who here is sick of the young democrats thing?

<p>HIV has been found in saliva though.</p>

<p>I might believe the OP's contention if they didn't have an agenda of their own....calling being liberal and democratic a "fad" is condesending. And the conservatives never take their views too far....</p>

<p>"And the conservatives never take their views too far...."</p>

<p>that doesn't cancel out some liberals.</p>

<p>This post is a series of two-liners:</p>

<p>One can be persuaded by the overwhelming EVIDENCE supporting evolutionary theory, or they can choose to deny it. Noone "believes" in science, just as fundamentalists are unable to "prove" religion. Science is blind to choice. The results speak for themselves.</p>

<p>crypto86 is totally correct. Rationality is underrated nowadays. Just one point: Abstinence education doesn't work, anyway. Read last week's issue of NewScientist to learn more.</p>

<p>I don't mean to play cheerleader here, but citygirlsmom makes a strong point, mentioning that religons rarely share creation stories. It is unconstitutional for a public school to demonstrate a preference for a certain religion. When religion IS taught, it is taught within the context of history. I'll admit that I get a bit unnerved seeing "G-d" on our money and in my school. I always mumbled His name.</p>

<p>"HIV has been found in saliva though."</p>

<p>Let me put this simply: it takes a very little bit of live virus to infect a person with HIV. The quantity detected in saliva is miniscule, even in comparison to the levels required for "potential" infection. There have been NO cases of transmission involving saliva. Legions of the mouth are another matter entirely. It is 100% safe to kiss an HIV+ person as a friend. I would only worry about french-kissing with a pussing cold-sore after your HIV+ partner has just had a root canal.</p>

<p>Yeah, all the conflict has made "God" a scary name to be avoided. No wonder the Knight's Party is screaming.</p>

<p>Creationism can be taught without mentioning God. Ex. Simple cells evolved into a fly, or both could be created separately. If that can't be achieved, then I guess creationism will have to be Sunday school exclusive, and evolution will not be taught as pure fact.</p>

<p>I understand your concern about teaching evolution as "pure fact", which I admit happens frequently. But then where's the concern over teaching Newtonian physics as "pure fact"? Or the concern over teaching stoichiometry as "pure fact". Sure those aren't as controversial as evolution when it comes to involving bio-ethics, but it's the same point.</p>

<p>Back to politics though.</p>

<p>Liberalism isn't about protests and rebelling. However, some aspects of it has changed since Bush. Not that the ideas and beliefs have changed, but it really has become "with us or you're an ignorant moron just like that guy missing in a town in Texas." I know a lot of you aren't like that, still, you can't really disagree that it has chased away many people in between the two sides. I really like progressive views, so I hope all can be seen as the tolerant liberal.</p>

<p>Thank you, crypto86.</p>

<p>"Yeah, all the conflict has made "God" a scary name to be avoided"</p>

<p>No. I try to avoid the name for two reasons: 1) I respect others' beliefs about how it should be written and 2) Related beliefs have no damn place in school. This is why I try to rememnber to write "G-d", even while combating the plague of ignorance that He all too often brings with Him.</p>

<p>crypto86 - I agree.
We humans are just too limited in knowledge, so sometimes it's necessary, when appropirate, to assume some (parts of) theories as true; to a level that is. I mean, we do need consistent facts to support other or new discoveries/theories/ideas. Yeah, I get your point, and it's just the whole controversy that made accepting even some proven parts of evolution an issue.</p>

<p>Nom - Good for you. What I mean is the conflict has made many others conscious of possibly offending non-believers, so many have avoided using God as result.</p>

<p>l33twinkie, I think what crypto and Nom are trying to say is that even if one can teach the idea of creationism without exploiting the name "God" the idea is that creationism comes from religion. No matter what your religious affiliation is, it is improper to teach religious theory in government sanctioned schools...period. Attending private school is an entirely different matter and what goes on behind closed doors there is perfectly valid teaching.</p>

<p>We have set up a school system and government in which religion is barred from entering because it not only inflames the masses, it dictates policies that not everyone adheres to. While the majority of this country is Christian it is not a national religion. Church stays on one end of the spectrum and government stays on the other. What has become a larger issue is the idea, growing clearer by the day, that the current administration has extremely strong ties to fundamental christian beliefs and is using those to push their policies and their constituents towards those beliefs. </p>

<p>Yes, humans are limited in knowledge, but that doesn't mean that what we have so far is wrong. Crypto made the great point of other aspects of schooling that diverge from Christian beliefs, but controversy is not started there. For a senior project, I am taking a month off to study bioethics committees and interview those who make decisions at hospitals. The controversies concerning stem cell research, end-of-life issues, vegetative states all have scientific and religious repercussions. It is important to deliniate between the two, and I believe that hospitals do a fine job in propelling that idea.</p>

<p>If nothing more could be taught in this country, it is the idea of religious toleration and in accordance with that, no philosophy of one religion can reign supreme over any other religious or scientific thought in public locations. By doing this we can permanently instill a separation of church and state along with education our youth on an extremely important issue. Let us start now before it is too late.</p>

