Ever wondered who would win the American elections if the wh

[Anonymous]

posted on November 29th, 2008, 6:10 am

Last edited by Anonymous on November 29th, 2008, 6:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

I hope you're not serious about the mother, particularly with conservatives vociferating against Roe vs Wade.

I also hope you do not expect us to believe that a mother's income, when scrounging for the last dollar to put bread on her table, should be taxed just as heavily as the income of someone who is going to buy his 10th Porsche -- simply because she didnt use a condom or the condom broke... are you serious?! lol

Also, in regards to Donald Trump, he got out by using his clout on Wall Street to get the bank managers to give him more time, and was lucky that the economy turned his way due to the rise in NY's property prices.. i hope you arent equating financial savvy and shrewdness (rather jugglery and cunning to be more precise) with hard work!?

Also, since you did raise mutual funds, mutual funds are managed by the Fund manager. The investor does nothing. The Fund manager applies his intellect and aptitude to SPECULATE on the market and make a profit.. I hope you dont expect anyone to believe this is hard work!? Why would this nt qualify for extra tax.

Look at the bonuses the top execs pay themselves from company profit that should go to the stakeholder, and then claim tax breaks!! - while the middle level workers pay 50% as tax on their bonuses!!
How much of this tax break on bonus for the multimillionaire CEOs goes back into the economy as luxury expense and how much goes over to inflated offshore taxhaven bank accounts!?

In regards to your $100 for an MF -- when scrounging in this economy to make ends meet who's going to actually be able to set aside $100 to lose on a vacillating Stock/Futures market...  to the manor born with a silver spoon in their mouths....lol

So amid the ignoratio elenchi arguments where is the hard work issue you spoke of?

But on a broader note - even if u were working harder managing your 300k income, at the end of the day you with your 300k income have the buffer which can be out towards the upkeep of the state...where your social responsibility comes before your 10th Ferrari. So "hard work being penalized" although superficially dramatic, is hollow and lacking in any understanding of the harsh human reality of those who cant afford the high insurance rates and rising cost of living!

Joe the Plumber (who btw isnt even a plumber yet felt he had to lie to come to the fore) when already paying the standard 36%, claims paying 39% on his 300k income would stop his expansion plans  -- if you do the math it's 9K on an income that is generating SAVINGS of 300k after overheads---isnt arguing for any genuine or logical reason, he just doesnt want to pay the extra amount.
In effect such people arent claiming equality but rather want to reap luxuries from the breaks that the poorer strata need for sustenance... pathetic leaches on society!

Lastly, the very bailouts that are keeping the financial markets going --- the markets on which your so called hard-working mutual fund managers reap their profits --- are socialistic in nature.. In effect Capitalism is running on life-support accorded by socialistic policies...Ironic isnt it LOL


FYI - I NEVER espoused egalitarianism. Socialism has many different implementations and ramifications. The version I alluded to is a mixed economy where intrinsic free market principles are retained - not a system where everyone earns the same and spends the same, rather a system which is conducive to an egalitarian distribution of financial burden.  This means a system where a person first has his daily needs met such as food and medical care before having to fork over x% to build a road or pay lockheed martin for machines of death. So if after meeting your daily requirements you have nothing, and Rhaz has enough to buy a Porsche, then Rhaz has to pay for his government's plans... but you cant expect someone to go hungry so that u can drive a Porsche.... remember all wealth in an economy is cumulative on a macro scale...
Sad, but this is what happens when neo-cons want neo-empires.. you have to tax to maintain your bases the world over, and billions in defense contracts- not to mention tax breaks to corporations to appease the lobbyists which go towards their million dollar bonuses and end up in Cayman Island bank accounts. How then can you have enough to build roads and maintain basic public utilities.

If this is a system that "isnt that bad" then fork over your cash, and stop complaining when your Porsche is put off so that the other guy gets to use his share of the burden to buy dinner!

Get real please!

PS -- not singling u out rhaz... just used ur name since i am responding to ur earlier response to mine

posted on November 29th, 2008, 9:58 am

The version I alluded to is a mixed economy where intrinsic free market principles are retained.

I apologize for I assumed incorrectly that you were promoting an egalitarian socialist concept. I'm merely playing devil's advocate, I mean most people won't even pick up this debate, they're more concerned over other things. I am just stating I greatly value your intellect and ability to debate in this issue and really apologize if I Anger/irritate you personally, but I have a feeling you're above that haha.

