Or the closest Batteries Plus....

"Hi. You appear to be performing a heart transplant. Can I help?"

A friend of mine has a pickup that can burn E85 and he tested mileage with different blends.

His conclusion was that although E85 was the cheapest per gallon, the most expensive blend was the cheapest per mile.

Hey, I live in Iowa and I take offense to the idea that it could possibly smell worse than Washington.

Reminds me of the lawyer joke (told to me by a lawyer). An angry man walks into a bar, slams his fist on the bar and says "All lawyers are assholes." Another man stands up and says "I resent that!" The first replies with "Why? Are you a lawyer?"

Response: "No, I'm an asshole."

Exactly what are "excessive taxes"?

That is a fair question and I agree with your point. What frosts my cake is when the left throws out their line that people need to pay their "fair share."

Both terms suffer from the same problem. They are sufficiently common that everybody has their own idea of what is meant without the speaker being taken to task for defining their terms.

Are you a moron?

SensitiveMale, that comment doesn't seem very sensitive of you.

No, I could not resist.

Neutral. Ok. I'll agree with that.
Thanks for the civil reply.

doctrine (from dictionary.com)
noun
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject

I purposely left off their examples, which are religious, although there is no reason that doctrine is inherently so.

Maybe I am not so bright, but I am not seeing a definition of the term "scientific doctrine" as anything more (or less) than "a body or system of teaching related to science."

I suspect you may be confusing "doctrine" with "dogma."

I disagree.
Midwestern / plains states, i.e. Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, Kansas, and some of the neighboring states. There are some pockets of Scandahovian, but for the most part are accent-free.

There was an interesting op-ed in the Washington Post by Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro ("Attack without UN approval illegal"). I read a re-post of it in Stars & Stripes (Digital Edition, Main Edition, August 30, page 12). I cannot find a direct link to the Post and S&S uses flash, so you will have to dig it out yourself. It is worth reading.

Yes. Exactly.
I lost my mod points yesterday, otherwise I would have used them here.

I had a history professor who referred to it as a "giant tossed salad."

Your first point implies that Nixon would have been perfectly legal in ordering the Watergate break-in, wiretapping, etc. As I recall, the final answer was that he didn't order, but did try to cover-up that it happened.

Your second point would also imply that the cover-up of which Nixon was a part, was not illegal.

I agree with you; kind of scary. Once started, where does it end?

Very well stated. I wish I had mod points now.

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."