FlaSoxxJim

Good stuff there. You're 35 votes up now.

Section 1. Slowride - Fogthat vs. White Room - Cream No Time - Guess Who vs. Gallows Pole - Led Zeppelin While My Guitar Gently Weeps - The Beatles vs. Feeling Alright - Joe Cocker Ticket to Ride - The Beatles vs. God Only Knows - The Beach Boys Like A Rolling Stone - Bob Dylan vs. Tape From California - Phil Ochs Section 2. Strawberry Fields Forever - The Beatles vs. Free Bird - Lynyrd Skynard A Day in the Life - The Beatles vs. Mr Churchill Says - The Kins Sympathy for the Devil - The Rolling Stones vs. Baby Blue - Badfinger American Woman - The Guess Who vs. Jimi Hendrix - All Along The Watchtower Ridin' the Storm Out - REO Speedwagon vs. When the Levee Breaks- Led Zeppelin Section 3. Surrender - Cheap Trick vs. Echoes - Pink Floyd Aerosmith - Dream On vs. Sugar Magnolia - Grateful Dead Bohemian Rhapsody - Queen vs. Rock n Roll All Night - Kiss 20th Century Boy - T-Rex vs. Street Fighting Man - The Rolling Stones Thunderstruck - AC/DC vs. The Best of Times - STYX (abstain ) Section 4. Stay With Me - The Faces vs. Rock n Roll, Hoochie Koo - Rick Derringer Pinball Wizard - The Who vs. Barracuda - Heart Crazy Train - Ozzy Osborne vs. The Voice - Moody Blues Feel Like Makin Love - Bad Company vs. Baba O'Reilly - The Who The Boys Are Back In Town - Thin Lizzy vs. Ohh La La - The Faces

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 05:37 PM) Its funny, but everytime anything republician gets defended by something a democrat did in office prior we get ripped on for changing the subject and/or arguement. But everytime Islamic terrorism gets brought up, it gets explained away or the subject gets changed to Christian fundimentalism every single time. I guess this is either the "they all do it"ing of religious arguements, isn't it? Funny how that works. I follow the line of reasoning you are attempting, but your comparisons are not truly analogous. NOBODY you quoted, Rex or LCR or myself is defending the extremists' acts of violence. What was pointed out in all those posts was that the refutation of Islam as being a religion of peace because of the reprehensible acts of a minority is hypocritical unless you also refute that Christianity is peaceful because of the reprehensible acts of a minority in that instance as well.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 02:47 PM) No, I don't think a mandate of NASA is needed. Still, the point remains that it wouldn't matter if it was NASA or whatever, you wouldn't consider a religious POV for one iota. So, why do you ask for a challenge on the matter? It doesn't make sense. If you are totally closed minded to any reigious phlosophy whatsoever, what's the point of debating it? I don't consider myself closed-minded toward religious philosophy, and if I've come off that way it is inadvertent. The fact that I'm an atheist doesn't preclude a willingness to consider the relative merits of spiritual-based philosophy, which is altogether different than sharing a belief in the faith assertions of the religions in question. Where I have come out opposed to the expression of sectarian religious viewpoints, symbols, etc., it has been in science classrooms, in government buildings, in government-funded education, etc. Similarly, here I'm defending NASA's right to pursue its mission without being coerced to work someone's religious agenda into it. I appreciate that a diversity of metaphysical viewpoints exist, and it would be unnatural if that were not the case. So long as those viewpoints do not translate into an abridgement of the rights of others then there is little with which I might take issue.

I liked the Kermit the Frog "Not Easy Being Green" Ford hybrid vehicle commercial.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 12:10 PM) Well, the Republicans here will be happy to know that despite the fact that Specter says he thinks the program was illegal and the fact that he's holding those hearings, he's already doing everything he can to make sure nothing actually happens because of them. He's first of all prevented the Attorney General from having to testify under oath, the obvious reprocussion of which is that if he chooses to lie to the committee, there's not a damn thing they can do about it, and he's also preventing video of previous statements by the President and AG from being shown (they have the transcripts, but video always works vastly better in a TV world as you know.) While thoroughly depressing, this comes as a surprise to noone, of course.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 10:17 AM) NASA is a scientific agency. Meteorology and cosmology are sciences. ID and devine presence are not science - they are religion. Therefore, ID does not belong on NASA's radar. Its pretty damn simple. One would think so.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 09:34 AM) Agreed. But scroll thruough the Dems only thread, and you'll see that is not what the complaint has been. You're probably right. I was only referring to this thread. I wear the "liberal", "lefty", "progressive" monikers proudly. I'd like to be able to wear the "Democrat" moniker equally proudly, but the antics of the party sometimes make that difficult.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 09:21 AM) Why should somebody try and convince you that something religious should be considered in way, shape or form. You totally discount the possibility that there is anything substantial to it. As far as I'm concerned, it's a waste of time to discuss anything along these lines with you. Does that mean you think a mandate that the NASA agenda include religious viewpoints is valid? Rather than make my beliefs about the metaphysical world the issue, why not either voice your support or lack of support for the above-stated policy.