Now to the main point.

Let's say I work overtime and punch in more hours every day as an Auto Worker. (I'm being selective here). And I'm making...45$ an hour. Okay? Let's say I pull a 52 hour week instead of a 40 hour week.

45 x 40 = 1800

(let's just put everything in my favour here and assume those extra 12 are overtime).

And yes I realize this will NOT likely be the case in the auto industry anytime soon.

45 x 40 = 1800
+
67.5 x 12 = 810
=
2610

This may seem like a really non important point.

Let's ignore all holidays for simplicity and say that both individuals work 52 weeks of the year.

That would be an income of 93 600 vs an income of 135 720.

I live in a nation closer to the socialist outlook than America (Canada). At least this is how I perceive it.

In my nation the individual making 93 600 would be charged 26% of that in Income Taxes
Conversely, the other individual making 135 720 would be charged 29%.

This leaves:

Income 1: 93600
Income Taxes 24366
Post Tax income: 69234

Income 2: 135 720
Income Taxes 39358.8
Post Tax Income: 96361.2

So, these two people could very well work the same job. However, Income 2 is suffering more of a loss on his/her wages simply because he/she works harder than the individual with 'Income 1'.

Infact, he/se deserves around than 42k more, yet ends up with approx 27k more?

I live in a fairly wealthy province. (Alberta) Infact this year we were just behind Qatar in per capita income. So I guess it is more of a local issue for me and I am somewhat biased when arguing over it in a global capacity because at least in America the only people getting tax breaks are the very top, while here in Canada it is very different. I don't think I fundamentally disagree with you.

[Dr. Lazarus]

posted on November 29th, 2008, 1:59 pm

Last edited by Dr. Lazarus on November 29th, 2008, 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

In principle Capitalism is the best wealth generator since people have an incentive to get educated, invest in capital etc, raising the productivity of the whole economy. It therefore should be the case that you get out of life what you put in. Also, by encouraging innovation, the capitalist system increases the size of the pie for all of us, thus increasing the amount of resources we have access to (in the long run - remember there was a fear in England several centuries ago that we would run out of trees).

In practice, however, a mixed economy is best since we don't all have the same opportunites. I wish it were the case that all of us would get what we deserve, but we can't all be born Einsteins or entrepeneurs, and sometimes we are just born in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is right that we try to redistribute the wealth in order to help those who are less fortunate. This is what socialism is after all, and it is a worthy cause.

I think though that it is important to remember that the wealth still has to be generated somewhere. If socialism goes too far, the incentive to be productive melts, as was illustrated in the communist USSR where workers just sat around doing nothing much, because there was no competition in the market and the entire relevant sector was state owned. Socialism is a band aid for an imperfect system which would be unfair without some redistribution, but it should not be a 50:50 balance. We should pursue the capitalist system, but slice off a relatively small amount of the created wealth for a trim and slim welfare system etc. (with due caution - just like the Soviet workers, welfare recipients can lose all incentive to work, if they are pampered enough).

So in general I agree with Serpicus, although I think the size of the state should be rather small. Taxation can bring enough revenues without hurting either the little guy or business productivity, but unfortunately the incompetents in the US government should have thought about this before the financial crisis began.

[Anonymous]

posted on November 30th, 2008, 12:11 am

Last edited by Anonymous on November 30th, 2008, 1:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

@Rhaz - yes in your case the one who put in more hours gets taxed more - but in the end, as i mentioned the core principle is burden and ability to bear the burden.
The incentive to earn more is still retained since the person axed extra still retains a higher amount. So there is really nothing to complain about.

I do not like the tax system, and personally do not believe that a government should tax its people. A government is responsible for running itself and maintaining the necessary infrastructure through using the nation's resources. The place where we end up facing a deficit is where lobbyist fatcats and private contractors and of course overseas military bases use up what should go towards running the state.

**shrugs**

Canada has a progressive tax system, but you cannot deny that under this system u have an NHS for all - not a pure capitalist system where the homeless and people below a certain income level are told to be "fit" (in any sense) or die. So although progressively your guy who worked more in the abstract example was taxed more, he still retained an overall higher income thus retaining the incentive to work harder and at the same time an equitable balance of burden was retained.
Also, this analogy applied where ppl earned about the same... yet did not tae into account the capitalist way of Average JohnDoe earning 25k a year and paying 36% tax, while Don Trump earns 100million+ and enjoys tax breaks!!

