1,457 Forum Posts by "Montgomery-Scott"
As much as competition and voucher systems may help children, until you change a large majority of state constitutions, this isn't changing, since most state constitutions gurentee children a satisfactory and uniform education. vouchers don't offer a uniform education. Working withing the system, if we were to raise teacher standards and pay teachers better, as well as adequately funding the no child left behind program, things might actually get better without our having to abandon our public schools by funneling moneys off ito voucher programs. Becasue unless we start building a lot more private schools, there aren't enough provate schools to take all children currently in public schools. So you take all the public school money and put it in voucher programs. Now maybe 40 percent of the kids who were formerly in public school can find a private school to go to. The rest are still in their public schools, but now they don't have electricty, and their teacher is a crackhead who is being paid in food. Vouchers are good, but well run public schools are better.
just goes to show, even two bit thrid world countries like Canada have politial parties. odd, never though of it that way.
At 1/15/06 11:47 PM, Empanado wrote:At 1/15/06 11:25 PM, Quanze13 wrote: America's sphere of influence in the western hemisphere is falling apart.I don't really see the point of that statement, at least when talking about Chile. Chile's been outside of "America's sphere of influence" since 1990.
how so. up until very recently its been under rightist control. and there is an increasing trend of south americans voting in leftist governments, such as in Venesuela 2 decades ago, and Chile and Bolivia recently.
At 1/16/06 12:21 AM, fli wrote:At 1/16/06 12:13 AM, Empanado wrote:Were you able to get Grim Fandango, BTW?At 1/16/06 12:11 AM, fli wrote: Lucky day, I gues...I hate you.
zomg, what about grim fandango, i love that game.
At 1/15/06 11:36 PM, MALforPresident wrote: a friend of mine once thought i was albino...figured it was a coverup i was making on everyone. dyed hair, colored contacts....he was dead suerious when he explained it to me.
but i'm just irish and really light skinned
heh, cracka...
step into a time warp. go back to the year of our lord nineteen hundred and sixty. your black panther breathren will greeet you with open arms.
At 1/15/06 09:11 PM, Proteas wrote:At 1/15/06 07:02 PM, Quanze13 wrote: doesn't deny Ted Kennedy the right to point that out.Well... I guess we can always start pointing out the downfalls of the other members of the democratic committee...
Say, wasn't one of them a strong supporter of Robert Byrd, the former Ku Klux Clansman? The senator's name is on the tip of my tongue...
the fact that the democratic members of the committe aren't paragons of virtue is beyond the point. In fact, judges historically have been heald to more stringent mora standards than congresspeople, because of their unique position as unelected, lifetime, decisionmakers.
America's sphere of influence in the western hemisphere is falling apart.
At 1/15/06 05:00 PM, WolvenBear wrote:At 1/14/06 05:43 PM, Quanze13 wrote: The things you're implying about Ted Kennedy are just wrong. The most drastic thing he did wrong in that incident was drive drunk. The fact that the girl died wasn't his fault -- he tried multiple times to get her out of the car, then walked back to the party to try and get help. Accidents do happen. The fact that Alito was in a club that tried to keep women out of Princeton was no accident. I'm not saying that Alito isn't a qualified jurist, I'm just saing he's an asshole, and that Ted Kennedy's driving accidents don't make him a deamon.The things we're IMPLYING about Kennedy? Here's the gist of what happened. Kennedy drove drunk with a woman in his car, drove off a bridge and then got out of the car, went back to the party and never called for help. Kennedy did a number of things wrong here. One, he drove drunk. Two, he left a woman to die. Three, he NEVER called the police. If you drive drunk and someone dies because of it, it is your fault, end of story.
I don't want to make this a debate about Ted Kennedy, but, you make it seem as if Kennedy could have just snapped his fingers and saved her. He tried multiple times to get her out of the car, then went back on foot to the party, got help, but when they returned, they were still unable to help her. So he didn't call the police. Maybe he forgot. Like when Alito forgot to recuse himself from cases involving his assets in Vanguard Mutual.
As for Alito being an asshole, please, feel free to back that up. Other than he had ties to a group that had, as one facit, a desire to keep women out of princeton. What else did they do that was maybe good? Do you know?
