LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

Palin Has Not Pushed Creationism as Governor

Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 9:06:09 am PDT

One of the smears being circulated against Sarah Palin is that she is in favor of teaching creationism in public school science classes, but as I pointed out last week this simply isn’t true. Apparently, she has a rather confused attitude toward evolution (an attitude she shares with about 50% of the US population), but when asked explicitly whether she would support teaching the pseudo-science of “intelligent design,” her answer was “No.” And today even the Associated Press has to admit that Palin has not pushed creationism as governor.

And by the way, John McCain is also on the right side of this issue.

Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that if she were elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members.

At a GOP presidential debate in May 2007 in Simi Valley, Calif., McCain said he believed in evolution. “But,” he added, “I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also.”

Palin’s children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them.

Neither have Palin’s socially conservative personal views on issues like abortion and gay marriage been translated into policies during her 20 months as Alaska’s chief executive. It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans.

“She has basically ignored social issues, period,” said Gregg Erickson, an economist and columnist for the Alaska Budget Report.

UPDATE at 9/3/08 9:17:07 am:

On the other hand, another rising GOP star (who has signed a bill in Louisiana designed to sneak creationism into classrooms) has a much more problematic attitude: Questions for Bobby Jindal - The Convert.

Did you always want to be in politics? It was not something I anticipated doing. I always thought I’d go to medical school. I got accepted into medical school and did not end up going.

Where were you accepted? At Harvard.

Wow. Why would someone with so much knowledge of biology sign a bill allowing the biblical story of Creation to be taught in science class? I don’t think that schools should be run by bureaucrats. I think these decisions need to be made by local school boards. In terms of teaching my own kids at home, I do believe there is a Creator. Catholicism doesn’t teach authoritatively on evolution or the origins of life, but we do believe that God is our Creator.

There’s an interesting point here. The proponents of the Louisiana “academic freedom” stealth creationist bill have loudly insisted that it has nothing to do with the teaching of creationism—but when asked a direct question, Jindal doesn’t even deny it.

Advertisement

766 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 Lively  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:07:06am

When will the madness end?

2 laZardo  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:08:38am
At a GOP presidential debate in May 2007 in Simi Valley, Calif., McCain said he believed in evolution. “But,” he added, “I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also.

I still fail to see any sort of reconciliation between these two beliefs, but I am at least glad that neither Palin nor McCain will push for teaching "ID-ism" in schools.

3 coquimbojoe  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:08:38am

re: #1 Lively

When will the madness end?

Never, when there are liberals involved.

4 joncelli  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:08:48am

It's throw-up-the-mud-and-see-what-sticks time. Has there been a media feeding frenzy like this in recent memory?

5 StinkHammer  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:08:48am
...even the Associated Press has to admit that Palin has not pushed creationism as governor.

Bet they choked while doing it, too.

6 Nevergiveup  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:09:15am

re: #1 Lively

When will the madness end?

Nove 5 2008--maybe?

7 Occasional Reader  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:09:31am
Palin Has Not Pushed Creationism As Governor

Well, that's too bad, because it's the government's job to ensure that all schoolchildren know the correct religious truth.

KIDDING!

8 pbird  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:09:56am

This is the most fun I've had following politics ever...

Also, didn't Pres. Bush look great last night? He is still a happy man and will go back to Texas and be a happy guy with a life.

9 zombie  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:10:25am

OT:

I just got this following comment on my still-popular video from February showing Marine veterans arguing with a "hot-headed" liberal. I'm posting it here to show the deep deep racism that can be found on the left -- mind-boggling, in fact.

Neither I nor LGF endorses the sentiments of the following cited comment: it is only quoted here as a revolting example of left-wing racism. In the video, a light-skinned African-American veteran argues with a white liberal:

Look at the Halfrican Bush supporter, flashing gang signs at red head, jealous that Red has hair and his balding ass buzz cut gives him McSkin Cancer, but he is will to be camoflauged by his covert bandana, that blends in so well with the city streets? haha, Typical B2 supporter. Trained to kill, fresh from ghetto, plenty of war time pay to spend on cheap whores and crack once he gets back to his Hood. Good thing we all pay to train the Hood terrorists of the future....

My God, these moonbats are disgusting.

10 Vergeltung  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:10:37am

glad there's no issue here.

11 Vergeltung  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:11:18am

re: #8 pbird

This is the most fun I've had following politics ever...

Also, didn't Pres. Bush look great last night? He is still a happy man and will go back to Texas and be a happy guy with a life.

he's got a lovely, feminine, sexy, loving wife. what's not to like? :)

12 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:11:28am

re: #8 pbird

I agree - I disagree with the man on a couple of issues, but I am 1 of the 3 that still approve.

13 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:11:31am

re: #7 Occasional Reader

Well, that's too bad, because it's the government's job to ensure that all schoolchildren know the correct religious truth.

KIDDING!

In case Mandy isn't around;

WHACK!

14 Occasional Reader  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:11:33am

re: #6 Nevergiveup

Nove 5 2008--maybe?

You mean the day the Repubicans steal the election?

/get ready for it, that meme is all warmed up and in the starting blocks

15 rawmuse  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:11:46am

"a confusion that she shares with about %50 of the US population"

You know, I have to credit Charles with even getting me to ponder this issue, because until I started reading the threads and various posts, I really did not give a darn about any of it, and I had no idea that ID was being used as a wedge issue in public education. Our lives are so full of a million other things.

16 Maximu§  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:12:12am

The good news keeps pouring in, this is a good week for us.

17 coquimbojoe  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:12:12am

re: #7 Occasional Reader

Well, that's too bad, because it's the government's job to ensure that all schoolchildren know the correct religious truth.

KIDDING!

That one needed the 'KIDDING' in this room.

Teach faith in church/synagogue/mosque, teach science in school. Easy as that. If the two don't reconcile in your mind, deal with it at home.

18 lawhawk  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:12:23am

I think that a lot of people have a confused attitude towards evolution and creationism because it brings up questions of faith, religion and science and how to reconcile them. Still, it is good to see that she realizes that the question of creationism - a religious concept at its heart - has no place in the science classroom.

19 Ward Cleaver  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:12:37am
Neither have Palin’s socially conservative personal views on issues like abortion and gay marriage been translated into policies during her 20 months as Alaska’s chief executive. It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans.

Alaska is still kind of a "Wild West" type of place, so this doesn't surprise me.

20 Honorary Yooper  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:12:50am

As the great Lao Stinky said...

Belief in God does not preclude evolution, and
Evolution does not preclde belief in God.

They are compatible.

21 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:12:50am

OT

Pakistan PM Yousuf Gillani escapes assassination attempt

Yousuf Raza Gillani, the Pakistani Prime Minister, escaped an apparent assassination attempt today when shots were fired at his motorcade as it headed towards Islamabad airport to pick him up.

A spokesman for Mr Gillani, who heads the country's new coalition government, had said that he was in his armoured car at the time of the attack and two bullets had hit the windows of the vehicle, but it later emerged that the attack in the garrison town of Rawalpindi was premature.

"The Prime Minister and his staff were not in the car," said Kamal Shah, the Interior Secretary. "The Prime Minister had not yet landed from Lahore when the incident took place. The motorcade was on its way to the airport to receive him."

22 Eowyn2  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:12:52am

re: #2 laZardo

I still fail to see any sort of reconciliation between these two beliefs, but I am at least glad that neither Palin nor McCain will push for teaching "ID-ism" in schools.


you need to be in the mountains during a thunderstorm.

23 zombie  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:12:59am

The #1 reason that the left is attacking Palin furiously is that they have basically nothing to attack McCain on.

What a foolish, foolish strategy.

24 Alouette  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:13:00am

Thanks, Charles.

25 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:13:02am

re: #14 Occasional Reader

Nice. I hope it is true. I can live with the MSM and the libs calling me a thief. Better than being stolen from ;)

26 Vergeltung  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:13:25am

re: #15 rawmuse

"a confusion that she shares with about %50 of the US population"

You know, I have to credit Charles with even getting me to ponder this issue, because until I started reading the threads and various posts, I really did not give a darn about any of it, and I had no idea that ID was being used as a wedge issue in public education. Our lives are so full of a million other things.

indeed. I see it as a non-issue, except when some islamists start using whatever leeway they get from it to push some agenda-driven crap in the schools.

27 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:13:26am
28 Ward Cleaver  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:14:19am

re: #7 Occasional Reader

Well, that's too bad, because it's the government's job to ensure that all schoolchildren know the correct religious truth.

KIDDING!

The liberals aren't kidding, in that the "religious truth" is diversity and global warming.

29 Bobblehead  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:14:19am

Rush is speaking eloquently about the sexist attacks on Sarah.

30 rawmuse  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:14:34am

re: #19 Ward Cleaver

Alaska is still kind of a "Wild West" type of place, so this doesn't surprise me.

Yes, people are not trying to micro manage every minute of your day, every thing you buy, everything you put in your mouth. In fact, they leave you the hell alone, to figure it out for yourself.
Imagine that.

31 Vergeltung  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:14:35am

re: #23 zombie

The #1 reason that the left is attacking Palin furiously is that they have basically nothing to attack McCain on.
What a foolish, foolish strategy.

I think they are very scared, and in full panic mode! this rocks! :)

32 Ward Cleaver  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:14:53am

re: #23 zombie

The #1 reason that the left is attacking Palin furiously is that they have basically nothing to attack McCain on.

What a foolish, foolish strategy.

The left is scared shitless.

33 Eowyn2  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:14:55am

re: #23 zombie

The #1 reason that the left is attacking Palin furiously is that they have basically nothing to attack McCain on.

What a foolish, foolish strategy.

they have nothing substancial to attack Palin on either.

34 Padre  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:15:03am

What is the big deal with teaching, "Class, some people view the creation of the world as being the work of God, and believe such and such....?"

Why is presenting more than one side of the issue so bad? It is not religious indoctrination.

IT IS NOT INDOCTRINATION!

Are some afraid that evolution will NOT be taught? Am I missing the big point?

35 jcm  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:15:32am

But will she advocate teaching the Turtle Stack? Now that is the litmus test!
/

36 Vergeltung  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:15:41am

re: #30 rawmuse

Yes, people are not trying to micro manage every minute of your day, every thing you buy, everything you put in your mouth. In fact, they leave you the hell alone, to figure it out for yourself.
Imagine that.

that's the way America used to be, in a time long long gone.....

37 Land Shark  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:15:42am

It's good to see both McCain and Palin, while creationists like me, have followed a sensible course allowing science classrooms to remain free of theology. If we want our nation to continue to be leader in science, this is essential.

I'm so happy with the reaction to the nomination of this woman from both the conservatives and liberals. The conservatives are energized and enthusiastic. The liberals are having a fit and showing their true colors. Are you paying attention, Hillary supporters?

Go, Sarah, go!

38 Eowyn2  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:15:53am

re: #27 buzzsawmonkey

I think Doris Day might like that.

39 Irene NYC  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:15:55am

re: #27 buzzsawmonkey

That was brill!

40 littleoldlady  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:16:00am
Neither have Palin's socially conservative personal views on issues like abortion and gay marriage been translated into policies during her 20 months as Alaska's chief executive. It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans.

How revolutionary!

When is this neo-concept going to reach us in the lower 48?

41 jordank  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:16:09am

It's not creationism, but I think this can be posted under "pushing beliefs"......

[Link: www.time.com...]

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

Hey Palin, ever hear of the 1st amendment in this thing called the bill of rights?

42 jwb7605  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:16:13am

After some of the "improvements" made, I seem to be getting the following goofiness:

When attempting to post (after logging in, which is no longer "automatic", which is fine), I get "you need to be logged in" error message.

Above happens when (Log Out) is displayed above comment box, and "reply" "quote" links are visible.

Anybody else getting this behavior?
Charles hasn't "warned" me about anything, so I don't think that's an issue.

FireFox 3.0.1, lotsa "Tools" installed.
Java Plug-in 1.6.0_07
Using JRE version 1.6.0_07 Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM
(which is also an "issue", but different, probably unrelated ones)

43 zombie  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:16:44am

People, people, people:

The federal government, and especially the executive branch, DO NOT IN ANY WAY determine the content of school curriculum. That job is primarily a state-by-state issue, and in some areas a local school board issue.

Palin could believe we're all re-animated Raggedy Ann dolls, for all I care. Her personal beliefs will have zero effect on science teaching in this country, even if she succeeds to the presidency.

44 likesbrusselssprouts  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:16:48am

Does anyone know what time Sarah Palin is to speak tonight at RNC?

45 StinkHammer  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:16:59am

re: #23 zombie

The #1 reason that the left is attacking Palin furiously is that they have basically nothing to attack McCain on.

Frank J. at IMAO had a similar thought:

Have you heard Obama's new argument about how he has more experience than Palin (yes, he's running against Palin now because McCain's too hard)? He's run a presidential campaign. That gives him the experience to be president.

46 laZardo  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:17:24am

re: #9 zombie

Snickering at the "I Can't Afford An Actual Sign" guy in the background of the second part of the video.

47 Vergeltung  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:17:38am

re: #42 jwb7605

I am experiencing new difficulties with staying logged in as well. kinda funky.

48 simpleman  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:17:42am

Oh thank God! I was so worried about her stance on this issue, but now I know it's OK to vote for McCain. Thanks Charles!

49 Ward Cleaver  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:17:43am

re: #33 Eowyn2

they have nothing substancial to attack Palin on either.

Gee, she's a former union member, and her husband is a member of the United Steelworkers, which probably counts for something with rank-and-file union members, even if McCain/Palin doesn't get union endorsements. She's also fought pork, even from Republicans, so the Dems are running scared.

50 Nevergiveup  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:17:53am

re: #12 Celtic Templar

I agree - I disagree with the man on a couple of issues, but I am 1 of the 3 that still approve.

I think it is more than 1 in 3. If you catch me a bad day, as when The President or Condi say something nice about our good friends the Palestinians, I might say in fit of a long lost adolescent anger that I disapprove of him. But as the sun sets and I have had a cocktail to settle myself down, I know he loves this country of ours and I stand forthright behind him. My Country and my President- Right or Wrong!

51 vagabond trader  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:18:11am

re: #41 jordank

Whoa! You forgot to mention the state sanctioned book burnings.

sarc/

52 doppelganglander  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:18:15am

This week has been just the most repulsive display of vicious, elitist attempted character assassination I have ever seen. I cannot wait to watch Sarah's acceptance of the nomination tonight. She needs to hit the right note between gracious and tough as nails. I have no doubt she will perform magnificently.

53 jcm  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:18:22am

re: #34 Padre

What is the big deal with teaching, "Class, some people view the creation of the world as being the work of God, and believe such and such....?"

Why is presenting more than one side of the issue so bad? It is not religious indoctrination.

IT IS NOT INDOCTRINATION!

Are some afraid that evolution will NOT be taught? Am I missing the big point?

The "Teaching of Creation" in class opposed by the majority around here equates faith in God and the creation story with science. That is the issue.

The creation story if in public schools at all belongs in comparative religions not in a science class.

54 Russkilitlover  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:18:22am

re: #34 Padre

What is the big deal with teaching, "Class, some people view the creation of the world as being the work of God, and believe such and such....?"

Why is presenting more than one side of the issue so bad? It is not religious indoctrination.

IT IS NOT INDOCTRINATION!

Are some afraid that evolution will NOT be taught? Am I missing the big point?

Yes. You are missing the point. Faith is not science and does not belong in a science classroom. Period.

55 jwb7605  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:18:42am

re: #11 Vergeltung

he's got a lovely, feminine, sexy, loving wife. what's not to like? :)

What's up with all the supermarket checkout magazines that claim he's resumed drinking and he and Laura were divorcing soon?

You can usually see that in body language, but I did not get a whiff of it last night, from either GWB or Laura.

Of course, I never noticed it with Bill/Hillary either
/sarc

56 harrylook  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:18:53am

Yeah, but she's still a bad mom....

/MSM

57 yma o hyd  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:18:54am

re: #9 zombie

OT:

I just got this following comment on my still-popular video from February showing Marine veterans arguing with a "hot-headed" liberal. I'm posting it here to show the deep deep racism that can be found on the left -- mind-boggling, in fact.

Neither I nor LGF endorses the sentiments of the following cited comment: it is only quoted here as a revolting example of left-wing racism. In the video, a light-skinned African-American veteran argues with a white liberal:

My God, these moonbats are disgusting.


Disgusting is a far too polite expression for that vomit-inducing slime spewed forth by this denizen of the nether levels of hate-producing moonbattery.

58 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:19:05am

re: #34 Padre

It is religious indoctrination, but that should be the point. I want my children to learn about Creationism, ID, Evolution, Big Bang, whatever else and to listen to all points of view. I came to the conclusion that Evolution is true, but G-d created Evolution.

My real problem is that I'm being robbed to pay for a public school system that is broken. If I want my children to learn it, I'll teach them or I should have money to pay for someone to pay for it. If you think it is junk science, then teach your children and send them to a school that teaches them.

I don't believe in the doctrine - recognizing it as a weak attempt to put G-d back in the class room. I do feel what McCain stated about the grand canyon.

59 Spiny Norman  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:19:20am

re: #9 zombie

OT:

I just got this following comment on my still-popular video from February showing Marine veterans arguing with a "hot-headed" liberal. I'm posting it here to show the deep deep racism that can be found on the left -- mind-boggling, in fact.

(...) In the video, a light-skinned African-American veteran argues with a white liberal:

My God, these moonbats are disgusting.

