soul .gc

It is a FACT we can tell the age of rock based on radiocarbon dating and rock layering to within a couple 10,000 years or so.

Actually Carbon dating cannot be used on rocks or anything that was not "living" at one time. Also - there is a bit of inconsistency with carbon dating due to the unknown carbon content in the atmosphere at those times, etc...

Thanks guys - I will check them out.

So far I am the only one updating the site but the other leaders want to be able to add stuff and I would like to let them but with as little risk to overall catastrophe as possible.

Hi all -

We have started a Christian Paintball Club in the Lansing area. I am in the process of redesigning our website and have been looking at some different ideas. The one I like so far is where you have a main News page and the sections are updated when an admin puts in a new post in a special forum section.

I have seen this on a couple of different sites but I have no clue how it is done. Anyone ever done this before and able to point me in the direction of some CSS or XHTML tool or site that can give me some info on it?

Thanks,

Soul

wow - raising the dead posts I see.

I am not sure what the main point is - there was overwhelming support for the invasion. It was handled poorly and support has declined. That is the case with most situations like this though. Many people are all for it but if it drags on or something happens that was unforeseen then they no longer want to support their original decision....just look at the dems who have made a huge issue about the war yet voted for it.

I think the main lesson to remember is to have a better group plan the next one so we learn from those mistakes.

We didn't screw up, 51% of Americans allowed our government to screw up. I dont see why Bush didn't push for martial law, Im sure people would vote for it in the name of terrorism.

 

We keep getting dumber. Majority rule doesn't work in mental institutions.

Ahh yes, the majority screwed up and all that. I thought people were actually done on this topic, I guess not.

Personally I believe over half of the problem is the media and their role in hyping/negating an issue.

Actually there was a huge list of reasons to invade Iraq - one of which was WMD - which you can go back years and years before Bush was elected and see many democrats and republicans stating the need to remove Saddam and ease tensions in the region. He also had the ability to continue creating instability - just look at all the issues he caused by blocking and impeding the inspection teams from the UN.

As you can tell I think the invasion and removal of Saddam was a good idea with what was known at the time. All evidence pointed to some form of WMD at the time as well as years of issues with Saddam and Iraq.

However - hindsight is usually 20-20 and we can now see our intelligence mistakes and have begun to reform our intelligence arenas as well as put communication lines in place to prevent these situations in the future.

With all the being said - and being a Bush voter and previous supporter - I think he has really screwed the pooch on the entire Iraq invasion. He did a good job responding to 9/11 and getting into Afghanistan and helping the economy recover quickly after the recession but most voters in the election last month stated they voted Democrat due to the handling of the war in Iraq. I am also stupefied as to why they held off the resignation of Rumsfeld until after the election - I think that would have been a good thing to do before the voting.

I'm not saying we should rape the rich guys on taxes, not at all. I'm saying that instead of giving them tax breaks because everyone else gets tax breaks, we should only offer them tax breaks when they do something to advance the economy.

First, before I respond to the above - I agree that flat is not ideal - it should be a flat and consumption tax (i.e. national sales tax).

As to the above statement - By giving someone at the top a tax break they have more money to spend - thereby they buy more things, expand their business, invest in new companies, etc... That money moves back into the economy, stimulating it and creating jobs.

there are probably more companies out there (such as Enron) that use every single financial advantage they can gain (including tax breaks) to line their own pockets. When they have enough money, they just cut and run--being rich enough to live out their lives somewhere tropical in comfort.

That is an exception to the rule. Especially due to the new sarbanes-oxley laws that provide rigid guidelines to financial accounting.

Taxes shouldn't just be lowered because people don't want to pay the government more money, they should be lowered because those people are doing something to benefit everyone.

If that is your opinion then should those people paying more in taxes have a higher "weight" to where that money is spent? Should they get more power in the vote or is it just a plain penalty for making more money?

Lastly - PRecher - great joke!!

I manage a Program Office Group for a large Telecommunications company. Basically I am a self-taught project manager. I do not come from money - I just learned the ropes and learned how to play the system - it is all about selling yourself and making people believe you can do what you say you can do.

p.s. 40% of my 25k, means a little bit more to me than the guy who can't buy his bently because he taxed %40 on his 2.5 mill

Pretty much the same comment as YoMamma.

First off though - a 15-17% flat tax would be enough for the government in my opinion. They would be getting more from the "rich/upper middle class" than they currently do since there would be no more tax breaks...just a flat 15%.

Secondly - Why does it matter to you how much someone makes - it needs to be a fair system for all - not just those who make less money.

Then we should tax the poor the same amount as the upper class.

Wow - I agree with NOFX. We do need a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage of their income. Get rid of this ridiculous, horrible tier system that only punishes people for being successful.

Is it really fair to justify the reason for not contributing to social programs because us poor people are lazy? Is it even an agenda for people to help our the less fortunate? Maybe if they were ever in their shoes, they might feel differently...

