14ers.com

Mark A Steiner wrote:If some scientist submitted a sample of coal for a Carbon 14 test from the Pennsylvanian Period that is (+) or (-) 300 MY old, and the sample had detectable Carbon 14 in it and an apparent age of 47,000-55,000 years, would you say the test was flawed or faulty?

I'd guess that the sample was contaminated. And while one hallmark of science is willingness to change your mind based on new evidence, these little nitpicky counterexamples to the overwhelming evidence of Earth's age don't do it for me.

VWLover wrote:

pknight wrote:Anyways, candidate!! One candidate, military officer, naval aviator, VOLUNTEERED to serve his country in a time of war, spent more time in a prison cmp than Obama has in the senate, who also never lost faith in his country, is running against a man who had never set foot in a job requiring the slightest hint of self sacrifice. McCain paid his dues long ago, he gave more for his country, this country, which I am sure he has always been excited about, than I would venture to say anyone on this site has and ever will. What had Obama done for his country? Well, he has a horrible senate voting attendance record and spends a crapload of donor money on his campaign, that is his idea of giving to his country... Why is there even a debate? I have a theory, and it will be saved for another time...
Oh yeah, climate change...

Interesting read, though I don't know why everyone puts a military record on such a high pedistal, like if you didn't serve, it's a mark against you. Clinton didn't serve, and I'd take eight more years of tenure like his over the last eight we've had in a heartbeat.

You'll never understand... until you do serve. Serving in the armed forces takes commitment and dedication. It takes discipline. It builds moral character. You can't just wake up one day, roll out of your bunk and say I'm done... I'm calling in sick today or I quit. Doesn't work that way.

During basic training, live rounds are fired over your head, you launch live anti-tank munitions, you are exposed to CS gas, etc... Training that carries with it great responsibility.

As far as Clinton, yeah, he presided over a prosperous time in this country, but it had zero to do with his leadership. He was the fortunate benefactor of 2 huge technological cash cows; Y2K and the DotCom explosion. What most people don't realize, is that it was a house of cards. Being in IT through it, I went to extravagant week long sales conferences, saw $60 million dollar deals landed, was given huge stock options... Yeah, 97,98,99 those were good economical times... then Y2K turns out to be a joke... and all the money people spent before it, gone... and IT budgets were slashed in half (or more)... That had NOTHING TO DO with the current administration either.

On the DotCom side, for every eBay, Google, Yahoo, eTrade, etc... there were hundreds of startups that didn't make it... and hundreds of thousands of people went from paper millionaires to unemployed overnight. It was UGLY. Again, had nothing to do with the government... then you pile 9/11 on top of it...

covfrrider wrote:

VWLover wrote:

pknight wrote:Anyways, candidate!! One candidate, military officer, naval aviator, VOLUNTEERED to serve his country in a time of war, spent more time in a prison cmp than Obama has in the senate, who also never lost faith in his country, is running against a man who had never set foot in a job requiring the slightest hint of self sacrifice. McCain paid his dues long ago, he gave more for his country, this country, which I am sure he has always been excited about, than I would venture to say anyone on this site has and ever will. What had Obama done for his country? Well, he has a horrible senate voting attendance record and spends a crapload of donor money on his campaign, that is his idea of giving to his country... Why is there even a debate? I have a theory, and it will be saved for another time...
Oh yeah, climate change...

Interesting read, though I don't know why everyone puts a military record on such a high pedistal, like if you didn't serve, it's a mark against you. Clinton didn't serve, and I'd take eight more years of tenure like his over the last eight we've had in a heartbeat.

You'll never understand... until you do serve. Serving in the armed forces takes commitment and dedication. It takes discipline. It builds moral character. You can't just wake up one day, roll out of your bunk and say I'm done... I'm calling in sick today or I quit. Doesn't work that way.

During basic training, live rounds are fired over your head, you launch live anti-tank munitions, you are exposed to CS gas, etc... Training that carries with it great responsibility.

As far as Clinton, yeah, he presided over a prosperous time in this country, but it had zero to do with his leadership. He was the fortunate benefactor of 2 huge technological cash cows; Y2K and the DotCom explosion. What most people don't realize, is that it was a house of cards. Being in IT through it, I went to extravagant week long sales conferences, saw $60 million dollar deals landed, was given huge stock options... Yeah, 97,98,99 those were good economical times... then Y2K turns out to be a joke... and all the money people spent before it, gone... and IT budgets were slashed in half (or more)... That had NOTHING TO DO with the current administration either.

On the DotCom side, for every eBay, Google, Yahoo, eTrade, etc... there were hundreds of startups that didn't make it... and hundreds of thousands of people went from paper millionaires to unemployed overnight. It was UGLY. Again, had nothing to do with the government... then you pile 9/11 on top of it...