My iPod I push big video files between three or four computers with it all day and iyt has completely replaced my pocket firewire drive as my transfer disk. I had to go through the plug-in-and-press-the-buttons reset protocol once te first week I had it, and it has been working hassle-free for 2.5 years. Of course if you are plugging the thing into cheap Wintel hardware and not the mac it naturally craves, I can understand why it might be comitting device suicide on you.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 5, 2006 -> 09:36 PM) Thanks Jim, I'll me running one of them schools, I guess I should learn first. Proably a good idea, yes. But, in the meantime, where a captain's hat and some spiffy deck shoes and fake it.

So some 24 year old snot-nosed political appointee with no science background thinks that NASA is supposed to be including religious viewpoints in the information they produce?!! One of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Won't even be a blip in the MSM. I actually don't take issue with the first request of te memo - that "theory" be used in all descriptions of the Big Bang. But a memo to NASA scientists warning them not to discount ID, when NSF, AAAS, and the f***ing Supreme Court has dimissed it is beyond absurd. The follow-on request that NASA's information include aspects of the "religious issue" so as to include "both halfs of the debate" is politicical hackism run completely amock. Somebody here defend this bulls***, because I'm dying to hear the defense.

We have seamanship schools dotted here and there along the east coast, you might have something similar along the texas coast. Until then, prot is left and starboard is right.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 5, 2006 -> 08:24 AM) From what I can tell, only the left considers being called left-wingers or leftists an insult. To me, it's a designation to differentiate one political point of view from the other. That's certainly true -- if "ignorant" or "nutjob," etc. is not included in the same sentence. With those epithets added it is clear that differentiating a political view is not the goal.

QUOTE(bmags @ Feb 5, 2006 -> 02:33 AM) this isn't as big an impact as grandpa munster but its still tough Well, no disrespect intended here, but she did kinda look like Grandpa Munster later in life. I'm a terrible, terrible person I know.

RIP Grandpa

Is it manly to admit I read The Feminine Mystique in college? Even if it was required reading??

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 05:56 PM) Resorting to personal attacks again? Why am I not surprised? So long as it stays in the realm of biology you remain civil & a reasonable debate can occur. But as soon as you step out of it you become testy & disrespectful. Sounds like a left-winger to me. Just because you can't understand something is hardly reason to call in gibberish. But I suspect that happens a lot in your life. I don't know if I would call it gibberish but it certainly is lame for an atheist like yourself to take the Bible literally in an effort to refute an explanation that does the opposite. There has been no personal attack, sport, just a criticism of your rambling posts. And YOU have been the one spouting off about left-wingers and the ignorance contained therein. Stick to this one point. Try hard. You asked where in the bible a heliocentric viewpoint was contradicted. I showed you where. Then comes the spot where you're supposed to say, "Hey, you know, you're right," and we move on. That is how a discussion works.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 04:57 PM) Hmm, so since you are taking it literally does that mean you are full of s***? Context is more important than the literal meaning of the word. if you are talking about any expansion relating to water & associate that expansion to Heaven (which no matter how you look at it clearly implies that which is above the Earth) then it is clear you are referring to rain. Or do I have to explain how rain is created as well? History: Santo said the Bible contradicts the contention that the earth revolves around the sun. You asked for a Bible passage stating that the Sun revolves around the Earth, but I pointed out that is not what was said - only that a heliocentric viewpoint is at odds with waht is written in the Bible. You spout several paragraphs of inane gibberish. I give you the Biblical passage, chapter and verse, that explicitly states that the firmament = Heaven and is thus indeed at odds with a heliocentric viewpoint. You return to the gibberish. And so it goes. . .

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 04:49 PM) You say this after another memo is leaked, in Britain, that the U.S. was going to war with Iraq no matter what they did or did not find there. War as a last resort? Sure. Link And I'm shocked that the "liberal media" hasn't touched this story three days after it broke.

And in apparent imitation of the United States they've decided to say "screw it" to the NPT.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 04:18 PM) A little something from your closet . . . I don't have anything nearly so nice.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 04:24 PM) The idea that he could fold many 100's of millions of years into the span of a day is not inconceivable any more. The idea that biblical literalists are full of s*** is even more likely. God called the firmament Heaven. God: "The Firmament equals Heaven." Get it?

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 03:27 PM) Heh, in my 10th grade Principle of Bio class we did gel separations and extracted DNA from a kiwi. And I didn't think we were doing much. Now hold on. New Zealanders piss me off too, but I'm not advocating experimenting on them.

QUOTE(mmmmmbeeer @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 04:06 PM) Oh yeah, apparently I need to add the disclaimer that should go without saying, I'm referring to the f***heads who are rioting, not the muslim religion as a whole. If this isn't proof that those societies are stuck in the f***ing dark ages then I don't know what is. And you did add such a disclaimer, and the point was clear that you were not denigrating the entire faith. NUKE made no such distinction with his "So much for the religion of peace" bit in the title, which is the point being driven home by the bulk of opposing posts.