@@Laz -- one point i would like to add

Nice to see we agree. Capitalism is necessary for economic growth on a free market model. But left alone it results in the slammer we are in at the moment.
Intrinsically the idea of creating wealth from nothing such as the mandrake mechanism by which our fedreserve generates revenue is not only based on economic flimflam, but is a deprivation of economic rights to other economies and the other strata in the indigenous economy itself.
Think of it - the wealth of the world is fixed. All resources are constant as the overall matter on the planet is constant (the only exception being living reproducing organisms such as fsh and cattle and plants). The wealth we call wealth is nothing more than the value placed on such assets. When we attempt to create wealth from nothing claiming assets that we do not have, we end up muscling in on the value and share of other economies in those very same assets.
Surely if we stand as beneficiaries we would argue using the "so what" argument, but from a neutral perspective creating wealth through speculation in futures, interest, CFDs, etc is an artificial cornering of wealth and not "true creation".
When such bubbles are created by free flying capitalist style jugglery and speculation there is bound to be a correction as in the end these futures and CFDs all are grounded in real assets with real values and distribution across the planet. Such correction when it occurs hits the ones left holding the bag while those who sold early reaped their profit (what they call profit is ultimately the loss borne by the gu holding the bag), in effect leaving a redistribution of money  with very little actually "created".

This is why we see what we see today as a result of similar speculation and unrealistic expectations in subprime and realestate.

Mixed principles are grounded in reality. They may not create bubbles, but wont have any of the "burst" effects and lopsided concentration of wealth either.
In an economic sense growth is driven by production and consumption not one or the other. Attempts to concentrate either (which is ultimately the end result of pure capitalism with the upper 1%) results in economies which claim growth, but see that growth being enjoyed by the emerging oligarchy and not the general populous.
So mixed economies are realistic not for "small economies" but for all economies.. the fact that the US is today mixed and Obama's plan for relief is iself based on mixed principles shows quite clearly its relevance on a large scale, while proving that the capitalist romance novel doesnt apply to the harsh reality

posted on December 3rd, 2008, 9:51 pm

Dorn I voted for mic"cane" and sara failing

Go miccane

posted on December 3rd, 2008, 10:25 pm

u mean Skeletor and Evil Lyn.

posted on December 4th, 2008, 12:22 am

I nearly choked when Sarah Pale-Brain declared that fruit fly research (the bedrock of a century of genetics studies) was useless. And she was dead serious too. It's not the only example, and John McDrain-Brain was little better.

The republican populist, anti-elitist, anti-intellectualist message finally ran out of steam I guess. Although the worrying thing is that those two characters don't even realise how stupid they look, since they probably don't even know, for example, basic laws of arithmetic. The ignorant don't know they're ignorant, by definition. The populists who are lucky enough to be aware of their lack of knowledge attack science anyway. Well doggone-it!!! We can't have them scientist folk using them big words which we can't understand, can we?????

It will be a happy day when (if?) the world's most powerful nation wakes up to the reason they became powerful - science, innovation and the free exchange of goods and ideas.

[Anonymous]

posted on December 4th, 2008, 5:37 am

Last edited by Anonymous on December 4th, 2008, 6:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

the elections are over. let's give it a rest.

Palin has her point of view. People know what is in their sphere of interest. Yours is science. Hers is her ... well it's difficult with Palin... but everyone has their own realm of expertise. Frankly before you castigate her for not knowing gene theory what does Mr. Toaster Biden know. And what do you know about the latest judicial amendments to the current Corporate Governance policies of the US. Come on Laz.
People easily cling to pre-imbibed childhood brainwashing when determining their reality, and Palin is no different from you or me.

The fact that people think that free markets are still a viable economic policy even after seeing that the system is practically unfeasible - despite the government having accepted that for the past 50 years with the introduction of major and minor controls at various regulatory levels, with economists like Keynes also being cognizant of the same and maintaining that a purely free market in the long run leads to an uncontrollable economic spiral, with the great depression being one more example of free market economics falling apart, --is one such example of how people can't seem to overcome childhood and adolescent inculcation.

