Charles Anthony

I can not imagine how much EXTRA time, effort and money would be required to exact such a taxation system. A free market mechanism just might be able to achieve the same results more effectively: faster and cheaper with more satisfied customers. It just sounds like you are using more tax-payers money to accomplish the bureaucracy. If you prefer to get rid of tax-payer funded health-care, I recommend leaving it alone (letting it die out on its own) instead of propping it up along the way. Forget about it now and just let private enterprise offer us our own parallel second or third or forth or fifth tiers of service.

No. I do not consider them to be the same at all. I agree. However, I think it is wise to put yourself in the shoes of the Bush administration and ask yourself if you are successful or competent at achieving your own selfish goals. I will not question any of that. I despise the Bush administration for any single one of those examples, let alone all of them. However, from their own selfish stand-point, they seem to be somewhat "competent" at getting what they want.

What exactly is the logic? How far do you want to go? If I take it to my logical conclusion, it should extend to enough risk factors such that it is more efficient to get rid of tax-payer funded universal health care at all. How complicated should the government's bureacracy be?

It seems like things are going tickety-boo for the Bush-anti-terror camp what with this new anti-habeas corpus law.

Everything else, like what??

It sounds like you are not happy one way and your are not happy the other way. What exactly do you want??? The only thing that is consistent with your statements is a vehement expression of racism. Damn right they are Canadians too but no, they are not the same as you. Getting past the sarcasm, I am curious Mike00Dave, why do you want to be a racist?

delete

Probably because officials never expected that people would start inventing these bizarre theories about why the towers came down. If officials had realized that carting it away would simply add fuel to the conspiracy fire they likely would have keep the stuff around longer. What "officials" have the authority to decide upon and the power to execute the destruction of evidence at a crime scene?Granted, there may be a lot of bizarre theories out there but saying evidence from a crime scene was destroyed is not a conspiracy theory -- it is the truth. Whoever they may be, such "officials" have a callous disregard for justice and a horrifying amount of power in Manhattan. If it was a mistake to cart off the scrap metal, it is mistakenly done quite fast. Non-conspiracy theoricists "add fuel to the conspiracy fire" by letting such "officials" off sooooo easily.

My guess is that they are playing on our common preference of blonds to create sympathy for the victim in the story. Let me digress: News reports sort-of do the same by adding things like "devoted father of..." or "highly regarded in the community for..." when describing victims of crime. We also do the same during sentencing hearings when friends or family provide "victim impact statements" during sentencing hearings.

Not entirely. I want to know what happened to the debris and the wreckage. Where is it all? Does anybody have credible links explaining what happened to it all?

The strict definitions of both "morality" and "religion" make the answer to the question categoriclly "Yes" and not up to discussion. The definition of "morality" does not place any such conditions. The answer should be the same if we asked "Can we separate Morality from Temperature?"

No. You would not have to mention race even if it is your motive to racially discriminate. The solution is that you would ask them to leave. Period. You should not be required to justify your demand. If they do not leave, you need to treat them as tresspassers. Period. At that point, statists would call the police and say: "Ofiicer, I would like to report a couple of tresspassers on my property!" and everybody else would call a security guard.

Should people born with congenital disorders be required to pay more too?

All taxes are bad. Therefore, I object to this tax. That is a bad excuse. I could easily say that the junk food industry employs people in Canada and generates tax revenues in Canada more than vegan diets or supernatural health-food stores ever will. Even if people are healthier, you might be paying more for your health care because you would have more unemployment. If you are not willing to take the libertarian view, shut up and pay your taxes.

-- at which point I started to regret reviving this thread. -- at this point I stopped reading! Aaahhh!

I was referred here from the Women & Beauty thread. My take is somewhat simplistic and I will generally repeat what I mentioned before. I believe both explanations are plausible. People get jealous and commonly covet what they do not or can not have. People often also want their children to have what they never had. This is a slightly different issue. [i am sure it will not surprise anybody to hear that I can relate. After my mohawk grew out, I used to dye my hair black for several years.] The goth wants to shock or go against the norm. The fashionable-fanatic kids dye their hair blonde. The goths will dye their hair black. It is as simple as that. A blonde girl dying her hair black is likely fed up of being pigeon-holed. I do not understand this question. I do not think non-blondes are threatened. Read hair can be bizarre. I have encountered several pairs of siblings who look exactly the same except one will have distinctly brown hair and the other will have striking red hair.

Answered here: Why does Fleabag fondle himself? -- And why does BHS kill threads?

Are you asking me to define the terms in a question that is not mine? As pertains to your opening questions of this thread, it is narrow-minded to look at "religious" people any different than people who take science for granted. Have you ever heard of thalidomide? Scientists recommended it at one point. I have met people whose mothers took it (on the recommendation of scientists) and their mothers never forgave themselves. I have no problem with taking things for granted whether they be "scientific" or "religious" because neither can explain everything. Therefore, depending on how fine you want to split hairs, people ultimately make a choice of one or the other. People who just blindly believe everything that "scientists" say are equally vulnerable to abuse as are "religious" people. Both must be responsibly skeptical. No and neither can anybody else. What is your point? Personally, I do not care. Since I believe in magic, absolutely anything is possible.

