Typical TBD Guy

And your boy, Obama, happens to be popular with many Black Panthers and Communists and Islamic Fundamentalists in this country. So can I make the same nonsensical inference about Obama that you're making about Ron Paul, even though Ron Paul has repeatedly gone on record in denouncing the bigots that have supported him?

Being printed as we type! How else can Obama and the Democrats in control of Congress pay off their massive socialism projects? They don't want to raise taxes because they "promised" the American voter that it won't be necessary, and reneging on this promise would cost them seats in the 2010 election. And they surely won't trim the federal budget. And tax revenue is shrinking in proportion to the economy. And China is very impatiently waiting for their money back. Currently the Federal Reserve and soon all those to whom the federal government is indebted. Initially the federal government, of course, but then eventually everyone as the money trickles down throughout the economy. Well for one thing, just look at the overwhelming historical evidence where a hyperinflationary process was completely unsympathetic to how much money Average Joe Schmoe had. Did it care in 1920's Germany? Post-WW2 China? Pre-Pinochet Revolution Chile? Zimbabwe? But I also think you're forgetting the key point that some people ARE still improving in an economy undergoing inflation...namely, all those who are owed money from the government and being remunerated with unsound currency! Their increased activity in the pre-inflation market is, in fact, the very driving force for the resultant widespread rise in equilibrium prices that the rest of us schmucks must endure.

Which is, of course, highly doubtful. Obama's long-term projects (renewable energy, health care) aren't even expected to help for another 5-10 years. And his short-term projects (bailing out bad banks, bailing out auto companies, infrastructure building) won't be nearly enough to generate that 4% type of growth you stated, since most people are IN DEBT and will be using any extra money they have to PAY OFF DEBT instead of buying more sh-- and borrowing more money.

[Fed printing fiat currency] + [economy contracting] = [inflation] Money follows the same law of supply and demand that all other goods and services do. There's no getting around it. You Keynesian lovers better pray that Obama's massive government works program jumpstarts the economy quickly and significantly. Because if it doesn't, we will all be revisiting the late 1970's all over again. And yes, inflation matters. It adversely affects everyone, especially the lower and middle classes.

We're all Austrian economists now.

They were still blacking out home games when they went 12-4 in 2005 and 11-5 in 2007. You want more consistent results, Jacksonville? How about enduring NINE straight seasons without making the playoffs?

Here is some more truth - courtesy of the highly acclaimed political news source, Wikipedia - about this diplomacy-loving, segregation-hating, basketball-playing Muslim POTUS that you have never ever ever ever heard before until now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

OK, but I hope you're not trying to blame capitalism for the fact that life sucked in the 1800's. All communism or socialism could have done to solve this problem was ensure that life be crappy for everyone instead of life being crappy for almost everyone. Capitalism (with the proper human rights laws, consumer protection laws, unfair business practice laws, and minimal corporate favoritism from government) is still far and away the best system known to man for improving the human standard of living.

Reviewing the international current events from Memorial Day: 1. North Korea performs a significant nuclear weapons test, with further tests of short-range missiles soon to come. 2. Iran sends 6 warships into international waters. 3. Venezuela and Bolivia are supplying uranium for Iran, according to Israel. And what do you know? Obama's been in office for less than 6 months. Joe Biden = Nostradamus? EDIT: This post was made tongue-in-cheek at Biden's expense. I should have used emoticons to make this more obvious.

Translation: I'm only concerned about the civil liberties that I perceive as directly affecting me; the rest of you can !@#$ off. Alternate Translation: I'm only concerned about the civil liberties Republicans take away; if the Democrats take any away, then I'm sure they must have had a good reason for doing so.

Did I ever say such a thing? Of course science has an agenda (individual glory, research funding, lifetime job security, etc...), but it also has its own built-in system of "checks and balances" to make sure it's not making sh-- up as it goes along (confines of the scientific method, inductive proof, deductive logic, rigorous peer review, etc...). Comparing the two agendas is like comparing apples and oranges.

Exactly. Intelligent Design should be taught in philosophy classes, not science classes.

Achieving accreditation means that the school meets a bare minimum educational standard, and nothing more. All the other schools you listed, especially places like Duke and UVA and UNC, far exceed the bare minimum standards. Liberty University is still a terrible school, fourth tier in the USNews regional masters rankings. You basically need to spell your name correctly on the SAT, profess your love for Jesus, and have a measurable pulse in order to be accepted.

In that picture, notice how the two girls sitting next to her HAVE THEIR LEGS CROSSED. A novel concept, indeed. This chick must love attention in general...not just attention from the boys.