Although I would never support Palin due to the very nature of how she conducted the campaign using hate speech and completely scatterbrain analogies like "I know about foreign policy because I see Russia from across the bay", I would not be bothered about how much she knows about gene theory and fruit flies. After all what does Obama know or what did bill clinton know about Fruit flies. the only fruit he was bothered about was Monica's cherry

But I do agree with you - the ignorant do not know they are ignorant. In fact there isn't one as ignorant as he who sees ignorance in everyone but himself.
Kind of a caveat for us all dont u think

[Dr. Lazarus]

posted on December 4th, 2008, 12:09 pm

Last edited by Dr. Lazarus on December 4th, 2008, 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It's a good job, Serpicus, that I didn't in fact claim that everyone else is ignorant, just that a section of populist republicans are. Still, I disagree with your statement that seeing ignorance in all others would be a sign of personal ignorance. That's like saying that seeing everone else shooting guns must make me a fire arms enthusiast. Moreover, a knowledgable person detects ignorance in others far more easily.

If palin is not interested in science, then fine, but she shouldn't bash it until she's learned about it. Do you agree? Besides, I find it difficult to see science as a pigeonholed "interest", since science is the study of, well, everything. People may not find it interesting but it affects their lives directly, from healthcare to satellite television. Palin is the sort of anti-intellectualist who would bash science while shopping for the latest iPod, itself a product of centuries of research.

It's not her lack of knowledge about fruit fly research per se which is disgusting, it is her hypocrisy (she also claims to have an interest in medicine because of her children), and the fact that she seemed to be unaware of what the research involves. Before you attack something you should learn what it is. Is that not reasonable? Is it not reasonable to expect the future vice president to make informed decisions? In fact, I think it is not unreasonable to expect the leader of the most scientifically powerful nation to actually know a bit about science research, but since none of the others in the opposition do either (as you pointed out as if this negated my argument - I'm aware the others are equally ill-informed), it is a pipe dream.

[Anonymous]

posted on December 4th, 2008, 7:46 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on December 4th, 2008, 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

--""If palin is not interested in science, then fine, but she shouldn't bash it until she's learned about it. Do you agree? --Before you attack something you should learn what it is. Is that not reasonable? Is it not reasonable to expect the future vice president to make informed decisions?""
--

one would say the same about atheists and religion.

I agree with you completely - except the US isnt the most scientifically powerful nation.
We have the CERN reactor in Europe. F22 Raptors originating in Russia - refer 1998 modern marvels NGC, Medicinal breakthroughs in heart surgery pioneered in France, automotive engineering in Germany and Japan, stealth missiles developed in Russia, most of the gene theory you quote is pioneered in Europe in countries like Denmark and Sweden, and list goes on and on.
Yeah - the Us is the most militaristically sophisticated, but that's about it, and frankly to be proud of being able to commit genocide in one raid and maim civilians with cluster bombs while refusing to sign the treaty to ban such WMDs, whereas in the same breath claiming the right to bomb everyone else who does is nothing to be proud of... power is for the responsible.. not for people with a neo-Roman mindset..

Let's call a spade a spade, not elevate ourselves based on some purely nationalistic sentiment.
Patriotism is after all a virtue for the vicious... see what manifests in republicans like Newt Gingrich.

posted on December 4th, 2008, 8:25 pm

Actually I'm British  . I view the scientific power if the US as a historical artifact based on massive resources mobilised 50 years ago - it won't last, and European science is now more sophisticated, whether it's sychrotron light sources or unstable fighter jets stablised by an on board computer. So in the big picture, yes I see your point.

I also anticipated your first comment about atheists and religion. Note that I did not say Sarah Palin should know everything about the research, just to know what it is - the basic idea - and I think she should know how the scientific method works. To clarify, I myself oppose this argument:

"How can you dismiss all the world's religions when you haven't read the philisophical works of authors A, B, C, D, or studied for six months with Tibetan monks, or read the exquisite poetry of X, Y, Z."

I oppose this argument because it is ridiculous (i.e. I don't need to learn everything about pastafarianism to know that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist), but it is not the argument I made. Consider: to oppose religion, you still need to have some knowledge about it. You have to know its basic mode of operation, and you need to have been exposed to a few different types so you don't miss a new way of thinking, but you don't need to know everything, and in fact it is impossible to learn everything about anything.