Yeah, I get the whole military thing. I'm a third-generation military college graduate on par with the Citidel, VMI, etc. (I know, I know, not the REAL military, but I have plenty of classmates who have/are serving in the armed forces, so it must have been halfway decent). I fully understand the leadership and discipline involved with the military. Still, what did those years in the National Guard do for GW's leadership?

VWLover wrote: Yeah, I get the whole military thing. I'm a third-generation military college graduate on par with the Citidel, VMI, etc. (I know, I know, not the REAL military, but I have plenty of classmates who have/are serving in the armed forces, so it must have been halfway decent). I fully understand the leadership and discipline involved with the military. Still, what did those years in the National Guard do for GW's leadership?

Don't know, you'd have to ask him.

So let's go back to 2004, and ask the same question. He ran against someone else who had a prior military record. Roughly speaking, half the country voted for him, half voted against him. We have a Democratic congress, but it also is split roughly 50/50...

My question is this: How does the President (one person, any President) affect you any more than Congress? Explain to me how you think this one person takes so much responsibility for your life?

VWlover writes:

Interesting read, though I don't know why everyone puts a military record on such a high pedistal, like if you didn't serve, it's a mark against you. Clinton didn't serve, and I'd take eight more years of tenure like his over the last eight we've had in a heartbeat.

Please understand that a lack of military experience only applies if you are a member of the Democratic Party. For a conservative its no problem. After all Ronald Regan's WWII service was in the 1st Motion Picture Unit and George Bush spent Vietnam in the Texas Air National Guard. But that's ok because everyone knows that George Bush didn't use the fact that his daddy was a senator to jump over 264 other candidates. They know that the Texas Air National Guard was just dying for a C legacy student from Yale.

Sorry to interrupt such high-minded political discourse with a public service announcement, but John McCain has lost his house keys. Has anyone seen them?

All politics aside, have you ever forgotten how many homes you own?

covfrrider wrote:

VWLover wrote: Yeah, I get the whole military thing. I'm a third-generation military college graduate on par with the Citidel, VMI, etc. (I know, I know, not the REAL military, but I have plenty of classmates who have/are serving in the armed forces, so it must have been halfway decent). I fully understand the leadership and discipline involved with the military. Still, what did those years in the National Guard do for GW's leadership?

Don't know, you'd have to ask him.

So let's go back to 2004, and ask the same question. He ran against someone else who had a prior military record. Roughly speaking, half the country voted for him, half voted against him. We have a Democratic congress, but it also is split roughly 50/50...

My question is this: How does the President (one person, any President) affect you any more than Congress? Explain to me how you think this one person takes so much responsibility for your life?

Well, since KeithK only offered applause, I'll answer you directly. The answer is they essentially don't, but they obviously have an influence on the direction of the country. Given the direction of this country the last eight years, I look forward to a change, and if it's from someone with no military experience, then so be it.

covfrrider wrote: My question is this: How does the President (one person, any President) affect you any more than Congress? Explain to me how you think this one person takes so much responsibility for your life?

I think I understand your point -- that you're responsible for yourself, not government -- but still believe that the person in the White House makes a difference in the lives of many Americans.

Here's one example: When our first son was born, I wanted to take unpaid family leave to stay home with him, but President Bush vetoed the congressional family-leave bill. When President Clinton replaced Bush I, the first bill he signed into law was the bill requiring businsses with more than 50 employees to grant unpaid family leave. I was able to stay home with our sons.

Other examples of one president making a difference in our lives include: tax policy; spending policy; protection of wilderness, air, and water quality; and fighting wars without a declaration from Congress.

So McCain can't remember how many homes he owns. I say "good for him" after the rat hole he lived in while a POW. Besides, the last thing the Obama campaign (or several other Democrats -- e.g., Harry Reid, the Countrywide 6) wants is for personal housing issues to surface. At least the houses McCain owns are legit, as far as we know.

jaymz_17 wrote:So McCain can't remember how many homes he owns. I say "good for him" after the rat hole he lived in while a POW. Besides, the last thing the Obama campaign (or several other Democrats -- e.g., Harry Reid, the Countrywide 6) wants is for personal housing issues to surface. At least the houses McCain owns are legit, as far as we know.

Agreed...

I think that it is sad when the presidential race gets to a point where one of the candidates has to feel guilty about being a successful capitalist. SAD state! Yeah, you all are right, this country has really gone down hill...

I LOVE this country! And, unlike some people, I've been proud of my country for all my years!

VWLover wrote:

covfrrider wrote: Well, since KeithK only offered applause, I'll answer you directly.

In the immortal words of Bobcat Goldthwait, "Blaming Ronald Reagan for the way things are today is kinda like blaming Ronald McDonald when you get a bad cheeseburger. NEITHER ONE OF THEM RUN THE COMPANY!" I'm pretty sure you could insert EVERY president's name in there.

There, Mike, is that better than just agreeing 100% with a post?

rob runkle wrote:I think that it is sad when the presidential race gets to a point where one of the candidates has to feel guilty about being a successful capitalist.

McCain made his money the old-fashioned way: family connections.