I will happily oblige, given your poor reading comprehension skills on top of your peculiar unwillingness to acknowledge the efficacy of the theory of evolution. I have agreed 100% with your claim that "honest science doesn't prove that God doesn't exist," but you're too thick-headed to realize that. And yes, I do have some genuine angst against organized religion and the scientifically illiterate, but only because this nonsensical horsesh!t has been seeping into our political system for too long.

WRONG. My point wasn't that God is just an "imaginary man in the sky." My point was that invoking the "God did it" explanation for any question about the universe around us is scientifically invalid and, quite frankly, intellectually lazy. In other words, the scientific method must necessarily ignore the role of God and his very existence for the specific purpose of better understanding the world around us. That is why I have referred to God as The Invisible Sky Man. The issue of a higher power's existence is a philosophical question, not a scientific one upon which I have actually taken any definitive position. The Biblical Creationist version of God, however, is another matter altogether. Science has conclusively proven that idea to be false. If you believe that the Earth is 5K years old, or that humans aren't evolving primates, or that God cares whether you masturbate in the shower or kiss another man, then yes you are most definitely irrational. I will ask you again: do you think the scientific theory of evolution is an accurate description of the biological world around us?

But was the alpha male hypothesis I described, like any scientific hypothesis derived from the theory of natural selection, even making such a far-reaching claim? You need to seriously think about who is the one here having trouble learning how to "compartmentalize seemingly conflicting ideas."

It's not about trying to explain God away. It's about carefully and rigorously applying the scientific method to try and answer science's difficult questions instead of just taking the easy way out and saying God did it. The scientific method has been somewhat useful in the past in helping to explain things and solve civilization's problems, no? So why not continue with it a little further?

Well for one thing, I wouldn’t trust whatever a popular science article from Newsweek states over whatever the original source – a refereed science journal – states. In whatever research we are all referring to, the statement, “humans are predisposed toward believing in a higher power,” was most likely the corollary from a more canonical evolutionary assertion. Humans are most definitely thought to be “predisposed to try and explain phenomena away,” although maybe I would rephrase that as, “humans are predisposed to contemplating, examining, and understanding their environment at a level unseen in any other living species.” I thought finknottle’s explanation for religion was sound, but maybe somewhat incomplete? He refers strictly to the action-inaction behavioral advantages in believing in a higher power, but I might have also elaborated on the social bonding and psychological coping advantages as well. Furthermore, I would have also mentioned the usefulness that playing “The Great Omnipotent Invisible Man In The Sky” card was to alpha males. Superior physical strength and mental acuity are helpful in winning leadership positions and controlling the human behavior of the masses, but even more so are the dual uses of fear and of mystical rewards. As for what happened to all those non-believers and skeptics in very early man? Well maybe the alpha males had them all conveniently killed off? It’s a hypothesis that would match what scientists see in alpha-beta male relationships throughout many other species in the animal kingdom.

The article has nothing to do with Neanderthals. It was about finding the link between Homo erectus and modern humans. And what makes you certain there is no link? Are you a credible anthropologist or just another Bible thumper?

I'll try this one more time without namecalling. What of finknottle's post (#66 in this thread) did you not agree with?

Your problem with atheism aside, to call finknottle's post "rambling" makes you come across as a total dumbass. He was using evolutionary biology to address a specific question you posed earlier: why is a belief in God so pervasive throughout humanity if one were to assume God does not exist? You do believe in evolutionary biology, don't you?

I'm a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party, and while I can't officially speak for anyone else but myself, I believe that Republicans and Libertarians are so far apart in ideas that we don't even speak the same language. I feel that the 4 biggest issues for the Libertarian party are (not listed in order of importance): 1. Reduction of military-industrial complex 2. End to Drug War 3. No more corporate bailouts 4. Return to a sound monetary policy. The Republican Party has maintained the polar opposite opinion on the first two issues for as long as the LP has been around. Republicans talk in agreement about the third issue, but their actions speak louder than words. And of course the Republicans don't even mention the fourth issue, with the notable lone exception of Ron Paul...who was promptly laughed out of the primaries. Conversely, the Democrats agree on the first and second issues in talk but not in action, and are blatantly against the LP on the third and fourth issues. So...you could make the case that Libertarians have as much in common with Democrats as they do with Republicans, yet somehow we're a de facto subset of the Republicans? Wishful thinking on the part of the Republicans, who are desperate to stake claims on any votes that can help them avoid permanent minority party status on the national level.

Wikipedia says Levi Jones is a Bill, and Wikipedia never lies.

Only the educated voter . Governments are not-for-profit organizations with no incentive to deliver quality, efficient service because they have a virtually endless supply of "willing" outside funding sources (the taxpayers). Unless the ExiledInIllinois/blzrul/conner/molson!@#$face/GeneFreckle/BishopGivesHead idiots wake up, government will only further entwine itself with red tape.