I've never understood why liberals think their "correct" political views give them license to spew such bigotry. As if a Black, Hispanic or Asian conservative is a "race traitor" and fair game for whatever filth they can dream up. They are no different from the Nazi freaks at Stormfront.

60 Occasional Reader  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:19:27am

re: #55 jwb7605

What's up with all the supermarket checkout magazines that claim he's resumed drinking and he and Laura were divorcing soon?

Um... those magazines are trash?

61 kynna  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:19:41am

When they have no argument they lie. It's that the lie becomes their 'truth' that is really scary. It's like playing whack-a-mole.

My mom has a friend who truly believed Obama had been the governor of Illinois and Sarah Palin has only been the mayor of a small town. If my mom hadn't informed her otherwise, she would never have known the truth. Now somebody fed her that line of bull. I'm sure she doesn't go on the 'net and I doubt she spends a lot of time with news/cable news. Somebody out and out lied to her (probably in a fund-raising phone call) and off she goes.

It's despicable and shouldn't be surprising, but sometimes it just gets so overwhelming.

62 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:19:43am

re: #6 Nevergiveup

Nove 5 2008--maybe?

That is the day that MDS onset becomes serious. Maybe we could have a telethon to help find a cure.

63 rawmuse  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:20:04am

re: #52 doppelganglander

If this week has done anything, it has taught me that, when I thought the press corps could go no lower, I was wrong. There was a lot more low that they were holding back.

64 laZardo  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:20:07am

re: #22 Eowyn2

I am not anxious to win a Darwin Award, if that's what you were hinting at.

65 Typicalwhitey  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:20:32am

Steve Schmidt:

Rush is saying now that the MSM is requesting DNA TESTS to prove that Trig is Sarahs son.

I kid you not!

66 Nevergiveup  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:20:49am

re: #62 CyanSnowHawk

That is the day that MDS onset becomes serious. Maybe we could have a telethon to help find a cure.

Fuck em. Let them buy their own drugs, at least we know their good at that!

67 nikis-knight  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:20:59am

I'm more concerned with a candidates grasp of foreign policy, economics, history, Islam, etc., etc., than what she knows or believes about evolution. It may be a hot button topic here, but in an elected official it's probably issue no 101 for me, right or wrong.

68 Irene NYC  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:21:02am

re: #23 zombie

The #1 reason that the left is attacking Palin furiously is that they have basically nothing to attack McCain on.

What a foolish, foolish strategy.

I think it's much more than that. Palin is their arch enemy personified. If she is successful, she literally could rewrite American politics and challenge the leftwing stronghold on the msm, in universities, etc.

They literally see this as a fight for their survival, which is why they are attacking so viciously, and have decided to bet the house.

I hope they lose.

69 jwb7605  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:21:02am

re: #47 Vergeltung

I am experiencing new difficulties with staying logged in as well. kinda funky.

Seems related to length of time finishing a post. Like when I switch to a tab to retrieve a link, things like that.

Ajax timer issue?

70 jcm  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:21:19am

re: #64 laZardo

I am not anxious to win a Darwin Award, if that's what you were hinting at.

You'd pass up eternal fame and glory?
/ ;-P

71 Honorary Yooper  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:21:32am

re: #60 Occasional Reader

Um... those magazines are trash?

Aside from the ever-venerable Weekly World News, they are not fit for toilet paper.

/I want my Bat Boy stories back! :-)

72 StinkHammer  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:21:45am

re: #61 kynna

My mom has a friend who truly believed Obama had been the governor of Illinois and Sarah Palin has only been the mayor of a small town. If my mom hadn't informed her otherwise, she would never have known the truth.

Sadly, most people are uniformed.

73 yma o hyd  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:21:46am

re: #30 rawmuse

Yes, people are not trying to micro manage every minute of your day, every thing you buy, everything you put in your mouth. In fact, they leave you the hell alone, to figure it out for yourself.
Imagine that.

Gawd - why can't we import that attitude back to the UK ....!

74 doppelganglander  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:21:53am

Rush is saying that Steve Schmidt of the McCain campaign says the MSM is calling him demanding a paternity test of little Trig. Un-fucking-believable.

75 Dave the.....  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:21:54am

Some of the things the protesters in St Paul were planning:

Kidnap delegates
Take bags of marbles, then dump them under mounted police to make the horses fall.
Attack buses on the highways
Attack hotels were delegates are staying

And remember, Mpls and St Paul Democrats were supporting and aiding these people.

www.Twincities.com

WWW.startribune.com

76 Occasional Reader  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:21:55am

re: #63 rawmuse

If this week has done anything, it has taught me that, when I thought the press corps could go no lower, I was wrong. There was a lot more low that they were holding back.

"Breaking News: Could Bigfoot be the father of Bristol's baby? We report on the internet rumors that we do not necessarily endorse, but that you can't really disprove, either, can you? At least, not right at this moment, with the materials you have in front of you."

77 Vergeltung  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:22:03am

oh, I forgot to mention, I had a dream about Sarah Barracuda last night. I did, seriously. it was an informal political gathering for supporters and stuff. she was very personable and we really connected. I started the crowd in a big rowdy applause, thanking her for "doing so much for us"

I woke up feeling all wierd and stuff, like I really met her. it was cool!

78 jwb7605  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:22:11am

re: #60 Occasional Reader

Um... those magazines are trash?

Yeah, they got lucky with Edwards, though.
And you can read them for free waiting in line.
So, does the space alien still support and advise Bush?

79 Ward Cleaver  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:22:18am

re: #54 Russkilitlover

Yes. You are missing the point. Faith is not science and does not belong in a science classroom. Period.

I'm not opposed to ID being brought up in the classroom, if for no other reason to critique/shoot holes in it.

80 vagabond trader  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:22:21am

re: #71 Honorary Yooper

I really miss the old Midnite. I ripped her heart out and stomped on it was a classic.

81 laZardo  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:22:39am

re: #65 Typicalwhitey

I say let them have the test results. I'd love to see what happens when they get the proof that she really is his mother.

82 Lively  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:22:56am

re: #23 zombie

The #1 reason that the left is attacking Palin furiously is that they have basically nothing to attack McCain on.

What a foolish, foolish strategy.

Speaking of foolish strategy....I like the conversation Obama had re:Palin's executive experience (the VP Nominee!).

It went something like this: I have more! NO, I have more! I have more than her!

I'm thinking, lol, Democrats. Keep it up.

83 Ward Cleaver  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:23:04am

re: #75 Dave the.....

Some of the things the protesters in St Paul were planning:

Kidnap delegates
Take bags of marbles, then dump them under mounted police to make the horses fall.
Attack buses on the highways
Attack hotels were delegates are staying

And remember, Mpls and St Paul Democrats were supporting and aiding these people.

www.Twincities.com

WWW.startribune.com

MFers.

84 Bobblehead  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:23:12am

Rush said that McCain's media guy has been contacted by so-called A-list reporters are demanding paternity tests on Sarah's baby.

85 Typicalwhitey  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:23:15am

re: #81 laZardo

I say let them have the test results. I'd love to see what happens when they get the proof that she really is his mother.


Look this will piss of every woman in AMerica!
This is insane!

86 opnion  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:23:18am

It would not shock me if Olberman, or some other member of the deranged Left, breaks the story that Palin is a Voodoo Priestess.

87 Ward Cleaver  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:23:39am

re: #74 doppelganglander

Rush is saying that Steve Schmidt of the McCain campaign says the MSM is calling him demanding a paternity test of little Trig. Un-fucking-believable.

WTH?

88 Nevergiveup  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:23:43am

re: #74 doppelganglander

Rush is saying that Steve Schmidt of the McCain campaign says the MSM is calling him demanding a paternity test of little Trig. Un-fucking-believable.

Does the name John Edwards ring a bell?

89 zombie  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:23:43am

re: #41 jordank

It's not creationism, but I think this can be posted under "pushing beliefs"......

[Link: www.time.com...]

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

Hey Palin, ever hear of the 1st amendment in this thing called the bill of rights?

Local communities "ban" books from their public libraries that offend local sensibilites all the time.

At my local branch of the PUBLIC library there are 500 books praising the Black Panthers and Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam. And not ONE that criticises them. Why? Because those are the books the library staff ordered. Because that's the view they want the locals to have (or that they think they already have). There exists countless other books pointing out the bad side of those subjects that could have been ordered, but weren't, so they were essentially "banned" by the library. And no one complains.

Happens in every library in the country. You have to decide which books to order, and which to not order, which to keep, and which to discard.

90 Typicalwhitey  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:23:44am

re: #84 Bobblehead

Rush said that McCain's media guy has been contacted by so-called A-list reporters are demanding paternity tests on Sarah's baby.

I hope the media guy TELLS EVERYONE WHO THEY ARE>

91 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:23:54am

re: #21 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

OT

Pakistan PM Yousuf Gillani escapes assassination attempt

Premature assassination?

92 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:24:05am

re: #75 Dave the.....

Some of the things the protesters in St Paul were planning:

Kidnap delegates
Take bags of marbles, then dump them under mounted police to make the horses fall.
Attack buses on the highways
Attack hotels were delegates are staying

And remember, Mpls and St Paul Democrats were supporting and aiding these people.

www.Twincities.com

WWW.startribune.com

They have attacked buses. They've been dropping 20+ lbs bags of concrete from highway overpasses on them.

93 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:24:09am

re: #2 laZardo

I still fail to see any sort of reconciliation between these two beliefs, but I am at least glad that neither Palin nor McCain will push for teaching "ID-ism" in schools.

If you were a microbiologist you would.

As far as Bobby Jindal goes, maybe he just signed legislation that the people of the very strongly Catholic state of Louisiana want passed, as is his duty.

94 yma o hyd  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:24:21am

re: #43 zombie

People, people, people:

The federal government, and especially the executive branch, DO NOT IN ANY WAY determine the content of school curriculum. That job is primarily a state-by-state issue, and in some areas a local school board issue.

Palin could believe we're all re-animated Raggedy Ann dolls, for all I care. Her personal beliefs will have zero effect on science teaching in this country, even if she succeeds to the presidency.

Seems that not many people on the left know that - or, if they know, care to mention it ...

95 jordank  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:24:23am

re: #65 Typicalwhitey

Then she should just do it and get it over with, that way she can say "See? I am the mother!" Otherwise if they keep ignoring the requests it will make her look guilty and/or look like she is hiding something.

96 StinkHammer  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:24:34am

re: #68 Irene NYC

I think it's much more than that. Palin is their arch enemy personified. If she is successful, she literally could rewrite American politics and challenge the leftwing stronghold on the msm, in universities, etc.

All that may be true, but I also see a much simpler factor at work: they recognized how the Palin pick had energized the Republican base (and many undecided hangers-on) and knew she had to be destroyed as quickly as possible. Rough-and-tumble politics.

97 jcm  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:24:40am

re: #81 laZardo

I say let them have the test results. I'd love to see what happens when they get the proof that she really is his mother.

A Emily Litella moment.

98 jwb7605  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:24:43am

re: #90 Typicalwhitey

I hope the media guy TELLS EVERYONE WHO THEY ARE>

Disclose a source? How un-NYT that would be.

99 opnion  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:24:51am

re: #76 Occasional Reader

"Breaking News: Could Bigfoot be the father of Bristol's baby? We report on the internet rumors that we do not necessarily endorse, but that you can't really disprove, either, can you? At least, not right at this moment, with the materials you have in front of you."


No, no ,no! The whole family ar pod people.

100 doppelganglander  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:25:02am

re: #87 Ward Cleaver

Apparently, they now take their marching orders from Kos and Andrew Sullivan.

101 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:25:06am

re: #88 Nevergiveup

Does the name John Edwards ring a bell?

If Palin said John Edwards was the father, the MSM would never have looked into it.

102 Ward Cleaver  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:25:10am

re: #81 laZardo

I say let them have the test results. I'd love to see what happens when they get the proof that she really is his mother.

They'll scream cover up. They've got their story, and no facts will dissuade them from it. Campaign troofers.

103 jcm  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:25:46am

re: #84 Bobblehead

Rush said that McCain's media guy has been contacted by so-called A-list reporters are demanding paternity tests on Sarah's baby.

I demand a DNA test on Chelesa to prove Janet Reno is not her father.

104 vagabond trader  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:25:48am

re: #81 laZardo

Nah, let the barking moonbats howl on until they collapse. I certainly wish the Gov would come out tonite, make mention of the fact that she is for country and family first, then rip into Obiden.

105 laZardo  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:25:48am

re: #102 Ward Cleaver

They'll scream cover up. They've got their story, and no facts will dissuade them from it. Campaign troofers.

Point made.

106 Lively  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:26:00am

re: #81 laZardo

I say let them have the test results. I'd love to see what happens when they get the proof that she really is his mother.

Aren't there hospital records, doctors/nurses etc. who were at the delivery?

107 Typicalwhitey  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:26:08am

re: #95 jordank

Then she should just do it and get it over with, that way she can say "See? I am the mother!" Otherwise if they keep ignoring the requests it will make her look guilty and/or look like she is hiding something.


WHAT?
She should do it as soon as OBAMA does it!
GUILTY?
OF WHAT?

108 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:26:11am

re: #34 Padre

Am I missing the big point?

Yes Padre, you're missing the point.

109 Occasional Reader  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:26:13am

re: #81 laZardo

I say let them have the test results. I'd love to see what happens when they get the proof that she really is his mother.

No.

Screw that.

That would simply be allowing those weasels the satisfaction of destroying one more shred of privacy for this girl. And it would ramp up the whole "supermarket tabloid" bullshit story they're throwing out as a smokescreen. McCain and Palin should tell them to go fuck themselves. Pardon my language.

110 Spiny Norman  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:26:25am

re: #23 zombie

The #1 reason that the left is attacking Palin furiously is that they have basically nothing to attack McCain on.

What a foolish, foolish strategy.

It's the best way I can think of to piss off the independents and push them toward McCain. I'm actually surprised by their visceral reaction: they must really be afraid of Palin.

111 quickjustice  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:26:27am

When you stick a hog, he squeals. Right now, the left are squealing about Palin.

112 lawhawk  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:26:31am

re: #23 zombie

Not true. You can attack McCain over McCain Feingold, his stance on immigration, etc., but the problem is that Obama doesn't have a problem with those positions - the GOP base does.

You could attack McCain on his position regarding Iraq and Afghanistan, but it reveals just how thin Obama's resume and experience are.

113 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:26:43am

re: #61 kynna

When they have no argument they lie. It's that the lie becomes their 'truth' that is really scary. It's like playing whack-a-mole.

My mom has a friend who truly believed Obama had been the governor of Illinois and Sarah Palin has only been the mayor of a small town. If my mom hadn't informed her otherwise, she would never have known the truth. Now somebody fed her that line of bull. I'm sure she doesn't go on the 'net and I doubt she spends a lot of time with news/cable news. Somebody out and out lied to her (probably in a fund-raising phone call) and off she goes.

It's despicable and shouldn't be surprising, but sometimes it just gets so overwhelming.

I am so tempted to take a screen shot of Governor Sarah Palin's official government web page, print it up as posters and go paste them all over town. Or have it printed as postcards and mail them to everyone I know. Or take her official picture over the the US Postal service website and have it turned into stamps.

Sheesh!

114 Bobblehead  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:26:49am

re: #90 Typicalwhitey

I hope the media guy TELLS EVERYONE WHO THEY ARE>

I've decided that I will drop another couple of dollars into McCain's campaign every time I read or hear this horrible stuff.

115 nikis-knight  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:26:52am

re: #41 jordank

Hey Palin, ever hear of the 1st amendment in this thing called the bill of rights?

How does that apply to schools? Banning books aside, students in class do NOT have free speech, they need to shut up and listen, and speak respectfully, not say any old thing they feel like.

116 coquimbojoe  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:26:58am

re: #53 jcm

The "Teaching of Creation" in class opposed by the majority around here equates faith in God and the creation story with science. That is the issue.

The creation story if in public schools at all belongs in comparative religions not in a science class.

My concern is not so much that creationism is mentioned in school, its that a teacher religious biases will creep in. I am sure there are many who don't want me teaching creationism as put forth by my faith, and I know that I don't want my children being subjected to the faiths of others in the classroom. That my only beef with it. I will teach the faith at home.

117 jwb7605  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:26:58am

re: #106 Lively

Aren't there hospital records, doctors/nurses etc. who were at the delivery?

Yes.
It sickens me to know that even that was necessary.

118 itellu3times  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:27:15am

re: #84 Bobblehead

Rush said that McCain's media guy has been contacted by so-called A-list reporters are demanding paternity tests on Sarah's baby.

So much for the A-list.

Anyway, the A-list doesn't talk to Rush, do they?

119 Lively  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:27:21am

They taught creationism and evolution in the public school I went. Many moons ago.

120 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:27:25am

re: #41 jordank

Not quite banning, but nice try. IMHO banning means stopping the production of a book, not censoring it from a library. The FCC bans language deemed offensive on the radio airwaves. Is it illegal to censor public library content? Did she lead a campaign to destroy books and punish publishing houses?

Stop the Drama.

121 ConservativeAtheist  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:27:26am

re: #34 Padre

What is the big deal with teaching, "Class, some people view the creation of the world as being the work of God, and believe such and such....?"
blockquote>

Padre, if you want to do that in a Comparative Religion class, I'm all for it. It simply has no place in the Science class.

Let me ask you this. If you want something other than natural selection discussed in the Science class, which religion's creation myth would you prefer? Christian, Mayan, Classical Grecian, ...?

122 Nevergiveup  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:27:31am

re: #109 Occasional Reader

No.

Screw that.