And just as quickly we disagree haha. Who said those of us who do not want to fund social programs do so out of those opinions? I just do not believe in free handouts on an unlimited basis. Give out a helping hand where it is needed but qualify it with terms and conditions and time limits.

You create jobs for the poor, raise their wages.

How do you do this? Oh yes, by getting the major companies out there to invest in new markets/technologies/investments to create those jobs....

Trickle down economics are a joke...sorry

It's simple, and you know dang well that I'm right.

IF the rich get tax breaks, they keep the money for themselves (for the most part).

They don't hire more, they keep their staff the same and make more money. I mean, it's simple really. If you hand a guy more money, but don't mandate that he has to do anything to earn it, would he do anything?

Do you actually believe this? Look at the HUGE amounts Exxon, Microsoft, P&G, GE and Intel have invested in R&D and future growth - They have boosted their R&D 42% since 2000, almost $11 billion dollars worth according to Business Week. It is a proven fact that companies invest profits to expand and grow - they do not pocket it all and just "get rich off it".

These "tax breaks" for the rich do the same bloody thing because there is nothing backing them up

The "tax break" were for everyone, not just the rich. Everyone from the "non-taxed" poor to the top 1% received breaks.

Hi all - been a long time since I was here but this topic caught my eye.

I went to Kent State in Kent, and the tuition there more than doubled from when I started to when I graduated.

Tuition at KSU was $3879 for the '98-'99 school year and this year it is $7504 for the '05-'06. So it has not doubled in the past 8 school years at least so I am thinking, without a college degree here, that it surely has not "more than doubled".

I pretty much think Skar has hit it right on the head though. It is all about personal choices. If you choose to pursue a field where a degree is required then you need to accept it will cost some coin to get it done.

Heck - My wife graduated in '92 with her Masters and we are still paying off her college loans so it is not something new and horrible that is affecting people just now - this has been around for decades. College costs a lot of money.

I know I do not want any more of my tax money going to fund a system that is pretty sad and wasteful (pretty much everything our taxes go towards right now) but some things will never change. Maybe if colleges kicked out the unions it would help - I know MSU is paying about triple to build new apartment complexes here then what private, non-unionized labor, would cost.

I am a firm believer that the economy will manage itself to a large degree - if a company only pays minimum wge then they will not get the best employees - even McD's up here in my town pays $7 an hour.

We can also see the news that the economy is doing quite well - low unemployment, record high Dow Closes, job creation, etc... I am in Michigan, arguably the worst economic state right now, and I still think things are going well.

Everything was looking great when Clinton was in office.

At least until the economic crash that started while he was in office you mean?

But again - back to personal decisions. I decided not to finish my degree due to costs and time and I make a 6-figure salary and work from my house. So it is a bad picture out there, just make the best choice that makes you happy. If the costs depress you more than the benefits make you happy then do not go that route.

I have a thread in here with the problems I had with it. But it was horrible for us. Almost everyone I have talked with either loved it or completely hated it....most of the people on the Hate side. Peter Jackson, who did an amazing job on LoTR, comepletely screwed up this movie in our opinions.

And? Something a 2-bit author stated in an interview is your response? About what I expected. Where has the law been blatantly violated? Nowhere. If there was this situation the lefties would have more support for impeachment or some type of action and they do not - other than to read more books by whackos.

Umm - where was that stated? What does that have to do with a 2-bit conspiracy theory that is horribly put together and completely boring and 100% unbelievable? But hey - keep on spewing the lies.

Iran laughs in our face and says they are continueing their nuke program. North Korea continues their program. I certainly hope our current administration doesn't see the guys as a threat to our country.

Iran and NK are not just issues for us. If we go into Iran it will be with UN forces and under a UN banner/command.

So now we are in the business of taking down every single person that makes the world "worse"? Gotcha

Never said that anywhere. We should be in the habit of taking pre-emtpive action action valid threats to our country.

Really? Where? If he blatantly broke a law there would be action - there is no action so that ends that topic.

Perhaps interesting to you but complete trash to me.

Not sure where the tangent with Christmas or days of the week come from since they are not part of the bible.

I am referring to KJV, NIV, NLT, on and on the list goes. But hey - your response reads more like christian bashing and there is a specific forum for that if that is what you want to do.

There will not be an impeachment, but the extremists can keep harping about it, it keeps me entertained.

So the world was better with Saddam there? Gotcha.

Ahh yes - so you advocate watching something you know is not true, very poorly done and not interesting at all. Gotcha!

That was a great read - thanks Chief.

The one that everyone believes is the real evidence was only translated 400 years ago by King James and has strayed far from what the orignal story was.

Ummm...wrong. The bible still remains 99% accurate to the original translations for content.

As to "science" solutions you list - science is continually changing and adapting as new information is found.

I'm sorry - I must have missed the report that says he broke the law or did not uphold the constitution.

Whereas the guy in Batty's post did break the law and pled guilty.