Evolution is most likely; homosexuality is natural

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
You just don't like my absolute rigid moral stance.

turnabout IS fair play!

I just don't see a constitutional crisis in any of this.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Which is better?

Winning when you are wrong?

or

Taking a chance you COULD win and be right?

There is no chance.

Work within a viable party to achieve your goals. That is the logical choice.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
turnabout IS fair play!

I just don't see a constitutional crisis in any of this.

I would consider it a crisis of Constitutional proportions when there is a function going on in direct OPPOSITION to it.

When factoring in a trend of such laws and actions over years, I would say the crisis exists.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
There is no chance.

Work within a viable party to achieve your goals. That is the logical choice.

There is always chance when there is a choice. You know this. It is logical.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yes. The whole thing is broken. You're going to choose the moment when we're in war and at risk to fix the whole system? Absurd. More of your appeal to apathy. There is no fate. THE U.S. is the wild card they left out. It's not over, til it's over. Acceptance? fuck that.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Yes. The whole thing is broken. You're going to choose the moment when we're in war and at risk to fix the whole system? Absurd. More of your appeal to apathy. There is no fate. THE U.S. is the wild card they left out. It's not over, til it's over. Acceptance? fuck that.

If only we could rally your spirit into a direction of direct action, we would have something.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This is what libs do, they focus on some wonkish concern, blowing it's significance all our of proportion and perspective, until time has run out. Not smart. Yet exactly what you're proposing. You don't want bush to win, do you? Why.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by NewGuy
There is always chance when there is a choice. You kow this. It is logical.

You didn't answer the question.

Your question has no basis in reality.

On the one hand, the republicans (who I will be voting for) are not entirely wrong.

On the other, no, there is no realistic chance.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
If only we could rally your spirit into a direction of direct action, we would have something.

You too, man. Really. You are an asset to the forum, even though I must discredit your agenda!

 

[cptpwichita]

news flash:ted weill dropped his presidential bid.the reform party is backing ralph nader.i am sooooo disappointed in the reform party.

 

[cptpwichita]

oh yeah,constitution party in 2004!

 

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr

Evolution is most likely; homosexuality is natural.

There is no fate. [/QUOTE]

The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.

All paths in the Quantum Mechanics world of uncertainty lead back to an ultimate fate. It is just the many ways that uncertainty can take to get there.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Mustafa

The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.

All paths in the Quantum Mechanics world of uncertainty lead back to an ultimate fate. It is just the many ways that uncertainty can take to get there.

Please provide a link to proofs for fate.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr

Please provide a link to proofs for fate.

Uncertainty Principle and Fate

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...s2002623/ms2002623.pdf+fate+uncertainty&hl=en

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by ajwps
Uncertainty Principle and Fate

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...s2002623/ms2002623.pdf+fate+uncertainty&hl=en

This is about mathematical techniques for reducing uncertainty in physical system. This doesn't PROVE fate, in the way we're talking about.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
This is about mathematical techniques for reducing uncertainty in physical system. This doesn't PROVE fate, in the way we're talking about.

He is notorious for derailing things when having no proof.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
He is notorious for derailing things when having no proof.

Some people.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr

Some people.

Unless you are a physicist, you have no way of knowing anything about this post.

It is always nice to deny that which you don't understand or wish that fate or causality has to be proved to exist.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by ajwps
Unless you are a physicist, you have no way of knowing anything about this post.

It is always nice to deny that which you don't understand or wish that fate or causality has to be proved to exist.

Yeah. Except I read it. It doesn't prove the existence of fate.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by ajwps
Unless you are a physicist, you have no way of knowing anything about this post.

It is always nice to deny that which you don't understand or wish that fate or causality has to be proved to exist.

Fate here was "proven" with an incredibly flawed set of parameters.

1. A model which by admission of documentation, considers the FATE model accurate at 99% (which is scientifcally supposed to be FACT)

2. It is used by simulating an issue on a SPARC which, of course, is subject to wear and tear, emp, power fluctuations, bad code, bad components, heat, and other chaos.

3. The rest of the test assumed less than 1% as irrelevant as well.

When adding all of these factors, this simulation to prove something about ground water flow, when rejecting anything rlevant when it has a less than 1% occurrance, is FAR from capable of determining anything as universal and perfect as fate.

As usual, your proof of concept sucks.