<p>Creationism by definition implies God, diety, intelligent being, so you CANNOT teach creationism without talking about a god, or God. And it comes from Genesis, so in reality, creationism is from the Old Testement. </p>

<p>And do you all know what the definition of scientific theory is?</p>

<p>jaug1 and citygirlsmom: Thank you. Intelligent commentary is why I keep coming back to CC. Good luck on your project, jaug1. Those are interesting topics. I am thoroughly enjoying discussing them in my "current topics in science" class.</p>

<p>l33twinkie, Let us change the topic. No? What do people think of insant-runoff elections? I believe that the system could legitimize third-parties (yes, many thirds), thereby better representing the people.</p>

<p>We have instant run off in San Francisco. Sometimes we would have 25 people running for one Supervisoral district...the debates were like a bad documentary, think Best in Show...it worked well, but the system was a bit complicated....where would instant runoffs be done...</p>

<p>Me, lets get rid of the Electoral College!!! I think (hope) we as a country have grown enough to be able to vote directly for our President</p>

<p>The electoral college is, in part, a system of inter-state checking. California would become even more of a political behemoth, while Alaska would curl up and cry in the corner. The best compromise, in my mind (this moment), is proportional representation. Rather than a winner-takes-all system, electoral representatives should vote in accordance with the popular vote in their state. I believe Oklahoma pushed a bill for this.</p>

<p>Here is an example to "clarify" [Notice a recurring theme in my posts? Poor articulation followed by worse analogies and examples ; ) ]</p>

<p>Assume that Puerto Rico suddenly became a state. It was granted 13 electoral votes. Puerto Ricans happened to prefer HIllary. She received 60% of the vote to Rice's 40. So, Hillary gets 8 expected electoral votes while Rice gets 5.</p>

<p>What I failed to realize, however, is that this does not work well with instant-runoff elections (when it comes to third parties). I will have think about this some more. Please excuse typos at this hour.</p>

<p>some poster suggested that they are disgusted with party politics, in fact his contention reflects the feelings of the majority of americans. Increasingly, as parties have become more extreme, people have opted for the moderate middle. This is why Ross Perot has so much success as an independent in '92</p>

<p>A large part of the success of the republicans is marketing their right-wing garbage(as a hardcore liberal, I couldn't resist) as mainstream "American" values. They use one word messages such as "Values" and "Morals" which make people feel good about voting for them.</p>

<p>btw, my car has a bumper sticker which says "Beware, Attack Democrat" so take my above statements with a grain of salt.</p>

<p>
[quote]
when has the youngest generation ever been politically comservative. Maybe when compared to other generations at our age but practically all teenagers are liberal. At least 80% of college kids are liberal. Just look at the statistics of who they vote for.

[/quote]

I think this generally is true ... there is a famous Winston Churchill quote something like "if you're not liberal when you are young you do not have a heart and if you are not conservative when you are old you do not have a brain". Not taking this quote too literally, a lot of young people want to jump in and help those in need (a very good thing indeed) and often think the government should help ... as people age they often see more limitations in the ability of governments to help, the limited resources governments have, and for more need for self-help. These generalizations are certainly not true for everyone ... but it seems to me to be a pretty common outcome as people get older. Personally, I have not gone from liberal to conservative ... but more of liberal to libertarian</p>

<p>wow, away for a couple hours and this has jumped from just an opinion to a debate on the semantics of evolution haha... and i'm sorry nom or citygirlsmom if you took what i said as deragatory, as it was not meant to be insulting, i was just saying some people look at being liberal, wearing black clothes, and saying they hate everything as a fad, the ideals themselves are not a fad, as they have existed well before any of us were even born... with that said, i apologize to any i have offended</p>

<p>wow, some of you stay up way late.</p>

<p>anybody read #48?</p>

<p>cujoe169 - debates like these chain on. well, i think we've clarified the difference between the angry liberals that offends you and the others who are more respectful.</p>

<p>"l33twinkie, Let us change the topic. No? What do people think of insant-runoff elections? I believe that the system could legitimize third-parties (yes, many thirds), thereby better representing the people."</p>

<p>I like the German system of election better in ways to get third parties into office. It's not what I think as perfect, but we can build from that.</p>

<p>"Me, lets get rid of the Electoral College!!! I think (hope) we as a country have grown enough to be able to vote directly for our President"</p>

<p>Yeah. But the benefit of the Electoral College is that the candidates would have to make efforts to earn votes in less populous states. Not that they wouldn't have to if election was on popular vote, but people in rural areas would be more significant in choosing the president. I'm really undecided on this, because popular vote makes more sense in that when a candidate is elected, he is the choice of most Americans.</p>

<p>"A large part of the success of the republicans is marketing their right-wing garbage(as a hardcore liberal, I couldn't resist) as mainstream "American" values. They use one word messages such as "Values" and "Morals" which make people feel good about voting for them."</p>

<p>Kind of like my earlier post about the generalization of the right getting it wrong and the left doesn't get it. but that's what we see, not what most are.</p>