smcwhtdtmc

I've had the car a few years and it's always run fine. I went over a bump yesterday and the engine died. I couldn't restart it, and there was no indication I had any electrical power either. I opened the hood and saw an electrical cable with red insulation near the battery. The cable wasn't attached to anything, and had what looked to be the remains of a broken connector on the end of it. Both the positive and negative battery cables were still connected properly to the battery terminals. Since the cable I found was red, I clamped it to the positive battery terminal and the car started fine.

I know basically nothing about cars, and very little about electrical systems, so if you have any insight on what was going on here and what the cable is, please explain it to me with that in mind.

Can anyone point out to me where in the Constitution it specifically forbids Bill Clinton from being elected Vice President? I'm asking for direct (word for word) citations from the Constitution, so don't bother with some vague reference to the 12th Amendment or the 22nd Amendment.

Keep in mind that being 'elected to the office of the President' is NOT the same thing as serving as President.

P.S. I'm not suggesting that he should be VP; I've just seen a lot of people saying that he couldn't be.

I've seen a couple questions on here recently that have asked about Bill Clinton's eligibility to serve as Vice President. Most of the answers say that he is ineligible to serve because of the 12th and 22nd Amenments to the Constitution.

My reading of the relevant amendments is:

12th: Bill Clinton would be ineligible to serve as Vice President if he were ineligible to serve as President.

22nd: Bill Clinton is ineligible to be elected President, since he's already been elected twice.

It seems to me that the 22nd Amendment doesn't make him ineligible to serve as President (only ineligible to be elected President) and therefore the 12th Amendment doesn't make him ineligible to serve as Vice President.

I'm not a lawyer or a legal scholar, so I thought I'd ask if anyone has a more informed opinion or information about exactly why Bill Clinton would be ineligible to be elected Vice President.

P.S. I don't think he should be Vice President, I just think it's an interesting question.

I've seen a couple questions on here recently that have asked about Bill Clinton's eligibility to serve as Vice President. Most of the answers say that he is ineligible to serve because of the 12th and 22nd Amenments to the Constitution.

My reading of the relevant amendments is:

12th: Bill Clinton would be ineligible to serve as Vice President if he were ineligible to serve as President.

22nd: Bill Clinton is ineligible to be elected President, since he's already been elected twice.

It seems to me that the 22nd Amendment doesn't make him ineligible to serve as President (only ineligible to be elected President) and therefore the 12th Amendment doesn't make him ineligible to serve as Vice President.

I'm not a lawyer or a legal scholar, so I thought I'd ask if anyone has a more informed opinion or information about exactly why Bill Clinton would be ineligible to be elected Vice President.

P.S. I don't think he should be Vice President, I just think it's an interesting question.

I've seen a couple questions on here recently that have asked about Bill Clinton's eligibility to serve as Vice President. Most of the answers say that he is ineligible to serve because of the 12th and 22nd Amenments to the Constitution.

My reading of the relevant amendments is:

12th: Bill Clinton would be ineligible to serve as Vice President if he were ineligible to serve as President.

22nd: Bill Clinton is ineligible to be elected President, since he's already been elected twice.

It seems to me that the 22nd Amendment doesn't make him ineligible to serve as President (only ineligible to be elected President) and therefore the 12th Amendment doesn't make him ineligible to serve as Vice President.

I'm not a lawyer or a legal scholar, so I thought I'd ask if anyone has a more informed opinion or information about exactly why Bill Clinton would be ineligible to be elected Vice President.

P.S. I don't think he should be Vice President, I just think it's an interesting question.

There have been a lot of evolution-related questions on here today (and every day). Many people seem to accept 'microevolution' (short-term evolution within a species) but not 'macroevolution' (speciation). Why do people accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for 'microevolution' but deny the overwhelming scientific evidence for 'macroevolution.' Is there a religious justification for this point of view?

Please keep in mind that both 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' have been observed continuously and repeatedly for more than a hundred years.

If you deny 'macroevolution,' what is your response to the following works?

de Vries (1905)

Digby (1912)

Owenby (1950)

Soltis and Soltis (1989)

Karpchenko (1927, 1928)

Clausen et al. (1945)

Frandsen (1943, 1947)

Rabe and Haufler (1992)

Butters (1941)

Butters and Tryon (1948)

Lokki and Saura (1980)

Vrijenhoek (1994)

Gottlieb (1973)

Pasterniani (1969)

Macnair and Christie (1983)

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971)

Thoday and Gibson (1962)

There have been a lot of evolution-related questions on here today (and every day). A lot of people seem to accept 'microevolution' (short-term evolution within a species) but not 'macroevolution' (speciation). Why do people accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for 'microevolution' but deny the overwhelming scientific evidence for 'macroevolution.' Is there a religious justification for this point of view?