That would simply be allowing those weasels the satisfaction of destroying one more shred of privacy for this girl. And it would ramp up the whole "supermarket tabloid" bullshit story they're throwing out as a smokescreen. McCain and Palin should tell them to go fuck themselves. Pardon my language.

No I will not pardon your language. That is exactly the langauge that is needed.

123 jcm  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:27:34am

re: #110 Spiny Norman

It's the best way I can think of to piss off the independents and push them toward McCain. I'm actually surprised by their visceral reaction: they must really be afraid of Palin.

What they see is the WH house in (R) hands for 16 years, and constructionist replacing the entire court.

Full blown melt down panic.

124 FreeIowa  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:27:36am

OT: Somebody bothered to read Google's EULA for Chrome. Google's new world order begins today :)
Google Chrome EULA Claims Ownership of Everything You Create Using Chrome, From Blog Posts to Emails

125 coquimbojoe  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:27:39am

re: #91 CyanSnowHawk

Premature assassination?

More of a case of assassination interuptus....

126 Eowyn2  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:27:45am

re: #41 jordank

It's not creationism, but I think this can be posted under "pushing beliefs"......

[Link: www.time.com...]

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

Hey Palin, ever hear of the 1st amendment in this thing called the bill of rights?


Libraries aren't the quaint book borrowing places they used to be. Libraries are more on the line of Blockbuster but with more books. There's the media section, the book section, the on-line section, the wifi section. There are some books that should be restricted by age. There should be access deniability to some web sites.
Did you get a list of the supposed books that Palin wanted to ban? Asking how to go about banning books (knowledge is needful) is not the same as actually banning the books.

I think it shows a definate action to the people. She had constituents who were trying to get a certain book(s) taken off the shelves of the Public Library. As such she asked for the methodology to go about it. If the Librarian would not give her the information, the librarian is not doing her job.

Tempest in a Tea Cup. The Librarian wont even speak to the press about it.

127 DeafDog  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:27:47am

re: #95 jordank

Then she should just do it and get it over with, that way she can say "See? I am the mother!" Otherwise if they keep ignoring the requests it will make her look guilty and/or look like she is hiding something.

....and then demand a paternity test on the Obama girls.

128 jordank  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:27:51am

re: #89 zombie

Having the mayor threaten to fire you if you don't ban some book because some fundamentalist complained about a book showing witches isn't exactly my idea of a free society. Sounds more like a story I would expect to hear in Saudi Arabia.

129 laZardo  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:27:51am

re: #109 Occasional Reader

No.

Screw that.

That would simply be allowing those weasels the satisfaction of destroying one more shred of privacy for this girl. And it would ramp up the whole "supermarket tabloid" bullshit story they're throwing out as a smokescreen. McCain and Palin should tell them to go fuck themselves. Pardon my language.

This is about Sarah and Trig, of course, not Bristol. Still, telling them to GTFO would only reinforce their suspicions...although then it'd be a case of "damned if you did, damned if you didn't."

130 WitchDoctor  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:28:02am

It would be nice if we could publish the list of what the bad creationists believe versus what the good creationists believe. Creationism in general is being blended into idiot territory without realizing what people really believe.

I , for one, and a Catholic creationist. I believe He created the Heaven and Earth. I believe He created the physical laws by which everything depends. If that includes evolution, so be it. However, I still think there is room for discussion on evolution at least to the extent of what we don't know. Obviously the body of evidence leans that way, so it needs to be taught, but argument is the best way to ferret out the details. And no, I don't think stating the earth was created in October 4005 BC (or whatever Lightfoot determined) is a real argument :)

I only wrote this because it just seems calling someone a creationist is like calling Ted Kennedy and Zel Miller liberals. That's a pretty wide gap.

131 jwb7605  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:28:33am

re: #119 Lively

They taught creationism and evolution in the public school I went. Many moons ago.

And dead dinosaurs piled up underground was how oil was possible.

That was a lot of dinosaurs, at current consumption levels.

132 doppelganglander  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:28:33am

re: #95 jordank

Then she should just do it and get it over with, that way she can say "See? I am the mother!" Otherwise if they keep ignoring the requests it will make her look guilty and/or look like she is hiding something.

Which is exactly what the MSM is trying to do. It's about time decent people stood up and said enough, and I think Sarah is the one to do it.

133 vagabond trader  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:28:33am

re: #95 jordank

Bullshit. She owes them nothing of the sort. What's the matter, your guy afraid to dialogue on the real issues? That's rhetorical, we know the answer.

134 coquimbojoe  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:28:45am

re: #123 jcm

What they see is the WH house in (R) hands for 16 years, and constructionist replacing the entire court.

Full blown melt down panic.

16 years? Why such a pessimist? If McCain gets 8, maybe Palin could get 8 more...

135 Eowyn2  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:28:53am

re: #43 zombie

People, people, people:

The federal government, and especially the executive branch, DO NOT IN ANY WAY determine the content of school curriculum. That job is primarily a state-by-state issue, and in some areas a local school board issue.

Palin could believe we're all re-animated Raggedy Ann dolls, for all I care. Her personal beliefs will have zero effect on science teaching in this country, even if she succeeds to the presidency.


Nturally that would make me rethink voting for her.

136 A.W.  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:28:57am

Okay, there is one weird thing there. She is talking about catholicism, but my understandign was she was not catholic. i remember hearing very specifically she will help with catholics, because even though she was not catholic she is anti-abortion, etc. Am i wrong, was my source wrong, or what?

137 quickjustice  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:29:03am

re: #81 laZardo

No. Demand that Barack and Michelle Obama, Joe Biden and his bride, and every Democrat Member of Congress submit to paternity tests for all their children, legitimate and illegitimate.

And when we have all those results in, we'll consider their request. ;-)

138 FrogMarch  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:29:22am

Still prefer Jindal to Blanco.

139 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:29:35am

re: #43 zombie

DOn't give US magazine any ideas ;)

140 experiencedtraveller  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:30:19am

re: #136 A.W.

Palin's anti-abortion stance will help with catholic voters.

141 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:30:29am

re: #110 Spiny Norman

It's the best way I can think of to piss off the independents and push them toward McCain. I'm actually surprised by their visceral reaction: they must really be afraid of Palin.

What I find amusing is everything they can think of to attack Palin with, you can hit Obama with even harder.

142 laZardo  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:30:39am

re: #130 WitchDoctor

My stance is that evolution directly contradicts and disproves scriptural stories of creation and thus undermines the faith upon which these stories provide part of the foundation.

That does NOT however mean that the known history of the universe automatically disproves the existence of a "Supreme Being." Still, I will neither accept or reject said Being's existence until the jury returns...and that probably won't be in my lifetime.

143 quickjustice  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:31:02am

re: #136 A.W.

IIRC, Palin was raised Catholic, but later changed to Assembly of G-d. So what?

144 jwb7605  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:31:31am

re: #134 coquimbojoe

16 years? Why such a pessimist? If McCain gets 8, maybe Palin could get 8 more...

If McCain gets 4 and retires honorably, and Palin took over for only another 4, the election after that would promise to actually stick to the issues.

145 jcm  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:31:40am

re: #116 coquimbojoe

My concern is not so much that creationism is mentioned in school, its that a teacher religious biases will creep in. I am sure there are many who don't want me teaching creationism as put forth by my faith, and I know that I don't want my children being subjected to the faiths of others in the classroom. That my only beef with it. I will teach the faith at home.

That's why I say IF and a comparative religions class (which rarely happen k-12). I can see representatives of religions that are in a school district have an hour presentation.

But other than that religion is too dicey a subject for public schools. My other worry is that a faith based schools would give short shrift to science. Science that's needed to survive in a modern world.

146 StinkHammer  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:31:41am

re: #126 Eowyn2

Libraries aren't the quaint book borrowing places they used to be. Libraries are more on the line of Blockbuster but with more books.

They also tend to be Leftist in orientation, on the whole.

147 littleoldlady  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:31:49am

I am slightly comforted by the fact that whoever wins the election in November the media is screwed either way.

If Obama wins, it won't take the American people long to figure out that they've been sold a pig in a poke by their friends at MSNBC, et al.

If McCain wins the election it will prove that the media does not have the power it thought it had, or would have liked to have, to influence the public.

/invest in LGF! :-)

148 Occasional Reader  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:31:52am

re: #129 laZardo

This is about Sarah and Trig, of course, not Bristol. Still, telling them to GTFO would only reinforce their suspicions...although then it'd be a case of "damned if you did, damned if you didn't."

Yes, you're right, about Sarah and Trig. Still, my "tell them to go fuck themselves" point stands. Hey, how about we demand paternity tests for Obama's kids, too? I mean, why the hell not, right? And what else... oh I dunno, we should demand DNA tests to prove definitively that Michelle is not a transsexual... and for that matter, neither is Obama... hmm, anything else? That's the way this works, right? We get to make up insane rumors, and then the candidates are required to jump through the hoops we stipulate, in order to disprove them?

149 Peacekeeper  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:31:54am

re: #142 laZardo

That does NOT however mean that the known history of the universe automatically disproves the existence of a "Supreme Being." Still, I will neither accept or reject said Being's existence until the jury returns...and that probably won't be in my lifetime.

the good news is that you will have a definitive answer at the end of your lifetime. One thing you can look forward to.

150 FrogMarch  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:31:55am

re: #9 zombie

OT:

I just got this following comment on my still-popular video from February showing Marine veterans arguing with a "hot-headed" liberal. I'm posting it here to show the deep deep racism that can be found on the left -- mind-boggling, in fact.

Neither I nor LGF endorses the sentiments of the following cited comment: it is only quoted here as a revolting example of left-wing racism. In the video, a light-skinned African-American veteran argues with a white liberal:

My God, these moonbats are disgusting.

Progressive. The future of this nation. *shudder*

152 jordank  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:32:03am

re: #136 A.W.

Okay, there is one weird thing there. She is talking about catholicism, but my understandign was she was not catholic. i remember hearing very specifically she will help with catholics, because even though she was not catholic she is anti-abortion, etc. Am i wrong, was my source wrong, or what?

No shes not Catholic, I don't know why so many people are saying she is, she belongs to some assemblies of God type of church.

153 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:32:06am

re: #65 Typicalwhitey

Steve Schmidt:

Rush is saying now that the MSM is requesting DNA TESTS to prove that Trig is Sarahs son.

I kid you not!

This came out in the loons blogs a couple of days ago. The MSM can piss up a rope. They have no right to see the DNA tests that were performed on her youngest son and whether or not Sarah Palin is the biological mother is completely inconsequential to the election.re: #81 laZardo

I say let them have the test results. I'd love to see what happens when they get the proof that she really is his mother.

In a pig's eye! Not until every single man in the friggin Congress turn over DNA results for every child that he is alleged to have fathered. Not until Obama turns over his entire medical records and DNA results for his own two daughters.

DNA results of a candidates children have no bearing on politics.

154 Irene NYC  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:32:18am

re: #96 StinkHammer

All that may be true, but I also see a much simpler factor at work: they recognized how the Palin pick had energized the Republican base (and many undecided hangers-on) and knew she had to be destroyed as quickly as possible. Rough-and-tumble politics.

I don't agree. The msm is throwing whatever credibility it has left out the window forever. They know they are ruined if she wins. Palin will have exposed them as being nothing but partisan hacks who can not be trusted anymore.

Our founding fathers wrote a bill of rights granting freedom of the press to help the citizenry run government. Most people instinctively know that the more serious news organizations are supposed to inform them about the important issues of the day. We all know that the NYT, LAT, etc. have been lying for years now. Well, the rest of American is getting to see firsthand what they've been up to and unless Obama wins and continues to cover for them, this is their death knell.

At least, that's how I see it.
;)

155 Bobblehead  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:32:37am

re: #137 quickjustice

No. Demand that Barack and Michelle Obama, Joe Biden and his bride, and every Democrat Member of Congress submit to paternity tests for all their children, legitimate and illegitimate.

And when we have all those results in, we'll consider their request. ;-)

The media creeps are not going to let go of the meme that Gov. Palin is not the child's mother.

156 Lively  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:32:56am

re: #149 Peacekeeper

the good news is that you will have a definitive answer at the end of your lifetime. One thing you can look forward to.

lol

157 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:33:05am

re: #153 galloping granny

In a pig's eye! Not until every single man in the friggin Congress turn over DNA results for every child that he is alleged to have fathered. Not until Obama turns over his entire medical records and DNA results for his own two daughters.

DNA results of a candidates children have no bearing on politics.

Before we get to Trig's paternity "question", I want the MSM to get these answers (reposting my list):

When did Obama stop snorting cocaine?

Has he snorted cocaine in his home when his daughters were present?

Has he had his drug dealer over to his home when THE CHILDREN were there?

Did they snort cocaine together with William Ayers?

Has Obama stopped associating with terrorists?

Is he planning to bomb Pakistan because Pakistan supported the U.S. mission to remove the Taliban?

Is that his idea of payback for insulting Muslims?

158 runrabbitrun  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:33:21am

re: #78 jwb7605

Yeah, they got lucky with Edwards, though.
And you can read them for free waiting in line.
So, does the space alien still support and advise Bush?

AFAIR, this was the best tabloid line I ever read at a checkout line, courtesy of the late lamented Weekly World News ::removes hat for the tragic loss of Bat Boy::

'Hillary Clinton dating Space Alien (with photo of the happy couple)! Bill is SHOCKED! "I Thought She Was a Lesbian", he says"

159 jaunte  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:33:22am

That Time mag piece on Palin is a hatchet job.
"...according to some [rivals] who were involved in that fight, Palin was a highly polarizing political figure..."

According to some readers, Nathan Thornburgh is not a journalist, but a partisan hack grasping at poorly documented straws.

160 Intrepid  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:33:32am

re: #95 jordank

I won't dignify your post by actually quoting it. But since the lefties are into equality, then Barack Obama and Joe Biden should have to do a paternity test and put them into the mix.

There is just no end to the depths of depravity the left is panting to go to.

How does it feel to be their waterboy/watergirl?

161 Outrider  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:33:39am

re: #4 joncelli

It's throw-up-the-mud-and-see-what-sticks time. Has there been a media feeding frenzy like this in recent memory?

President Nixon in the early 70s?

163 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:34:11am

re: #154 Irene NYC

I think both of you are correct.

164 vagabond trader  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:34:22am

re: #160 Intrepid

Nice avatar.

165 experiencedtraveller  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:34:32am

re: #148 Occasional Reader

We get to make up insane rumors, and then the candidates are required to jump through the hoops we stipulate, in order to disprove them?

Apparently...

166 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:34:38am

re: #116 coquimbojoe

My concern is not so much that creationism is mentioned in school, its that a teacher religious biases will creep in. I am sure there are many who don't want me teaching creationism as put forth by my faith, and I know that I don't want my children being subjected to the faiths of others in the classroom. That my only beef with it. I will teach the faith at home.

Well you know, I would really rather that English teachers not teach English, because their personal biases, religious and otherwise, definitely do creep in to the literature they teach and the way in which they teach it. Exactly the same can be said for social studies, history and environmentalism. Oh, and BTW - evolution.

If you cannot deal with that and want your children to see only your own views, then homeschool them and use a curriculum specific to your own beliefs.

167 Cap'n DOC  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:34:49am
Catholicism doesn’t teach authoritatively on evolution or the origins of life, but we do believe that God is our Creator.

There's something wrong with that?

168 jwb7605  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:35:02am

re: #149 Peacekeeper

the good news is that you will have a definitive answer at the end of your lifetime. One thing you can look forward to.

Why do both atheists and non-athiests consider suicide a "last resort"?

A: Healthy doubt. Cuts both ways.

169 Dave the.....  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:35:19am
That Time mag piece on Palin is a hatchet job.
"...according to some [rivals] who were involved in that fight, Palin was a highly polarizing political figure..."

Well, yet she was. That's because she went into the good old boys corrupt offices and cleaned them up.

Elliott Ness was a polarizing figure.

170 alegrias  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:35:23am

re: #68 Irene NYC

I think it's much more than that. Palin is their arch enemy personified. If she is successful, she literally could rewrite American politics and challenge the leftwing stronghold on the msm, in universities, etc.

They literally see this as a fight for their survival, which is why they are attacking so viciously, and have decided to bet the house.

I hope they lose.

* * *

In less than a week, democrats have become the Taliban, wanting to put a burqa on Sarah Palin AND her daughter.

Democrats have exposed themselves as Victorian hypocrites willing to stone a woman who dared to be different or to THINK differently.

Sarah Palin didn't marry or inherit her way into politics unlike democrats' favorite women politicians.

171 Intrepid  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:35:26am

re: #128 jordank

Yes, and since the librarian lady who supposedly made the remark cannot be found for confirmation, you libs will just eat this up with a spoon and call for more!

Keep on that road, jordank, and the loss in November for ya'll will be by double digits.

172 doppelganglander  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:35:31am

re: #128 jordank

Having the mayor threaten to fire you if you don't ban some book because some fundamentalist complained about a book showing witches isn't exactly my idea of a free society. Sounds more like a story I would expect to hear in Saudi Arabia.

There's a massive difference between a mayor inquiring about the process to ban a book and actually banning a book. Based on your post, it seems a citizen, or several citizens, made a complaint. It's the mayor's duty to investigate the complaint and find out whether she can do anything about it. Citizens challenge books in the public and school libraries all the time. Most often they lose. For example, in Gwinnett County, Georgia last year, a mom complained about the Harry Potter books. After multiple hearings -- i.e., due process -- her request was denied.