Yes, I know some other things they did for princeton. They tried to keep Jews and Blacks out too. Yay, that justifys everything, I'm so sorry I ever dobuted those fine gentlemen at the CAP.
I think the moral of todays story children, is it's ok to cause a woman's death, as long as you're not in a boy's only club, and hate women somewhere deep down inside yourself.
Yes, the fact that Ted Kennedy got in an auto axident when he was younger completely justifys the fact that Alito has one of the most regressive views on women of any judge in america, rulling to the right of justice Scalia on 2/3 of social issues (I will get a source on this later and post it). I mean, this guy isn't any old social conservative, he comes from the 'knit me a sweater, bake me a muffin, make me some babies' school of dealing with women, and being a filthy drunk doesn't deny Ted Kennedy the right to point that out.
At 1/15/06 02:09 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:
At 1/15/06 11:47 AM, Quanze13 wrote:Actually, the Bible is clear that fornication (having sex before marriage) is wrong and it is an offense punishable by death as most sexual sins are.At 1/15/06 11:30 AM, TehBlueBullet wrote: My friend said no. She said theres nowhere in the bible that talks about premartial sex, but then she got pregnant. My grandma disagrees and says there is.
In the old testament there is absolutely no admonition against premarital sex, nor is there an admonition against sleeping with other women if you are married.Even the biggest moron in the world knows that one of the ten commandments is "Do not adulter."
haha well i guess he's the second biggest moron in the world now. but the real phrase is 'thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife' so if she's an unmarried woman its OK, and same goes for if you don't really want her, but you do her anyway. because then you aren't coveting, you're just fucking.
Abraham slept with Hagar even though he was married to Sarah, and god was fine with that. Its in the new testament and in church policy that maraige is spoken of as a sacrament that is nessecarry to virtuous life.
Second of all, even if they weren't married, that was a special circumstance. Abraham needed a heir to continue his work and Sarah couldn't give birth.
Isn't adultery always in special circumstances?
At 1/15/06 11:30 AM, TehBlueBullet wrote: My friend said no. She said theres nowhere in the bible that talks about premartial sex, but then she got pregnant. My grandma disagrees and says there is.
In the old testament there is absolutely no admonition against premarital sex, nor is there an admonition against sleeping with other women if you are married. Abraham slept with Hagar even though he was married to Sarah, and god was fine with that. Its in the new testament and in church policy that maraige is spoken of as a sacrament that is nessecarry to virtuous life.
At 1/14/06 11:42 PM, sea_food wrote:At 1/13/06 09:45 PM, Quanze13 wrote: Actually, there are several biblical admonitions against cannibis use, if the scripture is read in a certain way. a) gluttony and sloth are two deadly sins. over-indulgence in pleasurable acts such as drinking and recrational drugs is gluttony, and marijuana use causes sloth, and thus, both cannibis use is a deadly sin. b) the bible talks about the body as a temple, and to pollute that temple with outside substances such as drugs (cannibis) is an affront to god.Those are merely your personal interpretations. I could say just as easily that God is against the internet and other hig-tech forms entertainment as they encourage sloth and that God is against McDonalds since McDonalds is unhealthy, therefore polluting the metaphorical temple.
As I said, those aren't my personal interpretations. I was just stating how the book could be interpreted. And God probably is against McDonalds, its unhealthy and immoral on a variety of levels.
At 1/14/06 11:38 PM, sea_food wrote:if everybody hangs onto every part of their beleif,No one hangs onto every single aspect of their beliefs, some thing are simply just a personal choice with no consequences on others and the fact that tehre are so many political ideologies out there is a manifestation of people chaging and adapting their beliefs.
There is a difference between putting aside our differences for the greater good and sacrificing our valuesfor the greater authority.
If you were anywhere past the left of centre in the last presidential election in the states, you had to vote for Kerry otherwise it was like throwing away your vote which was like murder by complacency in the eyes of some so-called "progressives". This is an example of the latter, so is Communism, what we're advocating is putting aside our differences for the greater good without sacrificing our values for the greater authority.
however, sometimes it is nescessary to put aside some of our values to get others of them acomplished. Voting for John Kerry was a better choice than voting for George Bush, and people had to put aside some of their values in order to work torwards a greater good. If I correctly understand what you are saying, you are advocating people who oppose the same thing for different reasons to unite in the cause of blind destruction of that thing, while not putting aside their individual values to formulate an alternative that is good for all. That is no way to acomplish social change.
