Comments Posted By Robert
Displaying 41 To 46 Of 46 Comments
And Saddam thumbed his nose at the resolutions from this UN?
Go figure.
Comment Posted By Robert On 10.05.2006 @ 17:21
AHMADINEJAD AND HIS LIBERAL TALKING POINTS
Didn't Osama Bin Laden have a message a few months back asking for the US to negotiate with him and al Quaeda?
Negotiate with terrorists?
That sounds more like Ronald Regan than the left.
Comment Posted By Robert On 10.05.2006 @ 16:06
CONNECTING THE GOSS DOTS AN EXERCISE IN CIRCULAR LOGIC
Thank God americans (and the Press) don't care about sex scandals anymore.
That's so pre-911 thinking.
Comment Posted By Robert On 10.05.2006 @ 17:28
EAT YOUR HEART OUT CINDY SHEEHAN
Welcome home!
Can't wait for the rest of you to get back!
Comment Posted By Robert On 25.04.2006 @ 18:31
IMAGE IS SUBSTANCE IN IMMIGRATION DEBATE
Put'em in jail.
I'm talking about those that hire the illegals, so they don't have to pay wages and benefits the American markets bear.
as for the illegals, they'll stop coming when they stop earning a living.
BTW, it'll never happen. No way the politicians will make the corporations pay.
Comment Posted By Robert On 30.03.2006 @ 14:00
The corporations run the show in this country. The sooner Americans learn this, the better off we'll all be.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: SHUT YOUR YAP!
One of the things that I've gotten used to seeing in discussions of this type is "well, scientists thought X 150 years ago, and now they think Y instead. That proves science is less useful than religion, because religion doesn't change over time."
Leaving aside the question of whether religions do, in fact, change over time, this POV misses the whole point of the scientific method. As new evidence becomes available, models and theories have to be changed to accommodate them. Some models or theories get thrown out completely; anyone remember seeing references to phlogiston or the luminiferous ether in high school physics class?
I saw this expressed thusly once; "All models are false; some are useful."
Right about now, some of you are getting your fingers limber to type "But ID isn't religion!" Well, who is the Intelligent Designer, and who/what designed him/her/it? What evidence is there to support the existence of such an entity? Are their models or theories that can explain such evidence without introducing an ID?Answer those questions, or stop calling it science.
Comment Posted By Robert On 2.08.2005 @ 18:43