As for the validity of your link, it only goes to the main page of Time, not an article. Your quote, wherever it's from, points out they couldn't verify the incident as the librarian was unavailable. News reports of the time may have claimed Palin tried to fire the librarian, but I'll bet the librarian was the source of that accusation.

173 StinkHammer  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:35:51am

re: #154 Irene NYC

The msm is throwing whatever credibility it has left out the window forever. They know they are ruined if she wins.

Interesting, but I don't see how Palin's winning the VP spot will ruin the major media.

174 nikis-knight  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:36:22am

re: #142 laZardo

My stance is that evolution directly contradicts and disproves scriptural stories of creation and thus undermines the faith upon which these stories provide part of the foundation.

And I'm just glad that you aren't in a position to teach those religious views in a public school.

175 Nevergiveup  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:36:29am

re: #148 Occasional Reader

I think any time anyone again brings up anything to do with Sarah's kids, the standard answer should simply be "Fuck You". And when they look startled and reply -say again- we reply "Fuck You". Even those morons should finally get the point. So remember it's not just so no, it's just say "Fuck You".

176 zombie  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:36:29am

re: #128 jordank

Having the mayor threaten to fire you if you don't ban some book because some fundamentalist complained about a book showing witches isn't exactly my idea of a free society. Sounds more like a story I would expect to hear in Saudi Arabia.

Where is the evidence to back up either of the highlighted words? The article said she wanted some books with offensive language removed from children's access.

I know a great deal about how the far-far-left has taken over the library unions and how they use this power in an attempt to indoctrinate children. The take great delight in ordering books that promote leftist doctrine, and they also love ordering "racy" books to push the envelope.

If a local community doesn't want their teens or pre-teens reading books that contain swear words, they have the absolute right to request to have such books removed from the shelves of the public library. They are, after all, paying for that library. Some non-elected librarian does not have dictatorial rights to determine the reading habits of an entire community.

The voters of the city, through their elected representative (the mayor), can say what they do and do not want in their own library. This happens (usually invisibly) in every city in the country.

It has long been assumed that librarians were neutral, beneficent, and in concord with the sentiment of the local community, but that isn't always the case.

177 Cap'n DOC  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:36:30am

re: #95 jordank

You are disgusting.

178 lifeofthemind  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:36:32am

Rush is good. BTW does Rush know Sally Quinn has a genetically damaged child? Why is she daring to do anything out of the house?

179 Spiny Norman  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:36:42am

re: #112 lawhawk

Not true. You can attack McCain over McCain Feingold, his stance on immigration, etc., but the problem is that Obama doesn't have a problem with those positions - the GOP base does.

Criticising McCain on those issues would never even occur to the Media drones, either, because they are also in complete agreement with him.

180 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:36:45am
181 laZardo  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:36:45am

re: #148 Occasional Reader

Point. But I don't think we should sink to their level. I think Sarah should give certified results as proof then declare the matter finished throughout the campaign, and if the rumormongers want to scream cover-up, well, the "campaign twoofers" will be the ones looking ridiculous afterwards.

182 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:36:46am

re: #152 jordank

No shes not Catholic, I don't know why so many people are saying she is, she belongs to some assemblies of God type of church.

Actually, she IS Catholic according to Catholic doctrine. She was born Catholic. Whatever church she happens to attend these days. Three of them BTW - one at home, one in Juneau and a third in Anchorage.

183 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:36:48am

re: #167 Cap'n DOC

Catholic High School in Philadelphia teaches evolution theory and not creationism. Theology classes teach Genesis, though and there are many open discussions that challenge both Genesis and evolution.

184 Intrepid  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:36:52am

re: #164 vagabond trader

Nice avatar.

Great ship!

185 DeafDog  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:37:33am

re: #137 quickjustice

No. Demand that Barack and Michelle Obama, Joe Biden and his bride, and every Democrat Member of Congress submit to paternity tests for all their children, legitimate and illegitimate.

And when we have all those results in, we'll consider their request. ;-)

And let's clear up those "Chelsea Clinton was sired by Webb Hubbell" rumors while we are at it!

186 Fat Jolly Penguin  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:37:43am

re: #173 StinkHammer

Interesting, but I don't see how Palin's winning the VP spot will ruin the major media.

See littleoldlady's #147.

187 vapig  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:38:04am

re: #109 Occasional Reader

No.

Screw that.

That would simply be allowing those weasels the satisfaction of destroying one more shred of privacy for this girl. And it would ramp up the whole "supermarket tabloid" bullshit story they're throwing out as a smokescreen. McCain and Palin should tell them to go fuck themselves. Pardon my language.

I concur. I'm tired of these people believing that anything private is their right to air and view.

188 SixDegrees  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:38:05am

re: #4 joncelli

It's throw-up-the-mud-and-see-what-sticks time. Has there been a media feeding frenzy like this in recent memory?

Nope. And the GOP should be loving every minute of it, if they're smart. The whole nation's attention is now focused on Palin's upcoming speech this evening, with BOTH sides perched on the edge of their seats waiting to see what she has to say.

Meanwhile, the middle - which is what the election is all about, folks - is utterly disgusted by the Left's ongoing, juvenile temper tantrum. The GOP may or may not benefit from all the attention, but there is no doubt at all that the Democrats are losing because of it.

Whoever decided to pick Palin is a genius.

189 vagabond trader  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:38:07am

re: #184 Intrepid

Is she back in NYC?

190 laZardo  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:38:39am

re: #149 Peacekeeper

To be honest, I don't think it'd really matter either way. I definitely know the body will die and rot, and unless I achieve historical prominence, I'll eventually be completely forgotten.

191 Honorary Yooper  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:38:49am

re: #185 DeafDog

And let's clear up those "Chelsea Clinton was sired by Webb Hubbell" rumors while we are at it!

You mean it wasn't Vince Foster?

192 Nevergiveup  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:38:50am

re: #189 vagabond trader

Is she back in NYC?

no

193 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:38:56am

re: #161 Outrider

President Nixon in the early 70s?

Close, but even the Nixon frenzy was not this bad.

194 looking closely  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:39:14am

I didn't know Jindal was accepted to Harvard Med.

If Jindal wants to invoke Creationism in the setting of the Catholic church, he should at least know that the Pope says that a belief in evolution is A-OK.

195 Kenneth  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:39:18am

re: #123 jcm

What they see is the WH house in (R) hands for 16 years, and constructionist replacing the entire court.

Full blown melt down panic.

Perhaps the Democrats have suddenly realized the huge strategic blunder they have made. They have gambled everything on this inexperienced speech reader. If they had gone with Clinton/Obama '08, they would have won the White House in a land side, followed by Clinton/Obama '12, & then Obama/Whoever '16 & Obama/Whoever '12. Instead, they could be looking at being shut out for at least the next 12 years.

196 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:39:22am

re: #125 coquimbojoe

More of a case of assassination interuptus....

They shot at the motorcade before the motorcade had picked up the Prime Minister. I'd call that premature. I wonder if their "Joy of Assassination" record came with "Big Jim Slade", in case that happened?

197 Typicalwhitey  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:39:30am

re: #181 laZardo

Point. But I don't think we should sink to their level. I think Sarah should give certified results as proof then declare the matter finished throughout the campaign, and if the rumormongers want to scream cover-up, well, the "campaign twoofers" will be the ones looking ridiculous afterwards.

Are you fucking kidding me?
WHAT OTHER CANDIDATE has had to PROVE that their child is their own?
Looking ridiculous?

The only one looking that way are the morons asking for this "proof"
Fuck off to ANYONE who thinks that the only female candidate should have to PROVE her child is hers.

198 Cap'n DOC  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:39:34am

re: #183 Celtic Templar

My point exactly.

199 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:39:38am
200 Honorary Yooper  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:39:39am

re: #188 SixDegrees

Whoever decided to pick Palin is a genius.

That'd be one John McCain.

201 StinkHammer  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:39:39am

re: #166 galloping granny

Well you know, I would really rather that English teachers not teach English, because their personal biases, religious and otherwise, definitely do creep in to the literature they teach and the way in which they teach it.

English literature is not based on the scientific method. Interpretation is the name of its game. Your example is silly.

202 Padre  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:39:41am

jcm, russki, celtic, cyan, atheist,

Thanks, I get it. Keep it out of the science class. Present it later for older minds (8th grade +) in comparative religion or comparitive science module in science or some other course.

We don't need Judeo-Christian beliefs pushed unnecessarily, but I just don't want to see to teacher who says "kids, not everyone believes that science answers the entire issue of the beginning of the universe. Some believe the world was create by [God, god, Zod, whatever]" sent to re-education camp or jail or fired.

*lightbulbs*

203 lawhawk  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:40:03am

re: #155 Bobblehead

The media creeps are not going to let go of the meme that Gov. Palin is not the child's mother.

Nope. Simply state that the father is John Edwards. All of 'em. The media couldn't get out of the way fast enough when Edwards was involved in an affair and had a love-child, but now with a GOP woman, we're seeing the smear merchants getting in their licks.

204 laZardo  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:40:12am

re: #197 Typicalwhitey

Right...sorry for stoking these flames then.

205 Nevergiveup  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:40:15am

re: #197 Typicalwhitey

See my #175

206 jwb7605  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:40:22am

My religion holds that God did, in fact, create us in His image, with absolutely no contradiction to the Bible. Jesus was, in fact, the Son of God.
When pressed on the issue of evolution, a "spokesman" said that what we physically looked like that far back in time wasn't the issue. The issue was that we were created in God's image.

And, God looks like what again?

207 Outrider  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:41:21am

re: #116 coquimbojoe

My concern is not so much that creationism is mentioned in school, its that a teacher religious biases will creep in. I am sure there are many who don't want me teaching creationism as put forth by my faith, and I know that I don't want my children being subjected to the faiths of others in the classroom. That my only beef with it. I will teach the faith at home.

Subject teachers to a "litmus test" before they are hired?
/

208 Ojoe  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:41:22am

re: #84 Bobblehead

Rush said that McCain's media guy has been contacted by so-called A-list reporters are demanding paternity tests on Sarah's baby.


Excuse me: (Language).

Those M.F. Sons-a-bitches.

And those words fail too.

209 DeafDog  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:41:30am

re: #191 Honorary Yooper

You mean it wasn't Vince Foster?

Which is why we need the test. Was it vince or Webb?

:-)

210 jordank  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:41:30am

Palin now also has to deal with her own pastor problems like re: #182 galloping granny

Actually, she IS Catholic according to Catholic doctrine. She was born Catholic. Whatever church she happens to attend these days. Three of them BTW - one at home, one in Juneau and a third in Anchorage.

No shes not. According to Catholic doctrine you are no longer a Catholic if you reject the church, which Palin has. And Palin herself has not even said she was baptized Catholic (unless someone has a link that shows otherwise)

211 maddogg  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:41:42am

re: #206 jwb7605

My religion holds that God did, in fact, create us in His image, with absolutely no contradiction to the Bible. Jesus was, in fact, the Son of God.
When pressed on the issue of evolution, a "spokesman" said that what we physically looked like that far back in time wasn't the issue. The issue was that we were created in God's image.

And, God looks like what again?

Charlton Heston.

212 looking closely  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:41:51am

re: #95 jordank

Then she should just do it and get it over with, that way she can say "See? I am the mother!" Otherwise if they keep ignoring the requests it will make her look guilty and/or look like she is hiding something.

Wrong.

She should let the MSM embarrass themselves asking for this ridiculous "proof" as long as they feel the need. This has no bearing on her candidacy.

If she yield here, what's next? Weekly drug tests? Open all her medical records for the last twenty years? All the rest of her families records too?

213 Intrepid  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:41:52am

re: #189 vagabond trader

Is she back in NYC?

Dunno - haven't checked lately. I'm still not sure whether or not she's a moving museum or a one port museum.

214 Honorary Yooper  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:42:03am

re: #206 jwb7605

My religion holds that God did, in fact, create us in His image, with absolutely no contradiction to the Bible. Jesus was, in fact, the Son of God.
When pressed on the issue of evolution, a "spokesman" said that what we physically looked like that far back in time wasn't the issue. The issue was that we were created in God's image.

And, God looks like what again?

Um, well, He did present Himself as a pillar of fire to the Jews in Exodus, as well as a burning bush.

:-)

215 StinkHammer  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:42:05am

re: #186 Fat Jolly Penguin

See littleoldlady's #147.

The major media did everything within its power to destroy the GW Bush campaigns as well. He was elected and the major media did not crumble.

216 Outrider  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:42:25am

re: #193 galloping granny

Close, but even the Nixon frenzy was not this bad.

But, it went on for much longer than this one will. I seem to recall it was pretty bad, even attempting to ruin his daughters wedding.

217 jwb7605  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:42:37am

re: #211 maddogg

Charlton Heston.

what are you trying for, a NOMINATION?

:-)

218 SixDegrees  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:42:38am

re: #175 Nevergiveup

I think any time anyone again brings up anything to do with Sarah's kids, the standard answer should simply be "Fuck You". And when they look startled and reply -say again- we reply "Fuck You". Even those morons should finally get the point. So remember it's not just so no, it's just say "Fuck You".

I was discussing this with a coworker this morning. I think, as part of her speech this evening, Palin ought to spend some time introducing the nation to the party the GOP is running against, by reading quotes gleaned from the Democratic Underground and Daily Kos over the last few days. No comments, just, "Here are the thoughts of our opponents on my nomination."

I don't want to overhype expectations, but I think Palin's speech tonight will be well worth watching.

219 vapig  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:42:58am

re: #155 Bobblehead

The media creeps are not going to let go of the meme that Gov. Palin is not the child's mother.

They know he's her's. It's just their way of harassing her, throwing their power around and keeping her name in the news in a negative way.

220 Kenneth  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:42:59am

re: #210 jordank

Palin was born Catholic, but her family switched to an evangelical church when she was 8 years old. She considers herself a post-denominational Christian today.

221 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:43:09am

re: #206 jwb7605

Me?

222 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:43:28am

re: #136 A.W.

Okay, there is one weird thing there. She is talking about catholicism, but my understandign was she was not catholic. i remember hearing very specifically she will help with catholics, because even though she was not catholic she is anti-abortion, etc. Am i wrong, was my source wrong, or what?

Anti-abortion is part of Catholicism, so it will likely give her more support from Catholics.

223 Typicalwhitey  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:43:35am

re: #204 laZardo

Sorry to rant but I don't think you understand how this is affecting women out here.

What an absolute INSULT to have to prove a child is yours.

Goes to the Islamic and others of those mindset of having to show the "bloody sheets' to PROVE you were a virgin.

GAHHHHHHH

224 Cap'n DOC  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:43:36am

re: #206 jwb7605

Like, You?

225 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:43:37am

re: #176 zombie

Where is the evidence to back up either of the highlighted words? The article said she wanted some books with offensive language removed from children's access.

I know a great deal about how the far-far-left has taken over the library unions and how they use this power in an attempt to indoctrinate children. The take great delight in ordering books that promote leftist doctrine, and they also love ordering "racy" books to push the envelope.

If a local community doesn't want their teens or pre-teens reading books that contain swear words, they have the absolute right to request to have such books removed from the shelves of the public library. They are, after all, paying for that library. Some non-elected librarian does not have dictatorial rights to determine the reading habits of an entire community.

The voters of the city, through their elected representative (the mayor), can say what they do and do not want in their own library. This happens (usually invisibly) in every city in the country.

It has long been assumed that librarians were neutral, beneficent, and in concord with the sentiment of the local community, but that isn't always the case.

I couldn't agree more. As a homeschool teacher I buy about 200 books a year suitable for kids from 8-15 or 16. We have such an extensive library that the kiddo and her friends don't even bother with the local library. I spends hundreds of hours a year choosing and reviewing books for this age group. And even so, I still have a small shelf of books that are completely inappropriate for classroom use - or even at all. I won't burn them, but I don't use them either.

226 Bobblehead  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:43:40am

Rush just called a moby caller a provocative ass. Go Rush!

227 Ojoe  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:44:00am

re: #220 Kenneth

All good people are seamlessly connected at the deepest level.

228 Bobblehead  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:44:30am

What a day!

229 alegrias  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:44:33am

re: #113 galloping granny

I am so tempted to take a screen shot of Governor Sarah Palin's official government web page, print it up as posters and go paste them all over town. Or have it printed as postcards and mail them to everyone I know. Or take her official picture over the the US Postal service website and have it turned into stamps.

Sheesh!

* * *
Did Sarah Palin have an official seal as Governor of Alaska?

If so, Sarah Palin didn't have to make up a fake seal for herself--how much cooler than the Chicago Machine apparachik's fake seal!

230 littleoldlady  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:44:42am

re: #215 StinkHammer

The major media did everything within its power to destroy the GW Bush campaigns as well. He was elected and the major media did not crumble.

I think the coverage of this election cycle is truly unique, and not just the Presidential part. What Hillary went through during the primaries was also unprecedented.

231 DeafDog  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:44:42am

re: #218 SixDegrees

I was discussing this with a coworker this morning. I think, as part of her speech this evening, Palin ought to spend some time introducing the nation to the party the GOP is running against, by reading quotes gleaned from the Democratic Underground and Daily Kos over the last few days. No comments, just, "Here are the thoughts of our opponents on my nomination."

I don't want to overhype expectations, but I think Palin's speech tonight will be well worth watching.

I would argue that is a bad idea. That just feeds the monster. Better to focus on her record and her expertize on Energy issues.

232 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:44:46am

re: #210 jordank

Hey man thanks - you help to sharpen my sword ;)

So you are going to question the woman's religiosity? Too bad she's not a black theologian and damning America?

Man, re-arm because that was a dud.

