French fries do not need to be frozen. Things only need to be frozen if you are not going to use them fresh (ice cream notwithstanding).

Here's their argument:

As an outsider (Aussie), I am confused as to how and why John Kerry seems to be so ineffective against Bush. Many of you have cited cases of the Bush administration corrupting information, and looking after corporate interests rather than the nation's, and if one believes even just some of the arguments against Bush, it seems difficult to imagine that Kerry would not win in a landslide in November.

Kerry's argument in favour of stem cell research http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/r...004_0612a.html seems very wishy-washy to me. Surely he could be making a stronger point. From what I have heard in the media, Kerry has not been hurting Bush's credibility at all.

I have been getting the impression that Bush is likely to hold on in November because many potential anti Bush voters won't bother to vote, and that he has strong support in the mid-west. Is this true?

bluesdave, I'm an aussie expat, just wondering, do you think Latham is going to win? I haven't had time to check the news for a fair while now.

The word is that he doesn't have a chance (much like John Kerry over there). While most people now believe that Iraq was a mistake, and believe that John Howard lied to us, they still see Howard as a strong leader, and while the Aussie economy continues to hum along, it will be nearly impossible to dislodge him.

The only hope that Mark Latham has is if there is some sort of huge controversy that entangles Howard. The die hard Labor supporters all believe that Latham can win, but I can't see it happening without some external influence assisting him. Latham has also made a few faux pas over recent months which haven't helped his image.

=(

I liked latham, any politician that feels it's ok to call the prime minister an arse licker is worth his weight in gold in my book. I don't think I have to but I'll post in my vote, it'll make me feel better.

Howard Dean on the subject.

LOL this cracks me up....

Ya'll know my stance on evolution, and that most of the "proofs" provided in science textbooks have been disproven scientifically, and that the age of the earth gets older my millions of years at a rate of 2.1 million years a year...

...and all these evidences are ignored, including by Mr. Dean.

oh, the irony....

Open minded people go to....

http://www.answersingenesis.org

And yet, the age of the earth doesn't change a bit for the creationists, no matter what scientific evidence is available.

Are you seriously trying to say that the fact that science recognizes and corrects its errors is a weakness?

Originally posted by OnyxCougar Hmmm.

If science itself is flawed then science can't be used to disprove it, no? That's having it both ways.

Sometimes I consider the irony of Bush's efforts to smash theocracies abroad while seemingly trying to build one at home. The big problem with the White House implementing Christian doctrine is that they have police power to back it up. Isn't that contrary to the notion of religious freedom? What if Bush were a Muslim? A Jew? A Scientologist? A zealous athiest? Nothing against any of those religions/belief systems but I don't want their rituals imposed upon me. When is it ok versus not ok? The founding fathers already put that question to bed.

I have two small children. I tell them that God created the world, them and Mommy and Daddy. When they get older, I will attempt to explain the method God employed to do so. I find no inconsistency between faith and science and struggle with the assertion that there is one. Science does not venture into the realm of faith. If faith had the discipline to do likewise (e.g., know its boundaries) , we'd all be a lot better off.

"The Bible—the ‘history book of the universe’—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the ‘evidence’ confirms the biblical account."

They can't be serious...

That my friend, is wishful thinking.:(

It's not surprising as much as disapointing.

Their point, I believe, is that they take themselves seriously.

Probably all too seriously.

A friend and I started a little discussion about that site and one of the points that came out was what about the parts that were lifted from other religions? Doesn't that make them just as valid, and true, as christianity?

One major problem with the Bush administration is their habit of appointing lobbyists to positions of authority. That's bad enough, but the lobbyists they appoint are the lobbyists for the industry/group that the position is supposed to regulate. Here's the latest example.

A lobbyist for "Safari Club International" in charge of the Fish and Wildlife Service.