Even a little exposure to different world religions is enough to detect the same tired old arguments. The apologists for the bible and the Koran use exactly the same arguments (and believe me, they do). I was even stopped by a Hindu monk the other day, and we debated evolution. He repeated the same Western arguments and suffice it to say, he did not fare well.

If there was a rat to smell, Palin would detect it by completing a 28 second google search about fruit flies. She does not need a PhD. All I was saying is that she should have made the effort to learn the basic applications of the research before she rubbished it.

[Anonymous]

posted on December 4th, 2008, 9:19 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on December 4th, 2008, 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"How can you dismiss all the world's religions when you haven't read the philisophical works of authors A, B, C, D, or studied for six months with Tibetan monks, or read the exquisite poetry of X, Y, Z."

---
not ridiculous actually. A good example of what i was referring to. You do not wish to read up on the information, so u declare it to be irrelevant, and because you then find it irrelevant, you find it a waste to bother to read about it.That's fair enough that you wish to pursue what is convenient and suited to your acceptability frameset.
However, when modern cro-magnons have no knowledge and understanding of the rich history of mankind (frankly since they were busy grappling with distinguishing between the fruits in their hands and the testicles between their legs, at a time where the rest of the world was developing true civilization), nor have any grasp of how or why aliens would be plausible as extraterrestrial but no divine would be extra-universal even though science (which again has been lifted from greco-roman legacy, which itself was a shadow of Sumerian, Egyptian, and Indian discovery) demonstrates extra-universal possibilities, to go one way or the other is rooted more in ubiquitous western prejudice, than any conclusive evidence that an extra-universal being that is omnipotent "does not exist" when "ET and "SETI" could....
at the end of the day we deem perception as the be all and end all - the very mentality that calls the world flat and pluto non-existent until 1920's telescope.

That kind of demonstrates what i said earlier.

So yeah - we do agree.

[Dr. Lazarus]

posted on December 4th, 2008, 9:39 pm

Last edited by Dr. Lazarus on December 4th, 2008, 9:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

But do you realise - even a scientist cannot possibly hope to read all the literature in his own field, so he has to learn how to distinguish the good from the mediocre from the fraudulent. It is possible, with experience, to judge whether something is nonesense by just dipping your toe in the water. This is the essence of what I was saying. If Sarah Palin was truly right about fruit fly research being a waste of time, she could find out by a superficial google search. So it is with my view of religion, although in fairness I do know a lot about religion, but this does not negate my point at all. This is quite a reasonable way of doing things and in fact it is the best way since we do not have an infinite amount of time.

There are very good reasons for the biases of the Western school of thought that date back thousands of years. The acceptance of aliens but not God is a crystal clear example of how to reason properly (remember that science is a way of doing things, not the knowledge which results). There is a distinct difference between accepting the possibility of aliens but not a divine superbeing. As you well know, I believe that superhuman things are possible but supernatural things are not. Essentially, to believe in anything supernatural is to stop thinking at that point - "we won't consider how the universe actually works, we'll just postulate an absurd infinite being, and then search for what we think is supporting evidence." This is the wrong way around. You could believe in anything that way. Many people do believe in all kinds as a result. As I've pointed out in the past, the extra-universal view (which science does not support, by the way, so long as the universe just means every observable thing) is a recipe for believing in anything you want (how convenient - this is not a coincidence, since it suits religious guys a lot).

There are 8 gluons permitted by the SU(3) colour group in physics. They are the only ones permitted to exist in the theory, and surprise surprise, this is backed up experimentally. According to your way of thinking, you could magically create any number of extra particles which do not and cannot exist, but since you view them as "extra-universal" you think that this is a means to silence my protests. It's absurd. Fortunately science makes observations, and then (and only then) decides what exists and what doesn't. This is my "Western bias" and I count myself lucky that my thinking processes are in pristine order.

[Anonymous]

posted on December 4th, 2008, 9:47 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on December 4th, 2008, 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

now you;re dabbling and quiveling to justify prejudice.
After all, if one were to be prejudiced and be justified since it is grounded in "fact". could we truly then castigate the papacy that tried Copernicus for claiming the world is round - when for their facts it was flat.