233 jwb7605  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:45:03am

re: #224 Cap'n DOC

Like, You?

I merely prove that He has a sense of humor.

234 Nevergiveup  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:45:04am

"I will vote for Sarah Palin because she has guts. We’ve never met, but I suspect I know something about her life, and so do a great many other women. I know what it means to have a son with Down syndrome. I know what it means to talk a good line about religious faith and then be asked to prove it. I know what it means to have a daughter pregnant and unmarried."

A Vote for Sarah Palin
By Suann Therese Maier
Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 7:51 AM

[Link: www.firstthings.com...]

Well worth the read

235 the lizard  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:45:07am

re: #183 Celtic Templar

Catholic High School in Philadelphia teaches evolution theory and not creationism. Theology classes teach Genesis, though and there are many open discussions that challenge both Genesis and evolution.

i went to catholic high school and this is exactly how it was taught there. in addition to required religious/theology classes, i took a comparative politics and learned about the major world religions plus athiesm and compared philosophies. i wish everyone could get that kind of broad knowledge in public schools.

236 looking closely  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:45:23am

re: #206 jwb7605


When pressed on the issue of evolution, a "spokesman" said that what we physically looked like that far back in time wasn't the issue. The issue was that we were created in God's image.

And, God looks like what again?

Its actually extremely simple.

If man was created in the image of God, then God looks like man. In other words, according to the most straightforward interpretation of Judeo-Christian theology, there is an anthropomorphic diety.

In Genesis 3:8, it states clearly that Adam and Eve heard the sound of God walking in the Garden, and then hid themselves.

How could he walk in the Garden if he didn't have feet and legs?

237 nikis-knight  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:45:34am

re: #214 Honorary Yooper

Um, well, He did present Himself as a pillar of fire to the Jews in Exodus, as well as a burning bush.

:-)

Yes. But biblically, image doesn't mean appearance, more of a representative. I also heard it said that the verse can be translated as "to be his image" which would actually support evolution in a wide reading.

238 aboo-Hoo-Hoo  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:45:57am

re: #226 Bobblehead

Rush just called a moby caller a provocative ass. Go Rush!

...and cut him a new hole to boot!

239 littleoldlady  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:46:13am

re: #223 Typicalwhitey

Wish I could +ding+ you more than once!

/boiling blood...

240 Alouette  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:46:25am

re: #81 laZardo

I say let them have the test results. I'd love to see what happens when they get the proof that she really is his mother.

Here is a homework assignment for you (and any other lizards who may be interested)

Go to your local Blockbuster and rent the 2000 film The Contender, to see what Hollywood thinks if a LIBERAL woman VP candidate were treated like the media treats Sarah Palin.

241 jcm  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:46:27am

re: #202 Padre

jcm, russki, celtic, cyan, atheist,

Thanks, I get it. Keep it out of the science class. Present it later for older minds (8th grade +) in comparative religion or comparitive science module in science or some other course.

We don't need Judeo-Christian beliefs pushed unnecessarily, but I just don't want to see to teacher who says "kids, not everyone believes that science answers the entire issue of the beginning of the universe. Some believe the world was create by [God, god, Zod, whatever]" sent to re-education camp or jail or fired.

*lightbulbs*

The secondary issue is forcing the issue, especially in public schools, is rife with unintended consequences. The main being if, my beliefs (Evangelical Christian) get made part of the curriculum, everyone will demand equal time and rightly so. Now will have a already crowded schedule, adding courses for every religion or faith system imaginable.

Rather than deal with that, I'll teach faith at home.

242 Killgore Trout  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:46:36am
Catholicism doesn’t teach authoritatively on evolution or the origins of life, but we do believe that God is our Creator.


Wrong: The Vatican's View of Evolution: The Story of Two Popes

Evolution, a doctrine that Pius XII only acknowledged as an unfortunate possibility, John Paul accepts forty-six years later “as an effectively proven fact.”

243 Cap'n DOC  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:46:38am

re: #210 jordank

You are sadly but surely misinformed about Catholicism.

244 Charles  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:46:57am

An interesting point about that interview with Jindal linked above: the proponents of the La. "academic freedom" stealth creationist bill have loudly insisted that it has nothing to do with the teaching of creationism -- but Jindal doesn't even deny it. He accepts that statement of the interviewer as a fact.

245 Peacekeeper  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:47:11am

re: #190 laZardo

To be honest, I don't think it'd really matter either way. I definitely know the body will die and rot, and unless I achieve historical prominence, I'll eventually be completely forgotten.

An atheist has that to look forward to, yes. On the other hand, for example, I believe that God, The Father gathers his children to Him because he loves and cherishes us.

246 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:47:32am

re: #211 maddogg

Charlton Heston.

I thought it was Morgan Freeman?

247 SixDegrees  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:47:33am

re: #212 looking closely

Wrong.

She should let the MSM embarrass themselves asking for this ridiculous "proof" as long as they feel the need. This has no bearing on her candidacy.

Completely agree. The media is trying to get away with asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" The best response is to ignore them, and let their behavior work to your advantage.

248 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:47:33am

re: #201 StinkHammer

English literature is not based on the scientific method. Interpretation is the name of its game. Your example is silly.

Forbidding all discussion of a topic because it is not "part of the scientific" method is "silly" - and in fact, not a true part of the scientific method, which stipulates that you must consider all possibilities. (And I should know that, because I AM a scientist.)

Furthermore, if you will turn on your brain cells and actually read what I wrote, you might notice that I was applying to a specific part of the post, the one where the poster said he did not want the teacher's religious views sneaking into science class.

I stand by my comment. The teacher's religious or not point of view and all of their individual biases sneaks into every subject in every school.

249 Fat Jolly Penguin  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:47:47am

re: #213 Intrepid

Dunno - haven't checked lately. I'm still not sure whether or not she's a moving museum or a one port museum.

Looks like she's still in New York.

250 Typicalwhitey  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:48:04am

re: #239 littleoldlady

Wish I could +ding+ you more than once!

/boiling blood...

I have never in my life been so upset about the treatment of another woman.
And you and I are not the only ones!
This will create a backlash of epic proportions after her speech tonight ,I believe that with all my heart.

251 maddogg  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:48:16am

re: #246 CyanSnowHawk

I thought it was Morgan Freeman?

He'll do...

252 Cap'n DOC  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:48:27am

re: #241 jcm

Where it belongs.

253 Irene NYC  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:48:30am

re: #173 StinkHammer

Interesting, but I don't see how Palin's winning the VP spot will ruin the major media.

The msm is already in big trouble. The NYT, etc. are watching their revenues goes down, down, down while the left cable and network news are holding on by a thread, Americans have new platforms coming down the pipeline, and younger Americans don't even watch serious news programs or read newspapers anymore.

As they're constituted now, a push and a shove and they're history.
;)

254 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:48:40am

re: #235 the lizard

No, we're forced to pay for socialist re-education and Catholic high school here. I feel like I sin when I see how much in public school taxes we pay. It's like paying to indoctrinate children with liberal non-sense. I know the curriculum, it is multicultural, anti-majority brainwashing - and I feel guilty and angry that it happens.

255 Peacekeeper  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:48:42am

re: #214 Honorary Yooper

Um, well, He did present Himself as a pillar of fire to the Jews in Exodus, as well as a burning bush.

:-)

NO THIRD TERM FOR BUSH!

256 StinkHammer  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:48:51am

re: #240 Alouette

Here is a homework assignment for you (and any other lizards who may be interested)

Go to your local Blockbuster and rent the 2000 film The Contender, to see what Hollywood thinks if a LIBERAL woman VP candidate were treated like the media treats Sarah Palin.

This was discussed on a previous thread somewhere. Wasn't there some minor controversy about Gary Oldman (who played the nasty Republican heavy) being disappointed about the way conservatives/Republicans were portrayed in that film? Don't have time to research it now . . .

257 Nevergiveup  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:49:03am

re: #249 Fat Jolly Penguin

Looks like she's still in New York.

The " Intrepid" is being renovated in a ship yard outside of Philadelphia and will return to NY when work is complete.

258 Ojoe  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:49:12am

re: #242 Killgore Trout

The Current Pope's view:

Pope Benedict has referred to the debate between creationists and supporters of evolutionary theory as an "absurdity":

"They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other," the pope said. "This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such."
On the other hand, there are certain questions that evolutionary theory can never answer: "Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, 'Where does everything come from?'" Christians, thus, can learn truth from science, but scientists must learn to accept the limits of their own work. No scientific investigation can ever prove that God does not exist, or that He did not create the world, or even that man is only the sum of his physical parts.

LINK

259 jwb7605  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:49:21am

re: #236 looking closely

Its actually extremely simple.

If man was created in the image of God, then God looks like man. In other words, according to the most straightforward interpretation of Judeo-Christian theology, there is an anthropomorphic diety.

In Genesis 3:8, it states clearly that Adam and Eve heard the sound of God walking in the Garden, and then hid themselves.

How could he walk in the Garden if he didn't have feet and legs?

I get a different take on the word "image". Mine is more spiritual than physical.

And with apologies, I'm going to sign off now, because another tenant of my Faith is that "it would be better not to have religion than to have religions that are at war constantly".

260 wolfie  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:49:25am

re: #136 A.W.

Okay, there is one weird thing there. She is talking about catholicism, but my understandign was she was not catholic. i remember hearing very specifically she will help with catholics, because even though she was not catholic she is anti-abortion, etc. Am i wrong, was my source wrong, or what?

She was baptized a Catholic, so I assume her parents were Catholic. She now attends Protestant churches of different denominations...(depends on where she is.) In Wasilla she attended an Assemblies of God church, I believe.

261 laZardo  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:49:51am

re: #245 Peacekeeper

And paraphrasing what you've said, you'll know if your goodness will be rewarded at the end of your life.

As it were.

262 alegrias  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:49:53am

re: #178 lifeofthemind

Rush is good. BTW does Rush know Sally Quinn has a genetically damaged child? Why is she daring to do anything out of the house?

* * *
Sally Quinn and her husband Ben Bradlee are proud they helped topple Richard Nixon.

263 runrabbitrun  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:50:17am

re: #159 jaunte

That Time mag piece on Palin is a hatchet job.
"...according to some [rivals] who were involved in that fight, Palin was a highly polarizing political figure..."

According to some readers, Nathan Thornburgh is not a journalist, but a partisan hack grasping at poorly documented straws.

Anytime you take on an entrenched network of powerful hacks, cronies, and thieves, you knowingly paint a target on your back, which requires exactly the same kind of emotional, intellectual, and often physical courage as one needs to earn a medal in a shooting war. Sarah Palin has that kind of guts beyond measure, while the Donks haven't the grits to even say who they are.

264 Fat Jolly Penguin  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:50:24am

re: #257 Nevergiveup

The " Intrepid" is being renovated in a ship yard outside of Philadelphia and will return to NY when work is complete.

Oh! I guess that's why the page I linked says "Intrepid Museum Complex Re-Opening November 8, 2008." Duh.

265 SixDegrees  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:50:36am

re: #231 DeafDog

I would argue that is a bad idea. That just feeds the monster. Better to focus on her record and her expertize on Energy issues.

Probably so. It was just one of those nice fantasy moments. I agree that sticking to accomplishments is probably the best strategy; the response to the media circus from large majorities is overwhelmingly negative from what I've seen and heard, and the disgust is by no means limited to Republicans. So that's a problem that's taking care of itself.

266 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:50:39am

re: #223 Typicalwhitey

Sorry to rant but I don't think you understand how this is affecting women out here.

What an absolute INSULT to have to prove a child is yours.

Goes to the Islamic and others of those mindset of having to show the "bloody sheets' to PROVE you were a virgin.

GAHHHHHHH

And not just women. Every parent in the land. Since when does ANY American under ANY circumstance other than disputed custody (and even then only in a court of law, the proceedings of which are closed to the public) EVER have to prove the parentage of their child by DNA.

If Sarah Palin is made to do this then this will become the de facto "law" for every woman in the country.

The MSM has absolutely NO right - by LAW - to DNA test results for Sarah Palin's children. EVER.

267 Maximu§  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:50:41am

re: #254 Celtic Templar

and I feel guilty and angry that it happens.

Us Catholics are always feeling guilty, perhaps for good reason!

268 Spiny Norman  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:51:11am

re: #246 CyanSnowHawk

re: #211 maddogg
Charlton Heston.

I thought it was Morgan Freeman?

Then again, I always thought it was George Burns...

269 right_on_target  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:51:31am

Read Angry Journalist #6502:
on [Link: angryjournalist.com...] is one of the few of the MSM that seems to get it.

270 Honorary Yooper  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:51:45am

re: #262 alegrias

Sally Quinn and her husband Ben Bradlee are proud they helped topple Richard Nixon.

Wow, what a feat, considering that Nixon hurt himself much more than anyone hurt him. If Nixon weren't so damn paranoid, and just been more forthright with people, he would've finished his second term.

271 the lizard  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:51:48am

re: #254 Celtic Templar

My parents felt the same way when they made the choice to give me a real education than allow me to wallow in the hole that is the Denver Public School system.

272 Cap'n DOC  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:51:58am

re: #249 Fat Jolly Penguin

I think she's there pretty much permanently. I know a pilot (still alive, AMOF) who's had his picture taken in the ready room standing in front of a picture of him and his squadron. I've seen his charred flight log, which was burned in the Kamikaze attack that almost disabled the ship. Quite a story.

273 Peacekeeper  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:52:08am

re: #261 laZardo

I already know. But that's a story I'm not prepared to present here. I doubt it would mean much to people if I did.

274 laZardo  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:52:38am

re: #242 Killgore Trout

I'm surprised that didn't shake up the Church as much as a revelation like that would...

/no pun intended

275 Nevergiveup  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:52:50am

re: #262 alegrias

* * *
Sally Quinn and her husband Ben Bradlee are proud they helped topple Richard Nixon.

Well somebody should break the news to those 2 old farts that Nixon is dead and that war is over. We are in a new war now. It's called the war on terror. And they should either get in line and help or get out of the way.

276 Kenneth  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:52:55am

I expect Sarah Palin will answer her critics directly and honestly in her speech tonight. Unfortunately, not many Americans will hear it because most of the media won't be covering it. What little coverage it will get will involve selected outtakes, misquotes and spin-doctoring.

This election is too important to allow the American public the chance to learn what's really at stake.

277 maddogg  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:52:58am

OT
The election is all about leadership. I wouldn't ask Obama for directions to the men's room. I would follow McCain into desperate battle. I guess there is the difference for me.

278 laZardo  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:53:04am

re: #255 Peacekeeper

Zing, and upding. LOL.

279 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:53:09am

re: #214 Honorary Yooper

Um, well, He did present Himself as a pillar of fire to the Jews in Exodus, as well as a burning bush.

:-)

Oh No! Tell me he doesn't look like Carrot Top!

280 David IV of Georgia  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:53:10am

re: #71 Honorary Yooper

Aside from the ever-venerable Weekly World News, they are not fit for toilet paper.

/I want my Bat Boy stories back! :-)

I really liked the piece about the "Alien Slave Camp in South Carolina!" complete with photos. I know it's true because they had photos..

281 Irene NYC  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:53:21am

re: #201 StinkHammer

re: #166 galloping granny

Well you know, I would really rather that English teachers not teach English, because their personal biases, religious and otherwise, definitely do creep in to the literature they teach and the way in which they teach it.

English literature is not based on the scientific method. Interpretation is the name of its game. Your example is silly.

Stinkhammer, I think you're off base here. Interpretation is not the name of the game in English these days. It's post-modern, or post-post-modernism. And both of those are ideologies.

282 Honorary Yooper  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:53:25am

re: #268 Spiny Norman

re: #246 CyanSnowHawk

re: #211 maddogg
Charlton Heston.


I thought it was Morgan Freeman?


Then again, I always thought it was George Burns...

Oh, God.

283 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:53:31am

re: #267 Maximu§

It is for good reason, we have an example of a perfect life in our beliefs and we are surrounded by imperfection, some evil, some ignorant. I can only forgive and speak my mind (and vote).

284 Typicalwhitey  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:53:48am

Media meme:

If she had have just said no to the offer of VP then she wouldn't have exposed her daughter to this.

=
She must like being beaten, otherwise she would leave.

American woman will flock to her mark my words.

285 Killgore Trout  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:53:50am

re: #258 Ojoe

Christians, thus, can learn truth from science, but scientists must learn to accept the limits of their own work. No scientific investigation can ever prove that God does not exist, or that He did not create the world, or even that man is only the sum of his physical parts.


This is where I part company with Benedict. The idea that scientists are working to disprove god is simply not true. There are evangelical atheists like Dawkins but he's not a working scientist. The average working scientist is simply trying to figure things out, not advance an ideological agenda.

286 lifeofthemind  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:54:33am

Rush is slapping down Mark Shields, I heard that and thought the same things Rush is saying.

287 lawhawk  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:54:57am

re: #257 Nevergiveup

The " Intrepid" is being renovated in a ship yard outside of Philadelphia and will return to NY when work is complete.

Wrong.

She's berthed at Staten Island, where you can see her from the SI Railway or even the Brooklyn waterfront. She's going to be returning to her pier in Manhattan in time for Veterans Day. October 2 is her scheduled return to Pier 86, with a grand reopening for Veterans Day.

288 Kenneth  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:55:27am

re: #266 galloping granny

Well said!

The Four Stages of Conservative Female Abuse

The final stage of CFA is dehumanization. Conservative women aren't real women according to the liberal feminist establishment's definition.

289 alegrias  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:55:35am

re: #187 vapig

I concur. I'm tired of these people believing that anything private is their right to air and view.

