gadgetlady

I would be happy to, but I'm currently working on a dial-up connection from my car, en route to Las Vegas :rose:. Give me a few hours and I'll get it to you. My connection is tediously slow. However, your quote seems to say the same thing with different words. Darwin's book "The Origin of Species" is subtitled "By the Preservation of Favoured Races". Darwin clearly believed that Europeans were favored over Asian and African "races". If you read his book "The Descent of Man" he talks about how the Africans and Asians had fallen behind in the fight for survival and would soon disappear. He compared some "races" to gorillas. In this book, Darwin says that it is necessary for inferior races to disappear and he compares the situation to people who breed animals.

Then there are some things your teachers aren't telling you, or perhaps they aren't aware of themselves. Darwin is quoted as saying, about a native tribe in Tierra del Fuego, "the difference between a Tierra del Fuegian and a European is greater than between a Tierra del Fuegian and a beast." I don't think you can delve much further into racism than comparing a people to "beasts." This is just one example. Darwin was quite an elitist, a racist, and a sexist as well.

Yes, his particular case was a British woman, but of course there have been others. It is a fascinating field. I say I'm Italian in ancestry but of course none of us has a pure bloodline. I find it particularly interesting that according to the Bible, all people have the same ancestors. It is Darwinian evolution that holds that some peoples, some cultures, are "less evolved" than others, and therefore this belief often informs "racism". And you should hear what Darwin had to say about women! Sheesh! If you're a woman and you have an inferiority complex, don't go reading his stuff.

I'm surprised no one would ever answer that for you. His wife was his sister. I remember years ago reading a "scientific announcement" that all people came from a common female ancestor (in this case, the journal claimed it was an ape), so there's not much dispute on this one. The gene pool has degenerated quite a bit since then, so inter-familial marriage was not only not dangerous back then, but also not uncommon. Adam and Eve lived a long time and had a lot of children, but in Jewish geneology the first son is generally the only one mentioned (which is why the Bible doesn't talk about all of the other kids). As to other races, there is only one race, the human race. Did you hear the headline story recently about a woman who gave birth to twins, one black and one white? It's just a pigment issue.

I'd vote for a woman but not for her in a gazillion years.

Salad is a piece of cake for me, which is weird because I have problems with most other fresh fruit and vegetables.

We had another LBT'er wanting to join the group but the rates have gone up quite a bit. I thought I'd let everyone know what a good deal you got. The rate for those of you who are in an outside cabin was $1543.92 (771.96 per person). It is now $2783.92 ($1391.96 per person). So those of you who booked by the deadline got quite a deal. It's unfortunate that they have gone up so much, though, because it makes it not very affordable for any new people :-(

Yup, we should pull out of NYC.

I was completely filled or, rather, filled as much as I should be to have a good restriction. Luckily, what was in my stomach at the time was all liquid.

Sorry; I think my syntax may have confused you. I was saying I am so libertarian and so in favor of women -- people in general, actually -- having control over their own lives that I even have a problem with anti-prostitution laws. The reason I am a libertarian AND pro-life is because in the abortion issue, there are two people at stake (the mother and the baby) and if the mother "chooses" to abort, she is interefering with the personal freedom of the other person involved.

Thanks for posting that, Wheetsin. The mentality still pervades. There is a big abortionist in CA who says he would set up a clinic for free in Mexico if it would stop all the illegals from having so many kids and bringing them into the US. As a conservative/libertarian, I support a woman's right to choose anything she wants -- I have a problem with anti-prostitution laws, for example -- unless and until it involves another human being. That's where I become pro-life, because the baby is not her body.

A lot of the charities I donate to are local ones and support women and children.

That's a personal question I'd rather not answer. You've asked twice. Why is it so important to you?

That's not QUITE what I said. I said if the government reduced my taxes by $10,000 and I could donate that to charity instead, it would be better used because the charity would get more than just the leftovers that managed to filter through the bureaucracy.That being said, my accountant marvels every year at what our family donates to charity. They said our overall total and our percentage of gross is consistently higher than most of their clients, even their very wealthy clients. We are not very wealthy (we do OK), but I believe very strongly in being charitable and giving back.My complaint about taxes is that when they are given out to charity, I don't get to choose what charities they go to. For example, it burns the heck out of me that Planned Parenthood gets some of my money in federal funding when they booked something like $63 million in excess profit last year.

Actually, I think it's just the opposite. I think people are LESS inclined to help out because they figure the government will take care of them (and/or because they're being sucked dry by taxes and have nothing left). I saw the statistics many years ago and could probably find them again if I needed to, but as the government programs increase, charitable donations everywhere decrease. Really, when you think about it, if the government reduced my taxes by $10,000 and I instead gave that $10,000 directly to the charity instead of having it go through the wind-tunnel that is a government bureaucracy, the charity would see a heck of a lot more of that $10,000 than they do now.

I prefer to donate to charity personally, rather than being forced by the government to do so. In fact, I don't call welfare programs welfare. I call them "forced charity".

Luke 1:41 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb.

LOL! I'm with you! LOL! I'm NOT with you!

No other comments on how wonderful stem cell research is when it's from amniotic fluid, not an embryo? Is there only interest in this potentially life-saving issue when it's being used to bash Christians?

I eat out all the time. Probably 5 dinners a week. When I order an appetizer or just an empty plate to share from others, if I get a strange look I just say, "I don't eat much" or "I'm not a big eater." I've never had to explain anything more than that. I'm not opposed to explaining more than that; I've just never had to. As to kids meals, they're generally so unhealthy that I don't even let my kids order them!

It cracks me up that I haven't heard of a lot of the people named here! There's honestly no one on the list for me. No one turns me on but my husband :-)

I'm have a pretty good restriction and I take a capsule every night (mild sleeping pill) and have absolutely no problems at all. I frequently marvel to my husband that I can't get a piece of cheese down even after I've chewed it (if I'm very tight), but the pill always goes down with no problems at all.

No problem. There are all sorts of developments in this field, and many scientists are coming to the conclusion that embryonic stem cells are very volitile and they're having better luck with adult stem cells and stem cells derived from the umbilical cord, baby teeth, and now, of course, this. So maybe this is an issue that won't need to be tackled in the future!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16513279/site/newsweek/

That makes me sick to my stomach.