Comments Posted By Mike
Displaying 81 To 89 Of 89 Comments
THE GHOST OF CHUCK HAGEL CHANNELS THE GHOST OF VIET NAM
the level of idiocy on this blog is absolutely insane.
Comment Posted By Mike On 22.08.2005 @ 17:06
please go educate yourselves people.
AL QAEDA'S "MEIN KAMPF" BLUEPRINT
Would such a huge victory for al Qaeda galvanize the Islamic world and unite its factions under the Islamists banner?
Without a doubt. The first to fall would probably be Mubarak's Egypt. It would be followed by the resumption of ethnic cleansing in Sudan and abandonment of the "peace process" at work in that country. (al-Bashir would be positively giddy)
The progress made in Lebanon would be rolled-back and the Afghani Republic could not survive long without the presence of coalition forces. Moderate regimes like Kuwait and Jordan would be pressured into silence or compliance.
This would provide a united geography as a counterpart to the ideology. Pressure could then be exerted on Turkey, the Caucuses, and Pakistan (adding nuclear weapons to their arsenal).
The jewel in Al Qaeda's crown, of course, would be the overthrow of the Saudi Monarchy, creating an instant capital for the Caliphate.
Comment Posted By Mike On 17.08.2005 @ 06:15
I think this was a brilliant post.
There's another that is not mainstream but deserves about a 0.5. theleftcoaster.com
Comment Posted By Mike On 6.08.2005 @ 01:52
Two observations: One, it's a recycled story. Two, you're quoting Juan Cole? Are you serious?
Comment Posted By Mike On 6.08.2005 @ 22:38
THE ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, VERY, VERY, LAST THING I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT ID AND EVOLUTION
Nancy Coshatt:
I remember reading that he was on his death bed and he was also Catholic. I speculate that fear of god, excommunication, and potential damnation influenced his decision.
Comment Posted By Mike On 3.08.2005 @ 17:20
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: SHUT YOUR YAP!
"Firmly held belief"? Yes, and a lot of scientists believe in psychics, the "power of prayer", and virgins bearing children 2000 years before in vitro fertilization. Mythology does not belong in a science classroom.
Comment Posted By Mike On 6.08.2005 @ 22:46
The difference between Creationism and "Intelligent Design" is that no one pretends that Creationism is science. ID, on the other hand, is creationism repackaged as science, with the old labels spray-painted over. In other words, it's a fraud. To teach Creationism in schools is to teach religion -- plainly, openly, and as honestly as you can teach a myth. To teach ID is to teach religion as science, which is despicable.
Comment Posted By Mike On 3.08.2005 @ 14:16
It looks like some people, here, are unclear as to the meaning of the word "theory". A theory is an idea that is supported by evidence that is testable and repeatable. "Intelligent Design" is not a theory; it is a hypothesis. And that's being pretty generous about it. Wherever you can test the ID hypothesis it fails (the statistical argument, the "No Free Lunch" misunderstanding, the "irreducible complexity" assumption), and in all other places it is simply untestable. In other words, ID is simple assertion -- nothing more than "Whatever I don't understand must be God's Handiwork." Evolution, on the other hand, is based on evidence, research, and repeated testing and refinement. Evolution is a theory on the edge of becoming scientific law. Natural Selection is a rationally indisputable fact, and evolution follows close on its heels.
Comment Posted By Mike On 3.08.2005 @ 00:09
hey Ann, can I be next? I get to pick out the soap though, maybe a whole brand new bar of Camay Classic, shoved deep in the mouth twisting and turning and grinding it into the molars and then taking a huge bite out of it, chewing a couple of times and then pinching my nose, clamping my mouth shut until I have to swallow it?
Comment Posted By Mike On 12.05.2006 @ 15:55