* * *
Just don't air THEIR private laundry, like John Edwards' other, not so secret family's campaign-financed details.

290 Maximu§  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:55:35am

re: #283 Celtic Templar

It is for good reason, we have an example of a perfect life in our beliefs and we are surrounded by imperfection, some evil, some ignorant. I can only forgive and speak my mind (and vote).

Amen to that. Don't get me wrong, I was not belittling your post.

291 wolfie  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:55:43am

re: #176 zombie

Well said.
Thank you!

292 J.S.  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:55:52am

I've had to stop watching CNN -- whether it's Campbell Brown or that other one Soledad (?) (she's hosting some morning political program and it's non-stop "Bash the RNC" time). Like we don't know that CNN is being funded by the Democrats? They are deranged. Utterly disgusting. Especially when they outright tell themselves and viewers that they're "objective." Yeah, define that term, please. Anyway, I'm going back to radio (Internet, etc.)...

293 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:56:00am

re: #244 Charles

An interesting point about that interview with Jindal linked above: the proponents of the La. "academic freedom" stealth creationist bill have loudly insisted that it has nothing to do with the teaching of creationism -- but Jindal doesn't even deny it. In fact, he accepts that statement of the interviewer as a fact.

Charles, I have stated this before and I will again. I have just exactly two criteria on which I will always vote against the proponent - infanticide and assisted suicide of the elderly & infirm in lieu of medical care. Everything else is negotiable.

Bobby Jindal is one of the brightest stars to entire the political arena in decades. I strongly feel that he has a real shot down the road to be the first minority POTUS.

Creationism v. darwinism is not something I'm willing to throw him overboard over. Now if he was advocating infanticide like Obama does . . . .

294 laZardo  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:56:06am

re: #258 Ojoe

...or even that man is only the sum of his physical parts.

Man is, only we're still trying to figure out the addends and multiplicands to that sum.

/veeeeery complex sum...

295 Killer Tomato  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:56:21am

Call me crazy, but I'm starting to think the reason they're attacking her children (rather than her) is in the hope that at some point she'd get emotional or tear up and then they could replay that clip over and over and over... using it to show that she was 'weak' or too 'emotional' for the job, etc., etc.

296 looking closely  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:56:32am

re: #259 jwb7605

I get a different take on the word "image". Mine is more spiritual than physical.

And with apologies, I'm going to sign off now, because another tenant [tenet] of my Faith is that "it would be better not to have religion than to have religions that are at war constantly".

I make no claims as the appearance of God, or on what is the "right" Judeo-Christian belief there.

All I'm saying is that the most straightforward interpretation of what's written in the Old Testament is that man physically resembles God (and vice versa).

With the obvious caveat that some people believe the Old Testament is literally true, and some don't, its up to you to decide what the "correct" belief is, or what you want to believe.

297 Nevergiveup  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:56:39am

re: #287 lawhawk

Wrong.

She's berthed at Staten Island, where you can see her from the SI Railway or even the Brooklyn waterfront. She's going to be returning to her pier in Manhattan in time for Veterans Day. October 2 is her scheduled return to Pier 86, with a grand reopening for Veterans Day.

I stand corrected. Personally, I try to stay out of Manhattan.

298 maddogg  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:57:27am

re: #295 Killer Tomato

Call me crazy, but I'm starting to think the reason they're attacking her children (rather than her) is in the hope that at some point she'd get emotional or tear up and then they could replay that clip over and over and over... using it to show that she was 'weak' or too 'emotional' for the job, etc., etc.

They might have a long wait, Palin isn't Hillary.

299 alegrias  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:57:29am

re: #223 Typicalwhitey

Sorry to rant but I don't think you understand how this is affecting women out here.

What an absolute INSULT to have to prove a child is yours.

Goes to the Islamic and others of those mindset of having to show the "bloody sheets' to PROVE you were a virgin.

GAHHHHHHH

* * *
Like I said above, democrats are now the Taliban anti-women party. They won't be happy until non-democrat women are wearing burqas.

Note how little democrats care that women are forced to wear burqas.

300 Perplexed  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:57:36am

re: #295 Killer Tomato

Call me crazy, but I'm starting to think the reason they're attacking her children (rather than her) is in the hope that at some point she'd get emotional or tear up and then they could replay that clip over and over and over... using it to show that she was 'weak' or too 'emotional' for the job, etc., etc.

Bad move on the part of anyone who attempts that.

301 Typicalwhitey  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:57:51am

I hope every man in this country with a daughter understands that if this is allowed to continue...
then if their daughter wants to become a conservative running for office she will be treated the same.

I have to hand it to Todd Palin.
My husband would already be in handcuffs for assault.

302 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:57:54am

re: #290 Maximu§

Didn't think you were - no worries.

303 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:58:36am

re: #295 Killer Tomato

Call me crazy, but I'm starting to think the reason they're attacking her children (rather than her) is in the hope that at some point she'd get emotional or tear up and then they could replay that clip over and over and over... using it to show that she was 'weak' or too 'emotional' for the job, etc., etc.

Huh, good insight ... wow, could the MSM be that simple minded?

304 Ben Hur  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:58:45am

Compulsory fasting for all

Later this month it's Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. It's one of the holiest days of the Jewish calendar, so I'd be obliged, please, if you'd all stay at home, turn off the TV and refrain from your usual activities. Ten days after that it's Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, when Jews fast and spend the day in synagogue. So I've also asked my Times colleagues not to work then. And I will be mightily offended if I learn afterwards that any of them have been eating.

You might not think I am being serious. But if I was Head of Democratic Services at Tower Hamlets Council in East London, I would be. Last week John Williams e-mailed each of the borough's 51 councillors with a similar instruction.

For the duration of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month, they are, he told them - every one of them, Muslim, Catholic, Jew or atheist - to behave during council meetings as strict Muslims. They are not to eat or drink; they are to break for Muslim prayers; they are to do as they are ordered by the Muslim religion.

305 Nevergiveup  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:58:50am

re: #301 Typicalwhitey

I hope every man in this country with a daughter understands that if this is allowed to continue...
then if their daughter wants to become a conservative running for office she will be treated the same.

I have to hand it to Todd Palin.
My husband would already be in handcuffs for assault.

I think your husband and I would get along. Cell mates maybe?

306 StinkHammer  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:58:51am

re: #248 galloping granny

Forbidding all discussion of a topic because it is not "part of the scientific" method is "silly" - and in fact, not a true part of the scientific method, which stipulates that you must consider all possibilities. (And I should know that, because I AM a scientist.)

Furthermore, if you will turn on your brain cells and actually read what I wrote, you might notice that I was applying to a specific part of the post, the one where the poster said he did not want the teacher's religious views sneaking into science class.

I stand by my comment. The teacher's religious or not point of view and all of their individual biases sneaks into every subject in every school.

My brain cells ARE turned on, thank you -- apparently they just aren't as worthy of note as your mighty Scientist ones.

Now if you'll turn on YOUR (obviously mightier than mine) brain cells and actually read MY (above post) you'll see that I in no way advocated that "all discussion" of any topic that is "not part of the scientific method" should be dismissed. You were subtly equating the teaching of English literature with the teaching of evolutionary theory. The two are not compatible examples because Literature DEPENDS upon personal interpretation (biases); the basic scientific method which bolsters evolutionary theory does not (although interpretations of the findings of that method may indeed vary.)

So spare me the condescending, smarter-than-thou preaching based on your supposedly superior scientific credentials.

307 unreconstructed rebel  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:59:01am

re: #17 coquimbojoe

Easy as that. If the two don't reconcile in your mind, deal with it at home.

Science examines how He pulled it off. Theology examines why and for whom. Mix the two & you get nonsense.

308 laZardo  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 9:59:11am

1 AM and I'm heading to bed. Apologies to Typicalwhitey for pissing her off...and g'night to all.

309 laZardo  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:00:29am

re: #295 Killer Tomato

Possible, but then there are those movie-esque moments when the crowd realizes what just happened and sympathizes with the victim.

/can't remember which movies, but it can happen.

//hrrrrgh, g'night

310 SixDegrees  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:00:36am

re: #293 galloping granny


Bobby Jindal is one of the brightest stars to entire the political arena in decades. I strongly feel that he has a real shot down the road to be the first minority POTUS.

For better or worse, support for teaching Creationism in public schools is a total deal killer. There's nothing like radiating ignorance to kill your chances at national office. And rightly so.

We're fighting a war right now against forces who want to institutionalize their religion in all aspects of life. Putting one of their bedfellows in charge of the country is not a good message to send, nor a place where I want the country to go. I see no difference at all between the Taliban and the IDers; they both want exactly the same thing.

311 J.S.  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:00:52am

re: #276 Kenneth

I've noticed that there's another lie being spread by Dems (?), the Uninformed...and this has to do with a mis-quote (or a quote taken out of context and then spun by the Obamatons, KKKos-ers, etc.) and that has to do with Sarah Palin expressing pride (about her daughter). The guttersnipes spin this as suggesting that Palin is "proud" that her daughter's pregnant... In actuality, Sarah Palin expressed her pride that her daughter has chosen to keep the child -- not abort the baby. That's why the mother is proud of her daughter's choice...which is wholly different from the guttersnipe smear that somehow Palin is proud of her daughter's premarital sex...Again, the mother is proud that her daughter has not chosen to abort the unborn child.

312 Alouette  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:01:01am

re: #128 jordank

Pick a little, talk a little, pick a little, talk a little
Cheep cheep cheep, talk a lot, pick a little more
Pick a little, talk a little, pick a little, talk a little
Cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep

Professor, her kind of woman doesn't belong on any committee.
Of course, I shouldn't tell you this but she advocates dirty books.

Dirty books!

Chaucer!
Rabelais!
Balzac!

313 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:01:01am

re: #304 Ben Hur

Compulsory fasting for all

2 words; fuck that.

314 Nevergiveup  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:01:22am

The Palins arriving in Minneapolis. Bristol and Levi hand in hand. Good for them!

316 Nevergiveup  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:01:43am

re: #314 Nevergiveup

The Palins arriving in Minneapolis. Bristol and Levi hand in hand. Good for them!

On FOX now

317 Typicalwhitey  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:01:50am

re: #305 Nevergiveup

LOL

318 yma o hyd  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:01:59am

re: #234 Nevergiveup

Wow.
That is awesome.
Thanks for the link.

319 Charles  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:02:03am

re: #293 galloping granny

Charles, I have stated this before and I will again. I have just exactly two criteria on which I will always vote against the proponent - infanticide and assisted suicide of the elderly & infirm in lieu of medical care. Everything else is negotiable.

Bobby Jindal is one of the brightest stars to entire the political arena in decades. I strongly feel that he has a real shot down the road to be the first minority POTUS.

Creationism v. darwinism is not something I'm willing to throw him overboard over. Now if he was advocating infanticide like Obama does . . . .

Violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is something I am willing to throw him overboard for.

320 quickjustice  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:02:10am

re: #128 jordank

You miss the point. I walked through my public library a couple of years ago, and all the teenage kids on the computers were on porn sites.

I complained to the librarian. I think I have a right to insist that my tax dollars aren't being spent to enable some teenage males to indulge their pornographic sexual fantasies. They can get a job, and pay for their own dirty websites! ;-)

321 Nevergiveup  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:02:24am

re: #316 Nevergiveup

On FOX now

Both Bristol and Levi given BIG and WARM welcome by McCain

322 Alouette  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:02:42am

And the worst thing
Of course, I shouldn't tell you this but-
I'll tell.
The man lived on my street, let me tell.
Stop! I'll tell.
She made brazen overtures to a man who never had a friend
In this town till she came here.

Oh, yes, that woman made brazen overtures
With a gilt-edged guarantee
She had a golden glint in her eye
And a silver voice with a counterfeit ring
Just melt her down and you'll reveal
A lump of lead as cold as steel
Here, where a woman's heart should be!

He left River City the library building
But he left all the books to her
Chaucer!
Rabelais!
Balzac!

323 jordank  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:03:05am

re: #243 Cap'n DOC

You are sadly but surely misinformed about Catholicism.

Catholicism isn't like Judaism where born a Jew, always a Jew. You are not Catholic until baptized, and even then if you renounce the church then you are kicked out the door as far as membership is concerned. Please provide me documentation if I am wrong.

324 StinkHammer  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:03:32am

re: #281 Irene NYC

Stinkhammer, I think you're off base here. Interpretation is not the name of the game in English these days. It's post-modern, or post-post-modernism. And both of those are ideologies.

I must be missing your point. I asserted that English literature (as tought in the University) depends upon interpretation (it was my Major, so I have some experience with that phenomenon), whereas the basis of the scientific process is one based on specific methodology that is beyond interpretation (the RESULTS, however, of that methodology are what are subject to interpretation.) How does that make me off-base?

325 looking closely  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:03:40am

re: #295 Killer Tomato

Call me crazy, but I'm starting to think the reason they're attacking her children (rather than her) is in the hope that at some point she'd get emotional or tear up and then they could replay that clip over and over and over... using it to show that she was 'weak' or too 'emotional' for the job, etc., etc.

The simple reason they're attacking her children is because there is no other line of attack for them.

They're bankrupt, and it shows.

The joy here is that the ones attacking Palin think that pointing out that her kid is pregnant is going to hurt her among evangelicals, when in fact just the opposite is true. It *helps* her, because instead of aborting the baby, she's stepping up to the plate, getting married, and having the kid.

326 Basho  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:03:48am

re: #34 Padre

What is the big deal with teaching, "Class, some people view the creation of the world as being the work of God, and believe such and such....?"

Why is presenting more than one side of the issue so bad? It is not religious indoctrination.

IT IS NOT INDOCTRINATION!

Are some afraid that evolution will NOT be taught? Am I missing the big point?

Agreed. My belief that biker mice from mars created the Earth should also be presented.

327 Colin Nelson  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:03:55am

#292 JS. and Moe Katz Fyi here is text of email sent to CBC this morning.

The ugly fabrication about the Palin pregnancy first appeared on Daily Kos on Saturday.

On Monday the Palin family announced the pregnancy of their daughter in part to end the reckless speculation caused by the Kos blog. By Tuesday the outrage over this now obvious smear was so strong that Daily Kos deleted the post and all others by the same author.

MacDonald had already reported on this story on Monday night. By Tuesday it was clearly destroyed as a credible item yet MacDonald and the network chose to run with it again on Tuesday night. What on earth were the people who run The National thinking? What ethical or journalistic questions were asked before the decision was made to repeat what by any measure was an already discredited disgusting and vile accusation.

Finally on what empirical basis did MacDonald conclude that the Republicans at the convention were wondering about and doubting McCain's choice? That take does not match anything evident at the convention or anything I have seen on television or read in newspapers. Once again the clear liberal democratic vice republican bias that permeates CBC's news service has brought discredit to the network and mocks Canadians who look to the CBC for fair and balanced reporting, particularly on crucial political matters.

328 doppelganglander  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:04:24am

Here's a synopsis of The Contender from imdb.com:

After his Vice-president suddenly dies, the President (Jeff Bridges) who is near the end of his final term, decides to leave a legacy by selecting a woman to fill the position. Enter a Senator (Joan Allen), who has shifted from the Republican Party to the Democratic. Initially appearing to be the perfect candidate, an allegation suddenly appears that she had been involved in a sexual orgy as a 19 year old in college. The confirmation committee chairman (Gary Oldman), a Republican, leaks the information to the press, while using the press discussion as a forum to bring it into the hearings. The chairman desires to get a Governor (William Petersen) into the office. The Governor had become a national hero when he attempted to rescue a young woman from a car that crashed from a bridge into deep water near where the Governor had been fishing.

I don't even know where to start with the stupidity and unexamined bias. Maybe my favorite part is the William Peterson character, who is clearly an alternate history version of Teddy the Swimmer. Hey, let's start a rumor that Obama was involved in an orgy at Harvard Law! Go ahead, Bambi, prove it isn't true.

329 jcm  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:04:30am

re: #304 Ben Hur

Compulsory fasting for all

Does that mean everyone is too be strict pagan at the solstice and dance around nekkid?

330 opnion  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:05:04am

re: #301 Typicalwhitey

I hope every man in this country with a daughter understands that if this is allowed to continue...
then if their daughter wants to become a conservative running for office she will be treated the same.

I have to hand it to Todd Palin.
My husband would already be in handcuffs for assault.

I agree with that ,. I have a daughter. I am sure that the campaign is restraining Todd Palin.

331 Dave the.....[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:05:24am
332 Charles  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:05:40am

re: #128 jordank

Having the mayor threaten to fire you if you don't ban some book because some fundamentalist complained about a book showing witches isn't exactly my idea of a free society. Sounds more like a story I would expect to hear in Saudi Arabia.

You're making things up.

The article says nothing about "fundamentalists" or "witches," and the whole story about "banning books" comes from a pissed-off political opponent of Palin's, who she beat in an election.

Another baseless smear.

333 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:05:48am
334 Cartman  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:06:09am

Boy, the MSM and the left are now truly in full attack mode on Palin. I'm sure she was given ample warning this would happen, but I'm guessing that she was still not prepared for the outright vicious personal assaults that have already occurred. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. The left knows no boundaries when it comes to character assassination, and that is always their goal. Their M.O. is destruction, not critique. What we are witnessing is the inhumanity of a morally bankrupt ideology and its legions. These people need to be relentlessly and unmercifully exposed as the societal scourge that they are.

335 StinkHammer  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:06:40am

Out the door now -- so those who have contentions against my assertions will have to play another day.

;^)

336 jordank  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:06:56am

re: #332 Charles

You're making things up.

