Free Republic

I checked the Coca-Cola web site. No mention of Obama.
The only problem are the 2 long o’s in Coca-Cola (3 in Coca Cola Zero). There’s no escape.

There have been bigger landslides since ‘60: Johnson 61.1% in ‘64 and Reagan 58.8% in ‘84. There were others before ‘60.
The greatest margin was Harding 60.3% to Cox 34.1% in ‘20.

I don’t think it will be that big, but I’m not feeling very hopeful for an upset.

Palin’s campaign confirmed it is real, “C’est la vie.”.

I’m considering writing in Palin for President.

He’s actually part Irish.

“Maybe he should spell it O’Bama.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269836,00.html

“It was initially believed the would-be president’s great-great-great-grandfather Fulmuth Kearney was the only one of his family to have sailed from Ireland to New York at age 19 in 1850. But the newly uncovered records show other family members had in fact emigrated to America since the 1790s.”

Some of his supporters have already used the spelling O’Bama .

“Yessir, I will, but I also want to say, I think Americans are a little bit tired of all these negative ads,” McCain said.

McCain promising to play nice with his buddies, oh how sweet.

So what is McCain saying he is, a conservalib? a libaservative?

It's probable that Haggard did it. My prayers are mainly for the members of his church and other churches, that they look to God for guidance instead of these jerks.
I hate to say it, but I'm getting quite disillusioned by all these scandals. We need to get back to our conservative roots and away from the cultish nonsense that has crept into the Republican party.
What ever happened to small government, to fiscal responsibility, and other conservative values that we used to hold dear?
I think we've been had. It's about time we stand up for ourselves.

I don't live in Conn. anyway, so I don't have to make this decision, so you can relax, I have no say in the matter.

"after Iran nukes Israel"

We're not going to let that happen.

Lieberman is a stronger supporter of Israel, but from what I've read, Lamont supports Israel, in fact some leftists have complained about his Israel stance is too far right. Go figure.

Allen's all over the place. First he displays the Confederate flag and a noose, calls the NAACP an extremist group, now he joining them! Says Allen "I'm going to sign up for a lifetime membership in the NAACP." What next?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102001406.html
That and sticking both feet in his mouth. We should nominate someone else in 2008, the dems are HOPING we nominate Allen.

I don't trust LIEberman at all, as far as I'm concerned, voting for him is not a good idea, and sending money his way is a really bad idea. It's a waste of money. Once he sides with the dems it will be too much of an embarrassment. Besides, I think we can hold the Senate without him. Lieberman has voted against tax cuts and the American Conservative Union has twice given him a score of ZERO. Ignore the stench sometimes, sure, but this is too much. He's not getting my money.

Just because many biologists think it is "compelling" (meaning that I'm "supposed" to believe it) evidence doesn't show that all organisms share a single common ancestor.

"organism that shares no genetic history with any other organism on Earth"

That's not what we are discussing.

There's a problem with the single common ancestor idea. Life is found all over the earth, from the ocean floors to very deep underground. How did life spread from a single location to all these locations? Isn't that just a bit iffy?
And what precludes life forming multiple times in a similar way?

So there's similarities in DNA. On what basis then is the 'conclusion' that there was a single common ancestor? What is the logical reasoning leading up to this conclusion? And don't say, go research it, no, you answer the question.

"easy to see" "obviously"

So they are saying I'm 'supposed' to believe this.

"more than 200 genes in common with bacteria"

So? Humans and bacteria sharing a common ancestor is only one possible explanation for this, and the idea that ALL live on earth descended from a SINGLE common ancestor is quite a leap. Again, this idea comes from the view, the assumption, that life must have formed 'by chance' (since, according to them, there was no ID involved), and therefore it would be too improbable for life to have formed 'by chance' in more than one place in a similar manner.
I don't rule out a single common ancestor, but it has not been shown to be true.

It appears that the universe is billions of years old and that evolution (in a general sense) happens, but how does it appear that all terrestrial life evolved from a common ancestor? Where is the actual evidence for this? It could very well be that there was more than one starting life form, or maybe just one, we simply don't know. I think the assumption of a single common ancestor just comes from a materialistic philosophy, not from any actual evidence.

The wavelengths of visual light differ only by a factor of two. Where are they? Right at the sun's peak output of light. This is out of a very wide range of wavelengths (the wavelengths differ by as much as a factor of 10^13 or something like that). What evolutionist theorize is that the photochemicals "evolved" from pre-existing chemicals with other functions (via e.g. gene duplication). That's plausible, but it is not evolution according to Darwin. It is instead a sudden appearance of a photochemical, which is remarkable enough, but also a photochemical responsive to those wavelengths at the sun's peak output. I haven't heard of Darwinists positing that a very large number of photochemicals were 'tried out' first. So where is the chance? In a statistical sense, it isn't there. No, they just claim it 'just happened that way', which is not plausible. They believe in a mythical thing called Chance, their 'Spaghetii'. They offer no explanation, their so-called explanation is that there is no explanation. That is against the spirit of science.
In terms of the development of color vision, the photochemicals are just a small part of the whole system.
That is just one piece of many pieces of evidence, you have seen other evidence, you just refuse to acknowledge it.
Evolutionists are resorting to many preadaptations (aka exaptations, a term coined by Gould to obfuscate the issue) to explain how evolution can happen. Ok, maybe they are plausible explanations, but now we're way outside of a Darwinian explanation. Preadaptations are not gradual or random changes. ID is not simply about whether 'miracles' are needed, in fact ID could very well obviate the need for 'miracles'. By a 'miracle' I mean something like a genetic change with a non-physical cause. Have 'miracles' occurred in evolution? We don't know, but they are not needed for ID to be true.
Just because there is evidence for some tenants of Darwinism doesn't mean that all the tenants are true.
What I object to is the claim (either explicitly stated or implied) by hard-core Darwinists that genetic changes are in general 'unguided' (or other similar wording). Many even claim they are all 'unguided'. If they are talking about 'unguided' then they are broaching the subject of intelligent guidance, but they turn around and say that ID is a taboo subject in science. That is a hypocritical double standard.
I haven't seen much evidence at all that biological structures that look intelligently designed (and there are many) are in fact unintelligently designed. What evidence do they have? Just that harmful mutations happen. So what, there are also bugs in computer code, that doesn't mean that computer programs are not intelligently designed. These atheistic Darwinists are basically just saying that we aren't supposed to believe in ID because according to them 'there is no God'. And they want to push this philosophy in science classrooms.

And we know how Klinton loves butterscotch pudding, it's no wonder he ended up in the hospital. This must be their idea of a sick joke.

Jimmy Carter probably planted the peanut butter, after all he's a peanut farmer. They think we're so stupid as to fall for this stuff.

after all he's a peanut farmer. They think we're so stupid as to fall for this. I wonder if C BS was in on this.

http://movies.channel.aol.com/movie/main.adp?mid=19030

Cameo Art Theatre
225 Hay Street
Fayetteville, NC

It looks like it did sell out at that theatre.