At 1/13/06 10:53 PM, BigBlueBalls wrote:At 1/13/06 09:45 PM, Quanze13 wrote: Actually, there are several biblical admonitions against cannibis use, if the scripture is read in a certain way. a) gluttony and sloth are two deadly sins. over-indulgence in pleasurable acts such as drinking and recrational drugs is gluttony, and marijuana use causes sloth, and thus, both cannibis use is a deadly sin. b) the bible talks about the body as a temple, and to pollute that temple with outside substances such as drugs (cannibis) is an affront to god.Well if the scripture is read a certain way, then any fat Christian out there... like that God Warrior chick from Trading Spouses, they are breaking God's law as well. Sorry, but abusing your body by eating fatty foods causing you to have a heart attack or smoking too much weed and destroying your lungs, to me are in the same category.
Yep, thats what i'm saying. that if you read scripture a certain way then leading a spartan lifestyle and keeping fit and trim are part of biblical law. So fat people have no right to be bible beaters and call everybody else sinners and sodomites.
You say over-indulgence and that's really when it comes down to, but not everyone who smokes pot over-indulges or is lazy. I actually only smoke pot if I've got all my work finished and I need time to relax after a hard week. It's not like I do that in place of what I need to get done. I'm sure Jesus would have smoked a joint if someone passed it to him. Then I'm sure his sermons would be that much more interesting.
I'm not condemning weed, i smoke myself. I'm just saying that certain interpretations of scripture lend themselves to the belief that cannibis use is sinful
At 1/14/06 01:23 AM, sea_food wrote:
Those are not Leftist or Post-Left policies or ideologies, yet he was the closest thing to a Leftist in other aspects (in contrast to Bush, that is) therefore liberals, Democrats and "progressives" expected everyone else to silently rally under Kerry's leadership.
False leadership is not better than the lack of leadership, ask anyone who was forcibly a part of the Communist party of their country.
The fact is, if everybody hangs onto every part of their beleif, then none of them will get anything done. It is usually nescessary for individual groups to give up some of their autonomy in order to function as a larger group that is able to acomplish concrete objectives. The neo-right takes in the religious right, the buisess right, etc, and marches them under one banner. They have a comprehensive program that although it doesn't take into account everybody's needs gets some of what everybody wants done, rather than everybody fighting for different things and getting nothing done.
At 1/14/06 09:58 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote:At 1/14/06 06:00 PM, mofomojo wrote: You can't make any thing that happened pre-historically any more than a theory.No more than a person born in the 80's say for certain that WW2 actually happened. Sure there's a lot of evidence pointing in that direction, but there's a slim chance that it's a gigantic conspiracy.
But here you are moving out of the realm of science and into the realm of philosophy. Thats the idea of cogito ergo sum, rather than the idea of a scientifically testable hypothesis.
At 1/14/06 05:48 PM, Butcer2 wrote:At 1/14/06 05:44 PM, Quanze13 wrote: All i know is, it cured tom cruise of homosexuality.if thats true it would called a placebo effect belive something and your stupid brains does it
psst.. it was a joke
At 1/14/06 12:30 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote:At 1/14/06 12:12 AM, Quanze13 wrote: Actually, it is a theory, since that is pretty much the most any scientific concept can be.I get so tired of hearing that crap. It's the kind of nihilistic, 'nothing can be proven' mindset that makes me sick.
It isn't nihlistic crap, its a scientific definition of what a theory is.
Here's what you're saying:
'X is a scientific concept, and a scientific concept can only be a theory. 'Theory', in this usage, implies that X is as proven as it possibly can be. Even if X cannot be proven wrong, or untrue, it's still just a theory. Even if every test and document proves X to be true, X cannot be a fact."
Wrong. Did you not read my post? X starts as a hypothesis. A hypothesis is any statement that is not an observable fact but can be proven or disproven by the scientific method. If the evidence you gether in your experiment supports X, and so does a majority of existing evidence regarding X, then X becomes a Theory. A Theory is simply a hypothesis that the majority of existing evidence supports. The whole point of science is that all scientific 'truths' will eventually be replaced by better theories that more accurately describe observed events.