The article says nothing about "fundamentalists" or "witches," and the whole story about "banning books" comes from a pissed-off political opponent of Palin's, who she beat in an election.

Another baseless smear.

I have no idea who complained about what book or for what reason they wanted it gone from the library, but considering how many people wanted Harry Potter banned, I think my guess is pretty damn accurate

337 WrathofG-d  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:07:05am

"anti-Islam"? What exactly makes this film "Anti-Islam"?

Is it because it links Islam to terrorism? If so does that make OBL "Anti-Islam", Muhammad "anti-Islam", and every other Islamic terrorist "Anti-Islam"?

Bias in the media?.....nahhhhhh

338 looking closely  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:07:21am

re: #319 Charles

Violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is something I am willing to throw him overboard for.


That's pretty broad, but specifically, if he pushes Creationism as science within the classroom he loses my support.

Simply put, that is not the sort of forward-looking educational platform I'd like to see from the POTUS, and I think its a big deal.

(IMO Elected State or Federal Chief Executives shouldn't be micro-managing school curricula anyway, though that is somewhat of a separate matter).

Of course, whether or not he gets my VOTE is something else. Then I have to weigh the totality of his positions against those of his opponent.

339 Pullus Iulius  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:07:23am

So the scurrilous lies about the Palins go around the world how many times while the truth is still tying its shoes? Maybe tonight we start running. I sure hope so.

340 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:07:31am

re: #319 Charles

Violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is something I am willing to throw him overboard for.

The Establishment Clause applies to the establishment of a state religion ala the Church of England. It does not apply to any and all discussion of religion.

I find it exceedingly strange that the very same people that accept the teaching of Islam in schools - including dressing up as muslim and repeating the shahada - go absolutely bonkers over the idea that some kid might ask how one reconciles a religious belief that God created the world with the scientific evidence of evolution.

Not a deal breaker for me.

341 Charles  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:07:36am

No phone numbers allowed.

342 maddogg  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:07:46am

re: #331 Dave the.....

Thats funny. One thing that never gets me nervous is a peacenik, I'm meaner than they can even comprehend.

343 realwest  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:07:55am

Hey y'all - are we still on topic? Cause I think Palin is doing the right thing: she's not pushing for religion to be taught in the public schools. She HAS said that if it (creationism) should come up in discussion, that she has no problem with it's being discussed.
Big difference there: IF it comes us, discuss vs. Make sure it DOES COME UP and as part of the school curriculum.
Clearly Palin is the opposite of Jindal on this.

344 Charles  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:09:14am

re: #338 looking closely

That's pretty broad, but specifically, if he pushes Creationism as science within the classroom he loses my support.

Well - that's exactly what he is doing, and he's not just talking about it, he's signing bills into law.

345 Ben Hur  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:09:19am

Rush taking on female talking heads with children.

346 wrenchwench  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:10:22am
considering how many people wanted Harry Potter banned, I think my guess is pretty damn accurate

Oh, man. This one is lame. Time to open registration and get some new ones.

347 SpartanWoman  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:10:32am

re: #345 Ben Hur

Rush taking on female talking heads with children.

He's being pretty wonderful today, pointing out the stupidity of the media and its double standards.

Well done, Rush

348 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:10:59am

re: #323 jordank

Catholicism isn't like Judaism where born a Jew, always a Jew. You are not Catholic until baptized, and even then if you renounce the church then you are kicked out the door as far as membership is concerned. Please provide me documentation if I am wrong.

This is completely untrue. Ranks right up there with Pelosi's rather circular argument regarding the Church's view of abortion.

The Catholic church regards all children born to Catholic parents - or even one Catholic parent - to be Catholic. Baptism has to do with the afterlife, not whether or not one is regarded as Catholic by the catholic church. Individuals are free to denounce the church if they care to do so, but the Catholic Church will nonetheless regard them as Catholics. Teddy Kennedy is one of those.

349 jordank  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:11:04am

re: #346 wrenchwench

Prove me wrong

350 Dave the.....  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:11:05am

Sorry, repost....go to the web site and the radio stations phone number is there for anyone wishing to discuss with them the support of violence. Below is from a local radio station that all year has been encouraging violence against Republican delegates in St Paul. They have been working with the anarchists.

Thursday, Sept 4: Anti-War Committee, No Peace for the War Makers! March, 4PM State Capitol, St Paul
4PM, the AWC starts a rally and march to the Xcel from the state capitol. This is billed as a "rowdy march", and I don't think they're asking for a permit. They may try to take down the fence around the Xcel Center. Expect arrests. This is the evening that McCain accepts the nomination. No Peace for the War Makers! March, On Day 4 of the RNC John McCain will be declared the official Republican candidate for the presidency. He has said that the war is the key issue in his campaign. Stand with people from around the country to say NO! to his policies of war. We will rally at the State Capital and then march to the Xcel Center. Organized by the AWC.
[Link: www.antiwarcommittee.org...]

[Link: www.kfai.org...]

www.kfai.org

KFAI, 1808 Riverside Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 5545

351 jcm  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:11:11am

re: #345 Ben Hur

Rush taking on female talking heads with children.

They have children? From the discussion the last few days I thought feminism demanded women with children stay at home. I'm getting confused....
/

352 realwest  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:11:14am

re: #334 Cartman

The left knows no boundaries when it comes to character assassination, and that is always their goal. Their M.O. is destruction, not critique.


Excellent comment my friend. The problem the Left has, and has always had, in my experience, is that they are good and practiced at tearing down; they never seem to offer anything to build up.

353 runrabbitrun  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:11:37am

I hope O'Reilly, who swore to us 'no spin' last winter in his talking points that he would go after the media BIG TIME this election , displays the two Us magaslime covers during his Barack Obama interview, and will ask Barry pointblank if he is willing to denounce that kind of partisan, misleading hack activity in the press - right then, right there.

354 looking closely  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:11:46am

re: #343 realwest

Hey y'all - are we still on topic? Cause I think Palin is doing the right thing: she's not pushing for religion to be taught in the public schools. She HAS said that if it (creationism) should come up in discussion, that she has no problem with it's being discussed.
Big difference there: IF it comes us, discuss vs. Make sure it DOES COME UP and as part of the school curriculum.
Clearly Palin is the opposite of Jindal on this.


Nobody is saying or proposing that its forbidden to discuss Creationism at school.

IMO the acid test is whether or not Creationism gets reserved (or protected) time in the science classroom.

At issue is whether or not a fundamentally religious topic gets masqueraded as science.

355 Bobblehead  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:12:35am

re: #345 Ben Hur

Rush taking on female talking heads with children.

Soledad O'Brien has 4 kids under 10 yrs. How dare she go to work every day.

356 Honorary Yooper  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:12:41am

re: #345 Ben Hur

Rush taking on female talking heads with children.

And outing them for their hypocrisy.

Rip 'em a new one.

357 J.S.  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:13:11am

re: #327 Colin Nelson

That's a great letter, Colin...In the past, I'd go their website (or that Ombudsman's website), pull up their "Code of Practice" (their so-called "ethical guidelines"), quote the relevant parts, and then ask how it is that they can routinely (and with impunity) violate their own stated, written standards...I seldom received a response...including from the Ombudsman (the claims that the Ombudsman is somehow "independent" is, I figure, bunk -- his job is to cover for his CBC bosses and do the whitewashing.)

358 Mardukhai  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:13:14am

Anybody read the LAT piece on Palin and the Alaskan Independence Party? It's a pretty ripe group of secessionists.

On the Middle East, I wouldn't trust a thing an LAT reporter says, but local politics is often handled straight. Anybody know more about this?

AP says that her husband was a member.

Not sure that a secessionist belongs a heartbeat from the White House.

359 jordank  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:13:18am

re: #348 galloping granny

Katie Holmes was born Catholic and recently joined the Church of Scientology. Are you saying that the Catholic church still considers her Catholic? Give me a break. Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat but you don't hear Democrats saying "Well, he may have joined the Republicans, but he is still a Democrat technically!"

360 Pullus Iulius  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:13:53am

Too much feeding of the troll. If it isn't getting whacked, at least let it starve.

361 Russkilitlover  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:13:57am

re: #336 jordank

I have no idea who complained about what book or for what reason they wanted it gone from the library, but considering how many people wanted Harry Potter banned, I think my guess is pretty damn accurate

Ha! You presented it as some sort of fact. It was a guess? You mean viscious, vile, slanderous, gossip.

362 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:15:02am
363 WrathofG-d  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:15:05am

re: #350 Dave the.....

Seems you found your city's equivalent of Pacifica Radio; Congrats. I listen to KPFK (my Pacifica station) every morning.

Did you notice that on its website it states:

Today, KFAI broadcasts from high atop the IDS building and will soon be broadcasting in crystal clear digital.

I found that interesting.

364 opnion  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:15:12am

It's very odd that the same Media types that are pushing Sarah Palin to humiliate herself, by proving that her child is her child, but have no interest in the records of the Annenberg Challenge. You know, cause it might link Barry closely with William Ayers & corrupt grants to Rezko.

365 Teh Flowah  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:15:13am

I guess it's not as bad as Jindal, but just there mere fact people still buy into the whole ID-bullshit annoys me greatly. Like those who think the earth is still flat. It's willful ignorance of the reality of the situation.

366 jordank  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:15:14am

re: #361 Russkilitlover

I was being semi-sarcastic when I wrote that. Anyone reading what I quoted beforehand knew there was no mention of witches. Not my fault if people don't read everything in a post.

367 DeafDog  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:15:21am

re: #295 Killer Tomato

Call me crazy, but I'm starting to think the reason they're attacking her children (rather than her) is in the hope that at some point she'd get emotional or tear up and then they could replay that clip over and over and over... using it to show that she was 'weak' or too 'emotional' for the job, etc., etc.

You're crazy.

(Sorry)

Actually, that's an interesting POV, but you are giving the MSM too much credit. This is about going after the lowest common denominator. It's a "sex" story. That sells ad revenue, and it agrees with their political leanings.

368 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:15:26am

re: #323 jordank

Catholicism isn't like Judaism where born a Jew, always a Jew. You are not Catholic until baptized, and even then if you renounce the church then you are kicked out the door as far as membership is concerned. Please provide me documentation if I am wrong.

Provide documentation that you've seen for your assertion.

If you renounce the Church, you are not excommunicated. You just don't consider yourself a Catholic, the Church still considers you a Catholic.

369 doppelganglander  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:15:26am

re: #336 jordank

I have no idea who complained about what book or for what reason they wanted it gone from the library, but considering how many people wanted Harry Potter banned, I think my guess is pretty damn accurate

Your guess is meaningless. If you can't support your argument with actual facts, go practice googling until you learn how. For example, I made an assertion in my #172 about an attempted banning of Harry Potter. Here's an article about how the attempt failed. See how that works?

370 Cartman  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:15:27am

re: #347 SpartanWoman

He's being pretty wonderful today, pointing out the stupidity of the media and its double standards.

Well done, Rush

He's hammering home the sheer duplicity that is on display.

371 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:15:48am
372 Mardukhai  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:15:58am

Anyone have anything on Palin and the Alaskan Independence Party?

373 realwest  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:16:19am

re: #354 looking closely

IMO the acid test is whether or not Creationism gets reserved (or protected) time in the science classroom


Well I do understand your point and I don't think creationism should be taught in science classes (or, quite frankly - other than as necessary parts of history classes - any place else in a publically funded school) but what does a science teacher do if a student asks about creationism at a time when the teacher is teaching evolution? It's not "reserved" or "protected" for the teacher to respond, do you think?

374 Bobblehead  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:16:22am

Rush is on a roll about the left's crusade to destroy God.

375 Alouette  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:16:23am

re: #349 jordank

Prove me wrong

You're an asshole.

Prove you're not.

376 Tigger2005  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:16:30am

First, some clarification.

Evolution isn't a belief. It's a fact. It's happened, it is happening. There's really no question about it.

Intelligent design "theory" IS INDEED religious doctrine masquerading as science. Intelligent design advocates have admitted as much in their internal communiques and in unguarded moments. Again, there's no question about it, it's just a fact.

Evolution and Intelligent Design are not equals. Again, evolution is a fact, not "just a theory"--it is a theory in the scientific definition, which is quite different from the common definition of theory. And Intelligent Design is NOT a scientific theory. It is not a "plausible alternative explanation" for biodiversity.

There's nothing wrong with what you suggest below, if that's all that's actually said (but would you include non-Judeo-Christian creationist viewpoints as well?). The problem is, the advocates of Intelligent Design aren't being honest and sincere when they say they just want kids to feel free to discuss whether God might have had a role in evolution, etc. They have a much larger goal in mind, which includes undermining science itself as well as the foundations of our secular democracy. And again, they have said so themselves.

re: #34 Padre

What is the big deal with teaching, "Class, some people view the creation of the world as being the work of God, and believe such and such....?"

Why is presenting more than one side of the issue so bad? It is not religious indoctrination.

IT IS NOT INDOCTRINATION!

Are some afraid that evolution will NOT be taught? Am I missing the big point?

377 Dianna  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:16:33am

re: #329 jcm

Not even every Wiccan does that!

Stereotyping!

///

378 Typicalwhitey  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:16:48am

re: #336 jordank

I have no idea who complained about what book or for what reason they wanted it gone from the library, but considering how many people wanted Harry Potter banned, I think my guess is pretty damn accurate

So its alright to just guess?

I am guessing you are an asshole.

379 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:16:53am

re: #359 jordank

Katie Holmes was born Catholic and recently joined the Church of Scientology. Are you saying that the Catholic church still considers her Catholic? Give me a break. Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat but you don't hear Democrats saying "Well, he may have joined the Republicans, but he is still a Democrat technically!"

If you come back to Catholicism, you do not need to be re-baptized or re-confirmed. Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about.

380 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:17:03am

re: #344 Charles

Well - that's exactly what he is doing, and he's not just talking about it, he's signing bills into law.

This does not look like he is shoving creationism down anyone's throat by a long shot. [Link: www.evolutionnews.org...]

381 wolfie  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:17:12am

re: #296 looking closely

I make no claims as the appearance of God, or on what is the "right" Judeo-Christian belief there.

All I'm saying is that the most straightforward interpretation of what's written in the Old Testament is that man physically resembles God (and vice versa).

If that is the most straightforward interpretation, it is indeed surprising that none of the Fathers of the Church and no Christian theologian of any standing in the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, or Calvinist traditions has ever put forth that view!
Not from the first century AD up to the present. NONE.
The only religious tradition that even suggests such a thing is, I believe, Mormonism. (I'm no expert on Mormonism and may be wrong about that.)

382 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:17:15am

re: #329 jcm

Does that mean everyone is too be strict pagan at the solstice and dance around nekkid?

That might be a path you do not wish to walk jcm.

Much like the fantasy of a nude beach, the reality can be... grim.

383 Russkilitlover  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:17:16am

re: #358 Mardukhai

Anybody read the LAT piece on Palin and the Alaskan Independence Party? It's a pretty ripe group of secessionists.

On the Middle East, I wouldn't trust a thing an LAT reporter says, but local politics is often handled straight. Anybody know more about this?

AP says that her husband was a member.

Not sure that a secessionist belongs a heartbeat from the White House.

If you get your facts and data from the LA Times, you'll never want for moonshine!

384 jordank  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:17:31am

re: #375 Alouette

Do you kiss your Mother with that mouth?

385 Basho  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:17:33am

re: #210 jordank

Gah... didn't mean to ding you down.

386 SpartanWoman  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:17:36am

re: #370 Cartman

He's hammering home the sheer duplicity that is on display.

I am sending emails asking them to dismiss O'Brien so that she can take proper care of her children. Children are TOO big a distraction for her yo do a proper job.

387 Irene NYC  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:18:16am

re: #324 StinkHammer

I must be missing your point. I asserted that English literature (as tought in the University) depends upon interpretation (it was my Major, so I have some experience with that phenomenon), whereas the basis of the scientific process is one based on specific methodology that is beyond interpretation (the RESULTS, however, of that methodology are what are subject to interpretation.) How does that make me off-base?

Because post-modernism is not interpretation - it is based on a specific far left ideology that is beyond questioning and specifically designed to undo the philosophical underpinnings of the Enlightenment. It has a specific political aim, and it ain't shy about it anymore.

Remind me again, academics are 90% democrats, and the percentage is even higher if you discount the hard sciences, right? I'm not being snide when I ask, surely you noticed while you were/are in academia the lockstep mentality going on there?

I might also add that the post-modernists are now pointing their guns at the hard sciences and the "scientific method." Getting Larry Summers, the prez of Harvard, fired, and stifling discussion on women in math and science, was one of their great accomplishments. We can look forward to many, many more.

388 SpartanWoman  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:18:26am

re: #372 Mardukhai

Anyone have anything on Palin and the Alaskan Independence Party?

ANy mention or questions to Obama on his running on a marxist ticket?

389 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:18:29am

re: #336 jordank

I have no idea who complained about what book or for what reason they wanted it gone from the library, but considering how many people wanted Harry Potter banned, I think my guess is pretty damn accurate

Pray tell what is a banned book? No governmental institution is prohibiting a publishing house from publishing books.

390 Dianna  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:18:30am

re: #346 wrenchwench

There was a bit of a kerfuffle, early on, about Harry Potter. Eventually, people got over it, particularly after they started reading the books.

391 Spenser (with an S)  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:18:34am

re: #365 Teh Flowah

I guess it's not as bad as Jindal, but just there mere fact people still buy into the whole ID-bullshit annoys me greatly. Like those who think the earth is still flat. It's willful ignorance of the reality of the situation.

