means developed into more complex or higher state organisms. They became specialized for sea dwelling.

doug, if evolution has been proven, then why do the experts in the scientific community still apply the label "theory" to it?

 

because it hasnt.

Because the scientific method does not "prove" anything. The scientific method supports a theory from experimental data. A hypothesis is formulated to test a theory and at the conclusion of an experiment, if that hypothesis is not true, it is altered and retested.

evolution explains the process of a birds beak getting harder, longer small changes, but does not explain how you can grow an eyeball from something, or your body figuring out it needs another arm

Evolution does not result at the level of the individual but rather at the level of the population. No individual organism will spontaneously grow another arm or grow an eyeball. However, a species could develop eyes from a spot of cells that are receptive to light. If the individuals within that population have a better survivorship with a mass of cells that are receptive to light, then eventually the whole population will have a mass of cells that are receptive to light. If individuals within the resultant population have a better survivorship if their light receptive cells have cells that are more receptive to different wavelengths of light then eventually the whole population will have masses of cells that are receptive to light and within different cells are receptive to different wavelengths.

Ok I have to get back to work but will be back later. But one other thing: I do "believe" in evolution...just as I believe in gravity.