That kind of mindset can be used to prove that the sun doesn't exist. It can be used to make water, or hydrogen, nothing more than a 'scientific theory'. It's the same mindset that argues 'Gravity cannot be proven'.
No it can't. The fact that there is a giant round object that radiates light can't be disproven, it is an observable fact. However, the theory that this round object is a 'sun' or a giant massive fusion reaction constantly going on is just a theory. If several new studies come out which use observed facts to prove this round light object is really the great sun god Ra, and other scientists verify this, then it will become the prevailing theory. But nothing that can't be concretely observed can be more than a theory.
When you're using a term (theory) in a way that implies X is a theory, even when tests support X, you're using a term (theory) that's synomous with 'a truth'.
there are no universal scientific truths. all things that aren't directly observable data are either hypotheses or theora.
My boots are made of leather. They smell like leather, look like leather, and react to water as leather would. The label says they are leather, and so did the store I bought them from. I accept that my boots are made of leather. You, on the other hand, use a mindset that would call the allegded material that my boots are made of 'only a theory'.
Yes. If you were a scientist, and you put these boots through a battery of tests that suggested they wre leather, and other scientists repeated your experiments and got the same results, then the prevailing theory would be your boots are made of leather. But that can't be proved as a universal truth, because what if a new scientific test is discovered, that actually supports the hypothesis that your boots are just Jesus Christ masquerading as a pair of boots?
And I'm not even naysaying your argument in support of evolution. Or gravity, for that matter. The mindset you're using is applied to politics, religion, economics, and morality.
I just get tired of hearing that perspective tell me that nothing, at all, really exists.
The midset I'm using is only meant to be applied to science. If anybody applies it to politics, or religion, or economics, or morality, then they are misapplying it. And things exist, it is just that the explanations of why they exist can never be proven beyond any shadow of a dobut.
All i know is, it cured tom cruise of homosexuality.
At 1/14/06 04:13 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote:At 1/14/06 03:05 PM, Proteas wrote: I'm not worried about Alito not being confirmed. I'm actually enjoying this whole show the dems have been putting on this week... it's like watching an episode of the Simpsons where Mr. Burns attempts to give someone a "good thrashing."My opinion is the same as yours. It's hilarious to watch the democrats run with this, in the way that they are. It's just a bunch of frenzied, long-winded moaning and groaning...and it's only going to end with Alito being confirmed.
And then, in 2008, long after he's confirmed...the republican party is going to use all of this as fodder against the left.
I fucking love it.
But no matter how many times the republicans play clips of democrats berating Alito, they won't be half as good as the democrats' clips of Tom DeLay being lead off to prison manacled to Jack Abramoff and Bob Ney.
I mean, does nobody else here see the blatant irony in Ted Kennedy trying to give Samuel Alito a lecture on morals?Oh, c'mon. Leaving a girl in your car to slowly suffocate (while you shower, drink coffee, and call lawyers), in a five hour period, isn't near as immoral as disagreeing with abortion. Not even close, bub.
The things you're implying about Ted Kennedy are just wrong. The most drastic thing he did wrong in that incident was drive drunk. The fact that the girl died wasn't his fault -- he tried multiple times to get her out of the car, then walked back to the party to try and get help. Accidents do happen. The fact that Alito was in a club that tried to keep women out of Princeton was no accident. I'm not saying that Alito isn't a qualified jurist, I'm just saing he's an asshole, and that Ted Kennedy's driving accidents don't make him a deamon.
At 1/14/06 08:43 AM, -Ocelot- wrote:At 1/14/06 03:01 AM, BeFell wrote:I doubt you'd understand.You probably just don't know what to say. How old are you? You don't no SHIT about what you're talking about.
I think the reason that he was thinking of starts with t and ends with elargestnucleararsenalintheworld
The whole neo/jesus thing was totally obvious. The Wachowsky brothers even talked about that being the basis of the movie in interviews.
At 1/14/06 12:24 AM, JoS wrote: I made my first one.
looks like he's doint her in the butt
The fact that people are stupid and misunderstand the meaning of a theory doesn't detract from the fact that technically, all scientific 'truths' are theories.