This is where an allegiance to understanding versus an allegiance to ego comes to the fore, and frankly arguing one way or the other is irrelevant. When we do not know what comes after death, all supposition is irrelevant. What it boils down to is intention.

A person who claims to be intellectual would not run the risk of an imprudence that would affect his eternal soul and simply claim atheism based on no or incomplete facts of the true nature of the universe.

But one driven by "enjoy now and think later" would.

So even there - arguing one way or the other is irrelevant. What is interesting is atheists lack the conviction needed to be a confident atheist and feel compelled to drudge up the topic of "how unrealistic theism is" simply to assuage their own subconscious awareness that in reality they genuinely do not know whether their point is true, and need to ratify themselves through polemics that attempt to prove rationale - which unfortunately when posed equally challenging questions as to the premise of such hypotheses and the lack of tangible facts to support them - that is equally a leap of faith in the words of a material "expert" as religion is to the words of a "spiritual expert"... same diff just a question of materialistic solipsism.

In the end we do agree more than you would like to admit


btw - u say superhuman is possible but supernatural is not - fine -- but what is supernatural in your context where that which exists outside the universe would be supernatural yet real ( as you clearly exemplified in your analogy of the limitations of science in explaining and grappling with what truly lies out there), and if the human form is natural , wouldnt superhuman like superman from krypton be just as supernatural as it is superhuman... can u truly quantify this supposed dichotomy... potayto potaato.

ahem - westerns schools of thought dating back thousands of years.. are you kidding. European Cro-Magnons were confused between testicles and blueberries when Sumeria was developing the prototype to the Pythagorean theorem. What western civilization and what thousand years?! Greek civilization extrapolated from the Myceneans. Socrates' philosophy and Atistotle's contributions are the only notable 500-300 BC originality in the western hemisphere. The rest is extrapolation on extrapolation of the same old greco-roman models.  And the Anglo-Saxons merely lifted that up since they were left with a remnant after the fall of rome.

Pristine western bias  lol -- I rest my case

posted on December 4th, 2008, 11:36 pm

Serpicus: Before we all get so hung up on carrying out a thoroughly stupid argument, let's not forget that the original irony of the Sarah Palin statement was that she said that "fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not" was useless... even thought THAT particular research was for determining the roots of autism as well as other genetic disorders. Thus, Serpicus, stating that "Palin has her point of view. People know what is in their sphere of interest", is completely beside the point as she was clearly uninformed. This has nothing to do about "sphere of interest", this has to do with complete ignorance about the topic she is trying to give a talk about. I trust that no analogy is necessary here.

And before you continue with these sort of high-chair like statements: "now you;re dabbling and quiveling to justify prejudice" just look at the sort of "generalized" scornful statements you've made about atheists, Europe, Roman "attitudes", and scientists etc. We get that you are "anti-west" for whatever reason you've made yourself believe, now leave it be (Shall I sum up your doctrine: "the monolithic west (whatever the hell that is anyway) is the root of all evil: it steals everyone else's ideas, never comes up with its own, is warmongering, terroristic, unevolved, and has been so since the dawn of time. Ever since the great deity pointed to 'the west' and yelled SATAN!"). Just cut the crap, please, and debate something that you want to hear alternative views about.

"...the papacy that tried Copernicus for claiming the world is round - when for their facts it was flat"
What facts are you talking about? The earth had been determined to be round by several different civilizations by then (the diameter and circumference had also been determined), however the Church continued this belief mostly because of a specific bible passage. That's a fact.

"We have the CERN reactor in Europe... F22 Raptors originating in Russia..." Arguing tech achievements is quite pointless on the basis of countries, and do I really need to explain why? For instance, ESA sends up some spacecraft built with NASA coop, which gets data, which is then NEVER SHARED. Same with Japan, China, Russia etc. NASA is the only spaceagency which openly shares most of its data, and that is most likely because it is more technologically advanced. To argue a countries merits based on the tech produced is just pointless, especially when you don't seem to know a lot of details behind where the advances come out of (by the way, where on earth did you come across that F22 orginated in Russia?; that "source" doesn't cut it. Also, I'm sure you just messed this up, but SETI is NOT an extra-terrestrial). Also, what's this dribble about cro-magnon? I just think you are trying way too hard to start a fight when it is absolutely not necessary Serpicus.