usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Mar 14, 2012 7:53:26 GMT -5
Romney increased his delegate lead last night. The race is over. It has been over for a long time.
PBP you dont believe in evolution?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 14, 2012 8:01:58 GMT -5
Romney increased his delegate lead last night. The race is over. It has been over for a long time. PBP you dont believe in evolution? 1. I agree that Mitt Romney will have the most, if not a majority of the delegates. The purpose of the race at this point is to drag Mitt kicking and screaming to the right, and keep him sharp since he is a very weak general election candidate. It is also to move the party elites and have a say at the convention where Newt will almost certainly suck all the oxygen out of the room. I can't wait. 2. Nope.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 14, 2012 10:11:44 GMT -5
Okay, I know that conservatives are already explain how Santorum isn't REALLY a true conservative so that if he is defeated..... Santorm is more conservative than Both Romney and Gingrich combined. It's a real shame he can't get past the bible banging, social conservatism. If not for that, I might be able to vote for him.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,687
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 14, 2012 10:15:43 GMT -5
Okay, I know that conservatives are already explain how Santorum isn't REALLY a true conservative so that if he is defeated..... Santorm is more conservative than Both Romney and Gingrich combined. It's a real shame he can't get past the bible banging, social conservatism. If not for that, I might be able to vote for him. And should Santorum eventually become the nominee, that is all the voters are going to remember come November.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 14, 2012 10:19:07 GMT -5
Romney increased his delegate lead last night. The race is over. It has been over for a long time. PBP you dont believe in evolution? If evolution were an indisputable fact, it wouldn't still be called a theory. Nor would it require 'belief'.
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Mar 14, 2012 10:27:36 GMT -5
Im shocked. I didnt know evolution was that disputed. I went to Catholic grade schooland high school. We were taught evolution.
So if you dont believe in it....how do explain that we continue to evolve today?
I am assuming we are allowed to talk about this here............
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,687
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 14, 2012 10:46:11 GMT -5
Romney increased his delegate lead last night. The race is over. It has been over for a long time. PBP you dont believe in evolution? If evolution were an indisputable fact, it wouldn't still be called a theory. Nor would it require 'belief'. FY-you know well enough a scientific theory is quite different than a personal theory (My theory/belief is JonBenet Ramsey was killed by her older brother (for example)).
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 14, 2012 10:53:45 GMT -5
Im shocked. I didnt know evolution was that disputed. I went to Catholic grade schooland high school. We were taught evolution. If it wasn't disputed, it wouldn't be called the Theory of Evolution. Who says I don't believe in evolution? I just don't assume that everybody does (or should) believe in the same things as me....or that they are completely nuts if they don't. <looking around> seems like some are devolving.....
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 14, 2012 11:00:38 GMT -5
FY-you know well enough a scientific theory is quite different than a personal theory (My theory/belief is JonBenet Ramsey was killed by her older brother (for example)). Sure I do. Personal belief may or may not have supporting evidence. Scientific theory does. Still doesn't make either an indisputable fact. At one time, the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Our scientific theories are still not fact. ETA: To further expandfurther, another theory was recently proved false. As widly varied as life is on our planet, all life requires 6 basic elements known as CHNOPS.....carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur. www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1049-what-are-ingredients-life.htmlA year and a half ago, all that changed when a life form was discovered that contained arsenic rather than phosphorus. www.onorbit.com/node/2678aka: Theory does not always equal fact.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,687
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 14, 2012 11:22:09 GMT -5
FY-you know well enough a scientific theory is quite different than a personal theory (My theory/belief is JonBenet Ramsey was killed by her older brother (for example)). Sure I do. Personal belief may or may not have supporting evidence. Scientific theory does. Still doesn't make either an indisputable fact. At one time, the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Our scientific theories are still not fact. More than likely, the belief the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth would have been considered (in today's definition) as a Hypothesis. "Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true. Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse. Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity. Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation. Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon tested hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology. In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time. The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process." wilstar.com/theories.htm
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 14, 2012 11:52:49 GMT -5
More than likely, the belief the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth would have been considered (in today's definition) as a Hypothesis. Ok, ok...bad example, perhaps, but you get my point. If not, try out the classical elemental theory, Laplacian Evolution or Newtons Laws of Motion (that one was more 'vastly improved upon' rather than disproven) Until proven otherwise. aka....theory is not fact.
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Mar 14, 2012 13:59:43 GMT -5
Obama has his own problems. He's spiraling towards an implosion of his presidency. His poll numbers are now officially in free-fall. ;D
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Mar 14, 2012 15:34:38 GMT -5
Okay, I know that conservatives are already explain how Santorum isn't REALLY a true conservative so that if he is defeated..... Santorm is more conservative than Both Romney and Gingrich combined. It's a real shame he can't get past the bible banging, social conservatism. If not for that, I might be able to vote for him. Santorum is socially conservative, not fiscally. Fiscally he is as bad as Romney and Gingrich.
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Mar 14, 2012 15:51:45 GMT -5
Fiscally he is the same as Obama. Apparently that doesn't matter in the South. They have no idea who Santorum is but they are voting for him.