I agree but only in so much as the brand, Dove, has tried to make a connection that no other brand may be doing. [i have no idea how all of the other brands advertize (I just pick the cheapest soap!) but my guess is that they suggest that their products are better than the leading competitor yadda yadda yadda something to the effect that their soap is special and can do special things.]After seeing the ad, a buyer will think: "They understand me." [usually, when it comes to making a sale, the best thing is to be a good listener. Buyers never want to be ignored regardless of whether they can be satisfied or not and they NEVER want to feel like they are being duped.] When the consumer goes to the shelf to choose a bar of soap, the product recognition may work. Dove will stand out even if the soap does nothing special.

We all need to slow down anyway -- even the people who believe everything the "scientists" say. Otherwise, they may get duped into following political agendas without knowing it. I feel like I am drowning underwater! There might be some holes in my education....

Sure. Why not?? Give me a reason why I should not. We define reproduction as a genetic transfer. Speciation is based on the ability/failure of two potentially different species to reproduce a viable and fertile offspring. Actually, they do because there is more than one explanation for the same observations. The preferred explanation ASSUMES scientific knowledge (genetics) which is itself is based on assumptions taken for granted. My point is that if you split enough hairs (and I will boldly say that if you know enough science), there are aspects of science we can not explain but have very good working theories. We take things for granted until we can prove otherwise. That is a form of faith or religion which requires little logic on the part of the lay-man. If nobody can prove the origin of matter or life or God or gravity or magnetizm or electricity, what is wrong with accepting them as magic?

Thank you for shedding some light on the issue. Let us see what other people have to say: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...4/20060214?hub= http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/09/09/...s-20050909.html I agree. Surely, you can understand that your outlook for the future with respect to population dynamics might suggest the reverse sequence of events? In fact, your writing style has a robotic and unemotional meter, too. Forgive me. I missed your entrance and first post of the forum. Uh.... you want me to come up with a better silly joke related to your name?? Well, speaking of reverse sequences, Borg spelled backwards is Grob. For the non-polyglottophobes out there, "grob" is the Slavic word for "tomb" -- if interested, I suggest checking out Polish since it is the root of all Slavic languages. So, I find it a funny co-incidence. Your writing style has the rhythm of a tomb stone inscription and with respect to the topic of this thread, your writing provides equal amounts of hope and inspiration.

Correct. However, you disputed that they were the same organisms. I said an other possible hypothesis to explain your observations were that they were dormant. I then said that for you to extrapolate and say that they were different organisms or mutations, you are ASSUMING knowledge of DNA or gene transfer. That is why I asked you if you have ever seen DNA? If you do not want to assume knowledge of genetics but you still want to maintain your experiment proves evolution, you must prove that they are different from the original lineage. That is speciation. Any which way you want to cut it, if you want to stick with your experiment as you described it, either: 1) you must make an assumption of prior scientific knowledge (which you take for granted, which is my point) or 2) your experiment fails to prove evolution. The way that you constructed your experiment requires speciation to demonstrate evolution OR it requires assuming genetics. Thank you for directing my education. It tells me nothing new. Here is something from your links: We both agreed that we are assuming prior knowledge of DNA or genetics. That is my point: you assume aspects of science. Actually, not for me. You should have chosen a better example. Did he really? Do you understand his experiment?? Just to summarize: The construct of that experiment requires speciation to demonstrate evolution OR it requires assuming genetics. Otherwise, it fails to demonstrate my alternate hypothesis which is that you just made the organisms dormant. I think so too. I believe in species evolution but not to the degree of us coming from an amoeba. I will believe in magic before I believe we come from nothing -- I mean, the random sloshing around of mud.

Just when I thought that I was out, I pull myself back in. I already identified species evolution in this same thread. You replied and quoted my post repeatedly. I think it is fair to say you read it but did not understand it. Here it is again: I did not look that up. If you asked me in which horizon the Sun sets, I would not look that up either. However, just to get things rolling faster, I did a search for "what is evolution" on the internet -- just like you can. This is what I got: What is Evolution?Now, referring back to your "experiment", where do you have proof that you created a new species and not just a mutation? Answer: nowhere. My whole point is that you (and many other people) take aspects of science for granted truths. Thus, your faith in "science & logic" as as you put it, is no more logical than being a part of a different organized religion. However, it might be easier and less demanding upon you.

The results are shining. We force everyone to go to school so that the teachers can keep their jobs. Yes. I would also include private schools and people who did not want to go to school or did not have children to send to school. I do not believe that would be ideal. However, that is yet an other argument. Just to give you a taste: people tend to waste things that are free and value things that have prices. Furthermore, if businesses can make profit at the expense of the tax-payer, wasteful spending is usually concealed. What do you mean? That does not sound fair. Why should everybody pay for it?? It sounds like you are justifying theft. Says who??? The teachers whose livelihood depends on it, I suppose. People should not have to pay for OTHER people's school. If you want it, pay for it yourself.