At 1/13/06 11:51 PM, TheShrike wrote: Evolution isn't a theory, it is a fact. See also domesticated animals.
The right-wing zealots think evolution somehow explains creation. It does not. You might help lessen the confusion by using the term "evolution" properly.
Actually, it is a theory, since that is pretty much the most any scientific concept can be. A theory isn't just some kind of guess, like ID people make it out to be. You start with a hypothesis, a guess that can be tested using the scientific method. If it holds up to your test, and a majority of available experimental evidence from multiple scientific sources supports it, then it becomes a theory. Evolution is a theory, but so is gravity.
a subsidiary of the music genoe project, this site allows you to plug in a band or song that you like and will generate an internet radio station that plays songs similar to the musical style of the band or song you entered. Its amazing. I've been addicted since i discovered it.
At 1/13/06 09:28 PM, TehBlueBullet wrote:At 1/13/06 09:19 PM, Mighty_Genghis wrote: "If cannabis was one of the main ingredients of the ancient anointing oil _ and receiving this oil is what made Jesus the Christ and his followers Christians, then persecuting those who use cannabis could be considered anti-Christ," Mr Bennett concludes.Thats insane. Did God ever prohibit the use of drugs? I seriously do not know of a verse that says "Thou shalt not smoke pot" People persecute cannabis users because I think they see it as a symbol of self-mutilation. NOT because God said not to. I think the guy is an idiot.
Actually, there are several biblical admonitions against cannibis use, if the scripture is read in a certain way. a) gluttony and sloth are two deadly sins. over-indulgence in pleasurable acts such as drinking and recrational drugs is gluttony, and marijuana use causes sloth, and thus, both cannibis use is a deadly sin. b) the bible talks about the body as a temple, and to pollute that temple with outside substances such as drugs (cannibis) is an affront to god.
At 1/12/06 11:13 PM, Imperator wrote: Nobody read my question?
When America does fall, what will be the consequences.
The result of Rome falling was the Dark Ages.
America is often compared to Rome.
With our interaction with the world on so many levels, what will happen when we fall?
Will there be a power vaccum, instead of one group simply replacing America (take in mind there was no real "successor" after Rome fell)?
Will the world enter a new Dark Age? Will there be negative consequences or positive consequences with the fall of our "Empire"?
What will happen in the scientific community, technology, medicine?
Correction, the western world entered a dark age. In the Middle East, less than 100 years after the fall of Rome, Mohammed united the disparite nomadic tribes of Arabia and founded an empire, which would become the first Caliphate after his death. The Caliphate went on to preserve and surpass Roman knowlege, with muslim mathmetitions rediscoverig lost Egyptian formulae, astronomers mapping the heavens, doctors sucessfully performing many modern medical prosedures, and architects and enginers building grand mosques and sewer systems with running water for vast cities. So the fact is, just because one empire falls, doesn't mean that the entire world will enter a terrible age of ignorance and darkness -- new empires will rise up to take its place.
Either a) your post is rambling crap, or b) you made it intentionally disordly and chaotic to mirror its topic in a briliant organizational feat. But one way or another, you are pretty much right, how the left has become a neo-reactionary body, instead of of fighting for some kind of proactive change. It used to be that lefties would be fighting for independence, or good working conditions, or freedom of speach, and the right wingers would react to them with brutal supression (i'm talking like 19th century Metternich kinda right wingers here). But now of course, the tables are turned, and the liberals don't have any kind of social agenda other than knee-jerk opposition to rightist policies. But the fact that the left has no guiding principles is not good. It is not beautiful. It is not the neo-anarchical paradise that you portray it as. Without any charismatic leaders or guiding princlples, or idealogical discipline like conservatives have, progressives are just a dirty, smelly, hippie mob, without the ability to get anything done. Disorder isn't beautiful, its counterproductive, and it destroys the very principles the disordly liberals fight for.
At 1/13/06 07:53 PM, red_skunk wrote:At 1/13/06 07:46 PM, TheShrike wrote: Apparently Bai Ling isn't one of them. =\Google Image search really doesn't have any other use besides finding celebrity nudes, does it?
come on skunk, didn't you know, thats the fourth law of thermodynamics!