Please keep in mind that both 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' have been observed continuously and repeatedly for more than a hundred years.

When somone is 'saved' what are they saved from?

If so, can Christians with different beliefs all get into Heaven, or will only a small subset (perhaps one denomination of Christianity) with the 'right' beliefs get there? If more than one denomination can get into Heaven, wouldn't it make sense to get rid of all the different denominations and get rid of the beliefs that aren't necessary for getting into Heaven?

For example, if Baptists believe that a child can only be baptised through immersion but Methodists believe immersion is not necessary, will only one of the two groups get into Heaven? If they can both get into Heaven, why bother with the two different forms of baptism?

...scientists finally do create new living creatures from nonliving organic molecules. At the rate scientific knowledge is accelerating, I'd offer even money that this will happen within 50 years. What will be the new argument that creationists fall back on when that happens?

People seem to be in the mood to make arguments against evolution today, so I thought I'd address some of these arguments and give anyone who wishes an opportunity to respond to what I say. Here are some things I've heard today and what I have to say in response:

1) Humans came from monkeys -- No one believes that a human child was born from a monkey mother. Current theory states that a population of primates slowly gained characteristics that made them differ from other populations of primates. After many generations and many slight changes in characteristics, the primates started to resemble modern humans. These changes are still taking place and the human population is still evolving.

2) People who believe in evolution believe that watches (or other mechanical devices) evolved -- Evolution only occurs in populations that reproduce and that have slight variations introduced upon reproduction. Since watches don't reproduce, they don't evolve.

I heard a completely unfounded rumor that he's a Muslim. Since all Muslim's are terrorists, Mike Huckabee is a terrorist. Do we really want a terrorist running our country?

I can't possibly be bothered to learn anything about the candidates, so should I vote for whoever my pastor tells me to vote for, or should I wait for Rush Limbaugh to tell me who to vote for?

People are prefacing sexist/racist comments with "I'm not a racist, but..." and "I'm not a sexist but...."

My opinion is that if you're making a decision solely based on someone's race, you're a racist. If you're making a decision solely based on someone's sex, you're a sexist.

If you're not voting for Obama because he's black, you're a racist. If you're not voting for Clinton because she's a woman, you're a sexist.

Who here is tired of debating irrelevancies and would like to see some actual open discussion about the issues?

Do people just ignore his beliefs? This guy doesn't even believe in evolution! How can so many people vote for a person who is so ignorant of science that he denies the occurrence of evolution even when there's just as much evidence for it as there is for gravity?

I recently asked a question about how someone as out-of-touch with the scientific community as Mike Huckabee is could get so many supporters. My example for his lack of scientific understanding was his statement that he doesn't believe in evolution.

Based on the anwers to that question, I'm realizing that there are a LOT of people who don't believe that evolution takes place despite the overwhelming evidence. I can only conclude that our nation's educational system is even worse than I thought it was. I'm going to have to make education one of my top issues in this election.

Does anyone know if any of the candidates has released a strong and effective plan for improving education in this country?

I've come to believe that the U.S. national political system is poorly designed to handle the kind of long-term political issues that need to be addressed soon.

Every elected government official has two strong forces pulling him or her. Elected officials want to seek reelection and they want to make the nation (and the world?) a better place. Unfortunately, these forces are often in opposition and the first one usually wins out. Changes that would immensely improve people's quality of life in the long-term (say 10, 20 or 50 years from now) often require slight downturns in people's quality of life in the short term. Because elected officials are constantly seeking reelection (or at least reelection for other members of their parties), they are forced to ignore any change that would cause a downturn in the quality of life in the short term.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Is the system really borken? How could it be changed to improve it?

I'm reading the story of the birth of Jesus, and just wondering about some details. In Matthew it says Jesus was born during Herod's reign, but in Luke it says he was born during the census of 6 AD, ten years after Herod died. Can anyone tell me which one is correct, and why the other is wrong?

So in the first chapter of Genesis, God creates man and woman at the same time, but in the second chapter, he creates Adam and then creates Eve. I'm not sure which to believe.

Can I expect more internal inconsistencies like this? How do people reconcile this?

A lot of people tell their children that one set of religious beliefs is true. Young children haven't developed the ability to reason rationally, and take what their parents say at face value. When the children grow up, they either continue to believe things that are obviously untrue, or they are forced to go through the painful (and often humiliating) process of learning the falsehood of their beliefs. It seems to me that subjecting a child to this kind of emotional trauma is abusive. I think the job of parents is to prepare children to function in society, not limit their ability to do so. Any thoughts on the subject?