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Mar 14, 2012 16:53:10 GMT -5
Some people used to teach the Earth was flat. Not scientists. The big lie was that the Sun and all the planets revolved around the Earth. It took hundreds of years for Some people to finally admit that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe. At some point the evidence becomes too overwhelming. Evolution will be next. At some point the evidence will be to overwhelming. www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Mar 14, 2012 17:09:12 GMT -5
Mitt has a bigger lead in delegates than he did yesterday. The race is over.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 14, 2012 17:50:26 GMT -5
i think there is a good chance that Santorum will become the front runner again, about one week from today.
it won't last. but it will sow further doubts about Romney.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 15, 2012 12:48:21 GMT -5
IMHO, it's just about there already....but it is still a theory. As our understanding of science continues to grow, who knows....they may discover something that completely blows evolution out of the water. It's not very probably, but still possible nonetheless.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 15, 2012 12:53:13 GMT -5
IMHO, it's just about there already....but it is still a theory. As our understanding of science continues to grow, who knows....they may discover something that completely blows evolution out of the water. It's not very probably, but still possible nonetheless. i think it is pretty much "there" as well.
|
|
vandalshandle
Senior Member
Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump...
Joined: Oct 12, 2011 20:34:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,005
|
Post by vandalshandle on Mar 15, 2012 13:26:27 GMT -5
I think that it is kind of cute for Santorum to be ranting about Puerto Ricans should not be allowed statehood unless they learn to speak English. Puerto Ricans don't WANT statehood. They live pretty much tax free down there, and siphon off hundreds of millions from the US government as a territory.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,560
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 15, 2012 13:51:22 GMT -5
I think that it is kind of cute for Santorum to be ranting about Puerto Ricans should not be allowed statehood unless they learn to speak English. Puerto Ricans don't WANT statehood. They live pretty much tax free down there, and siphon off hundreds of millions from the US government as a territory. But critics say Santorum’s latest remarks could alienate Hispanics, including Puerto Ricans who live on the U.S. mainland. www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/rick-santorum-puerto-rico-a-state-speak-english-article-1.1039479?localLinksEnabled=false I don't think that Puerto Ricans nor Hispanics are the audience his comment is directed towards.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,687
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 15, 2012 13:57:31 GMT -5
I think that it is kind of cute for Santorum to be ranting about Puerto Ricans should not be allowed statehood unless they learn to speak English. Puerto Ricans don't WANT statehood. They live pretty much tax free down there, and siphon off hundreds of millions from the US government as a territory. But critics say Santorum’s latest remarks could alienate Hispanics, including Puerto Ricans who live on the U.S. mainland. www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/rick-santorum-puerto-rico-a-state-speak-english-article-1.1039479?localLinksEnabled=false I don't think that Puerto Ricans nor Hispanics are the audience his comment is directed towards. Is it this audience?
|
|
vandalshandle
Senior Member
Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump...
Joined: Oct 12, 2011 20:34:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,005
|
Post by vandalshandle on Mar 15, 2012 14:55:42 GMT -5
I love it, Tenn!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 20, 2012 13:14:00 GMT -5
today's primary is super important for both Santorum AND Romney. if he fails to win big, there is a good chance that Santorum will win the next two primaries, and be back in first place in early April.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Mar 20, 2012 13:22:33 GMT -5
(Reuters) - Republican White House hopeful Rick Santorum said on Monday he did not care about the U.S. unemployment rate, perhaps the nation's most closely watched economic indicator, despite being embroiled in a campaign largely focused on the still-sputtering economy. "I don't care what the unemployment rate is going to be. It doesn't matter to me. My campaign doesn't hinge on unemployment rates and growth rates," Santorum said during a campaign appearance in Illinois, which on Tuesday holds the next contest in the state-by-state battle for the Republican presidential nomination. www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/20/us-usa-campaign-santorum-jobless-idUSBRE82J0NB20120320He doesn't care about unemployment?? Well, as long as he focuses all his efforts on pornography and birth control, things should be just fine.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 20, 2012 13:44:49 GMT -5
PS- Santorum's numbers are still rising, slightly. but not as much as i would have expected.
in fact, i will go one step further. all four candidates have moved less than 2% in the last week or two. this is a surprisingly stable stretch.
Santorum is going to have to do something dramatic to get back in this.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,560
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 20, 2012 14:25:50 GMT -5
... Santorum is going to have to do something dramatic to get back in this.
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Mar 20, 2012 20:16:58 GMT -5
Mitt in a landslide.
Keep talking about social issues Santorum. He did the same thing in Pa and got crushed.
Game over.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 20, 2012 20:38:01 GMT -5
Mitt in a landslide. Keep talking about social issues Santorum. He did the same thing in Pa and got crushed. Game over. Santorum's problem isn't his winning social issues, it's a lack of coherence on economic policy. He campaigns like what he is- a big government Republican and friend of big labor. Nobody is buying that. Reagan got by with it. He also got by with bailing out Chrysler and Harley. But that dog don't hunt anymore. The cherry on top is that he's twice as undisciplined and erratic as he accused Newt of being. He doesn't have a coherent message, he shoots from the hip, and while he is a strong pro-life candidate- which helps him, he should be ignoring these ancillary phony, media-generated issues like birth control and pornography. Just let it roll off. He doesn't have to answer a question just because someone asks it. There is a such thing as a stupid question.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 20, 2012 21:03:35 GMT -5
Mitt in a landslide. Keep talking about social issues Santorum. He did the same thing in Pa and got crushed. Game over. pretty much. he is going to win the next two primaries, i think. but this margin looks decisive enough to carry Romney the rest of the way. it is going to be a whole lot less interesting, now.
|
|