Please separate the I-D Movement pushing for science curriculum changes with the many of us who believe in a Creator. Some of us even went to college and everything...

392 doppelganglander  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:18:49am

jordank: Registered since: Aug 29, 2008 at 6:07 pm
No. of comments posted: 38
No. of links posted: 0

Not making much of a first impression here, are ya, pal? I'm going to state that you're 35 years old, live in your mom's basement, and subsist mainly on Cheetoes. Prove me wrong.

393 Dianna  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:19:03am

re: #372 Mardukhai

Hot Air had a headline about it, I think.

394 jill e  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:19:20am

re: #368 Celtic Templar

Provide documentation that you've seen for your assertion.

If you renounce the Church, you are not excommunicated. You just don't consider yourself a Catholic, the Church still considers you a Catholic.

Exactly true. It's not a club.

395 AnotherRightWingConspirator  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:19:21am

re: #349 jordank

Same thing the MSM does: throw a bunch of crap on the wall and then see what sticks. Why should anybody prove you wrong? Prove yourself right - come back with some facts.

396 Cartman  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:19:27am

I guess I went OT. I'll wait for another thread. Later, all.

397 kansas  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:19:32am

Olbermann jumped the shark last night. After Thompson's speech Olbermann, with a puzzled looked, said something like, "That was strange. All I saw was a flag and gun." Then he handed off to Chris Matthews who I swear had this "WTF?" look, and completely ignored him.

398 jordank  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:19:41am

re: #392 doppelganglander

jordank: Registered since: Aug 29, 2008 at 6:07 pm
No. of comments posted: 38
No. of links posted: 0

Not making much of a first impression here, are ya, pal? I'm going to state that you're 35 years old, live in your mom's basement, and subsist mainly on Cheetoes. Prove me wrong.

Ever hear of "projection"?

LOL

399 SpartanWoman  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:20:04am

re: #392 doppelganglander

jordank: Registered since: Aug 29, 2008 at 6:07 pm
No. of comments posted: 38
No. of links posted: 0

Not making much of a first impression here, are ya, pal? I'm going to state that you're 35 years old, live in your mom's basement, and subsist mainly on Cheetoes. Prove me wrong.

You're wrong! He lives on organic cheetos

400 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:20:19am
401 jcm  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:20:22am

re: #377 Dianna

Not even every Wiccan does that!

Stereotyping!

///

Rats.....


re: #382 CyanSnowHawk

That might be a path you do not wish to walk jcm.

Much like the fantasy of a nude beach, the reality can be... grim.

I've seen zombies' Breasts not Bombs post....
*shudder*

402 Charles  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:20:33am

re: #380 galloping granny

This does not look like he is shoving creationism down anyone's throat by a long shot. [Link: www.evolutionnews.org...]

You're linking to the Discovery Institute's propaganda about the bill.

The Discovery Institute is behind this bill, like they were behind the Dover school board's previous attempt to sneak creationism into schools. Their credibility is nil, and their dishonesty is legendary.

403 X-ray  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:20:35am

re: #358 Mardukhai


Not sure that a secessionist belongs a heartbeat from the White House.

Kinda depends on the reasons they want to secede doesn't it?
If it is because they want to bring back slavery yes that's a bad idea. But if it is to point out how far our gov't has strayed from the ideals of our founding I'm not worried.

404 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:21:03am

re: #359 jordank

Katie Holmes was born Catholic and recently joined the Church of Scientology. Are you saying that the Catholic church still considers her Catholic? Give me a break. Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat but you don't hear Democrats saying "Well, he may have joined the Republicans, but he is still a Democrat technically!"

Yes, I am saying just exactly that. Katie Holmes may not longer consider herself Catholic, but the Catholics do and if at some point down the road she would care to return to the fold, attend confession and receive communion she would be allowed to do so.

Teddy Kennedy, on the other hand, is separated from the church because he divorced his first wife and remarried outside of church law. He cannot receive communion because in the eyes of the church he is living in sin, If he, however, decided to divorce wife number 2, make full confession and take communion, he, too, would be allowed to do so.

405 Honorary Yooper  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:21:04am

re: #392 doppelganglander

jordank: Registered since: Aug 29, 2008 at 6:07 pm
No. of comments posted: 38
No. of links posted: 0

Not making much of a first impression here, are ya, pal? I'm going to state that you're 35 years old, live in your mom's basement, and subsist mainly on Cheetoes. Prove me wrong.

So he's a Kos Kiddie?

406 jill e  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:21:08am

"When they attack one personally it means they haven't a single political argument left."
-- Margaret Thatcher

407 sojerofgod  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:21:21am

RE: #322

Pick a little, talk a little Cheep!

408 quickjustice  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:21:34am

re: #336 jordank

Your "guess"? This is your basis for an attack on Sarah Palin? You should be ashamed of yourself. Could it be that the book was pornography inappropriate for children?

409 jemima  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:22:10am

#324

I must be missing your point. I asserted that English literature (as tought in the University) depends upon interpretation (it was my Major, so I have some experience with that phenomenon)

Taught.

It was my major, too.

410 doppelganglander  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:22:11am

re: #398 jordank

Ever hear of "projection"?

LOL

Such a schoolyard wit. I'm done here.

411 cblesz  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:22:17am

Don't get too excited about O'Reilly. I am sure he will lob a bunch of softballs and won't challenge Obama at all.

412 jcm  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:22:47am

re: #406 jill e

"When they attack one personally it means they haven't a single political argument left."
-- Margaret Thatcher

The lefts been out of arguments for a decade then.

413 Who Watches the Watchmen?  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:23:03am

re: #350 Dave the.....


[Link: www.kfai.org...]


Gotta love those Pacifica affiliates. We have one in my area that's mostly music, but the talk programs are all LLL-certifiable.

I see the disaffected youts will be cutting classes tomorrow:

Thursday, Sept 4: Youth Against War and Racism High School Walk-Out, 11AM
YAWR is calling for a walk-out by area high school students at 11AM. They'll converge on the state capitol, and participate in a puppetry festival which will, among other things, arrest Bush and Cheney for war crimes.

What is it with moonbats and puppets?

414 realwest  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:23:07am

re: #380 galloping granny
Two points from your link deserve some thought, I believe: ". Moreover, any teaching or supplemental instructional materials would have to be consistent with the prohibition of the promotion of religion in Section 1D of the bill."
and
"The law will not allow for inclusion of religion. Section 1D of the law clearly states that the law "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."

415 Honorary Yooper  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:23:52am

re: #411 cblesz

Don't get too excited about O'Reilly. I am sure he will lob a bunch of softballs and won't challenge Obama at all.

The lepruchaun just wants to keep Obama away from his lucky charms. ;-)

416 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:24:08am

re: #408 quickjustice

Hey leave Jordank alone, I need the practice. He's got about the debating skills as many of my liberal friends/associates.

Sharpening the swords, girding my loins ;)

417 J.S.  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:24:10am

re: #324 StinkHammer

Science engages in interpretation...there is quite a bit of what could be termed "art" with respect to science...(it's not as cut and dry as you might think...there are many arguments, many differences with respect to interpretion of data, heated debates, etc., etc.)

418 DeafDog  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:24:18am

re: #353 runrabbitrun

I hope O'Reilly, who swore to us 'no spin' last winter in his talking points that he would go after the media BIG TIME this election , displays the two Us magaslime covers during his Barack Obama interview, and will ask Barry pointblank if he is willing to denounce that kind of partisan, misleading hack activity in the press - right then, right there.

I'd rather O'reilly did not ask about Palin's kids. Obama has already denounced the treatment and he would just denounce it again and say he can't control it. So he gets the best of both worlds - he looks big, but gets to watch the freakish manipulation of a political opponent.

Ask him when he's taken on his own party for the greater good like Sarah has.

Ask him when he's ever cut taxes like Sarah has.

Ask him when he's taken on big oil like Sarah has.

Ask him if he has a plan for cheaper gas like Sarah has.

Don't ask him about Sarah's kids. That's the ultimate softball.

419 Basho  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:24:24am

re: #402 Charles

You're linking to the Discovery Institute's propaganda about the bill.

The Discovery Institute is behind this bill, like they were behind the Dover school board's previous attempt to sneak creationism into schools. Their credibility is nil, and their dishonesty is legendary.

I'm sure the Discovery Institute can't wait to spend their money and resources defending the bill in court.

/

420 Spider Mensch  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:24:32am

re: #358 Mardukhai

Anybody read the LAT piece on Palin and the Alaskan Independence Party? It's a pretty ripe group of secessionists.

On the Middle East, I wouldn't trust a thing an LAT reporter says, but local politics is often handled straight. Anybody know more about this?

AP says that her husband was a member.

Not sure that a secessionist belongs a heartbeat from the White House.


hmmm, I need to see more than your links before I would start throwing around the term "secessionist" like you do. those links have alot of leeway and gray areas in them. imo.

421 Eagle  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:24:39am

re: #34 Padre

IT IS NOT INDOCTRINATION!

The yelling suggests otherwise....

422 Typicalwhitey  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:24:59am
423 jordank  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:25:02am

re: #416 Celtic Templar

Keep dreaming, and don't let reality kick your butt on the way out

424 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:25:14am

re: #359 jordank

Katie Holmes was born Catholic and recently joined the Church of Scientology. Are you saying that the Catholic church still considers her Catholic? Give me a break. Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat but you don't hear Democrats saying "Well, he may have joined the Republicans, but he is still a Democrat technically!"

Katie Holmes is in the same club as me. Lapsed Catholic. As I understand it, we are considered lost members of the flock, to be found and encouraged back.

The Scientologists really have it out against the Catholics. L.Ron was none too happy with them, and they consider turning a Catholic to be a great prize.

425 Dianna  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:25:23am

re: #413 Who Watches the Watchmen?

What is it with moonbats and puppets?

I really don't know, but I suspect it's got something to do with not having grown up.

426 opnion  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:25:37am

re: #411 cblesz

Don't get too excited about O'Reilly. I am sure he will lob a bunch of softballs and won't challenge Obama at all.

I think that I am missing something. Is Obama going to be on O'Reilly?

427 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:25:44am

re: #423 jordank

Keep dreaming, and don't let reality kick your butt on the way out

Nice... now make some sense.

428 runrabbitrun  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:25:46am

re: #364 opnion

It's very odd that the same Media types that are pushing Sarah Palin to humiliate herself, by proving that her child is her child, but have no interest in the records of the Annenberg Challenge. You know, cause it might link Barry closely with William Ayers & corrupt grants to Rezko.

The media types far left Fifth Column has no interest in Palin's child, McCain's age, women in politics, the wellbeing of the citizens, Barry O's accomplishments or abilities, the Annenberg records, or anything peripheral to achieving power by any means necessary and expanding socialism.

429 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:25:46am

re: #34 Padre

What is the big deal with teaching, "Class, some people view the creation of the world as being the work of God, and believe such and such....?"

Why is presenting more than one side of the issue so bad? It is not religious indoctrination.

IT IS NOT INDOCTRINATION!

Are some afraid that evolution will NOT be taught? Am I missing the big point?

What you're missing is that it ain't science, and therefore has no place in public high school science classes.

430 realwest  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:25:56am

re: #402 Charles Charles, are you saying that the two sentences that I quoted in my #414 are inaccurate (sorry, but I've never actually read the law itself)?

431 looking closely  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:26:17am

re: #373 realwest

what does a science teacher do if a student asks about creationism at a time when the teacher is teaching evolution? It's not "reserved" or "protected" for the teacher to respond, do you think?

No, and I agree that a response at that time would be appropriate.

IMO, the appropriate response would be something along these lines:

"Since there is no evidence that shows or proves that the creatures on Earth were put there fully formed by a creator (or intelligent designer), that belief is really a faith-based belief, not a scientific one. As such, we can't spend any more class time discussing this. Feel free to come meet me after class (during recess/whenever) if you want to discuss this further."

By the way, I *do* think insufficient time is spent in high school and grade school "science" class discussing what exactly science is and how the scientific method works. *IF* such time were devoted (and it usually isn't), then it might be appropriate to discuss Creationism as a counter-example of a faith based belief.

I'm all for discussing what is and isn't science in the science classroom (and especially why), but given necessary time contraints, I don't think its appropriate to MANDATE time for non-science teachings in science class. I'm also all for teaching children about Creationism; they need to know that not everyone accepts evolution. Again, the issue is in what context are they going to be taught this.

432 jordank  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:26:32am

re: #426 opnion

I think that I am missing something. Is Obama going to be on O'Reilly?

Dunno, but I do know that Murdoch himself said he wanted Obama to win

433 Honorary Yooper  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:26:59am

re: #424 CyanSnowHawk

Katie Holmes is in the same club as me. Lapsed Catholic. As I understand it, we are considered lost members of the flock, to be found and encouraged back.

The Scientologists really have it out against the Catholics. L.Ron was none too happy with them, and they consider turning a Catholic to be a great prize.

Yes, you guys are considered a part of the flock. As for L. Ron, he was a shitty science fiction writer.

434 jcm  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:27:13am

re: #413 Who Watches the Watchmen?

What is it with moonbats and puppets?

The inability to deal with reality.

435 hippieforlife  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:27:15am

I hope that she does not provide DNA evidence to the press!

What absolute gall. The MSM has gone far beyond stupid into downright ugliness and they won't see the light of day for many years to come.

It is just freedom of the press to smear anyone they don't like:

1. Black Republicans
2. Women Republicans.
3. Dead Republicans
4. Handicapped Republicans.
I could go on, but I am sure you get the point.

Diversity, what a sick joke when it comes to liberals.

436 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:27:32am

re: #366 jordank

I was being semi-sarcastic when I wrote that. Anyone reading what I quoted beforehand knew there was no mention of witches. Not my fault if people don't read everything in a post.

Use the /, your keyboard is an effective sarcasm filter.

437 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:27:36am

re: #426 opnion

I think that I am missing something. Is Obama going to be on O'Reilly?

Yes, just before John McCain's acceptance speech.

438 adragonknowsbest  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:27:39am

Part of me wants McCain to give a "tough guy" speech to the jackal media. "Look here devil-dirge...this is milady, my running pardner and I am tired of the lack of respect you folks are giving her." *Drops maternity test results loudly on the podium* "Next fool who writes another lie about her is going to get a knuckle sandwich!"

Anyway, wow...this former Huckabee supporter is now psyched to vote McCain/Palin and looks forward to the demise of liberal politics.

439 realwest  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:27:45am

re: #431 looking closely
I don't think we disagree about this topic.

440 Typicalwhitey  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:27:47am

re: #397 kansas

Olbermann jumped the shark last night. After Thompson's speech Olbermann, with a puzzled looked, said something like, "That was strange. All I saw was a flag and gun." Then he handed off to Chris Matthews who I swear had this "WTF?" look, and completely ignored him.

He had a smartass partisan comment everytime they went to him

441 Kenneth  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:28:17am

re: #422 Typicalwhitey

Another good ad, aimed directly at Obama.

442 DeafDog  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:28:27am

re: #397 kansas

Olbermann jumped the shark last night. After Thompson's speech Olbermann, with a puzzled looked, said something like, "That was strange. All I saw was a flag and gun." Then he handed off to Chris Matthews who I swear had this "WTF?" look, and completely ignored him.

I watched MSNBC for a bit last night, too, and Mathews looked particular down. I chalked it up to having to be at the republican convention, or the Lieberman speech, perhaps, but maybe he is sick of Olberman.

443 Basho  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:28:37am

re: #248 galloping granny

Forbidding all discussion of a topic because it is not "part of the scientific" method is "silly" - and in fact, not a true part of the scientific method, which stipulates that you must consider all possibilities. (And I should know that, because I AM a scientist.)

Consider all the possibilities? Perfect. I have high hopes getting my paper on invisible fairies pushing us to the center of the Earth rather than "gravity" published.

444 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:28:51am
445 Pullus Iulius  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:28:54am

AIP is yet another red herring. The AIP took over de facto management of the Alaskan Republican Party in 1990 when Arlis Sturgelewski won the gubernatorial primary on a pro-abortion, anti-death penalty platform. Walter Hickel (former Republican governor, former Nixon Interior Secretary) came out of retirement, accepted AIP nomination for governor, and won. He never accepted any of the secessionist rhetoric of any of the AIP old guard. Hickel had been one of the earliest, staunchest proponents of Alaskan statehood, pre-1959. He acquitted himself well in his second administration, reverted back to Republican membership afterward, and endorsed Palin in 2006. Case closed. Next made-up scandal?

446 runrabbitrun  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:29:12am

re: #418 DeafDog

Don't ask him about Sarah's kids. That's the ultimate softball.

well, then I guess Bill will do ONLY that.... his major aim is to maintain access if the boob (the barry one, not the bill one) gets elected in November.

447 cblesz  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:29:16am

re: #426 opnion

I think that I am missing something. Is Obama going to be on O'Reilly?

Yup. Tonight. I wonder if the Kos KOOKS are going crazy! What about MoveOn? Didn't they threaten Obama NOT to go on Fox?

448 realwest  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:29:49am

re: #445 Pullus Iulius
Thank you for that comment.

449 quickjustice  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:30:00am

re: #423 jordank

It's like Harry Potter's magic! You're turning into a troll in front of my very eyes! ;-)

450 cblesz  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:30:06am

re: #446 runrabbitrun

well, then I guess Bill will do ONLY that.... his major aim is to maintain access if the boob (the barry one, not the bill one) gets elected in November.


Exactly...he will kiss his ass so he maintains access, period.

451 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:30:07am

re: #438 adragonknowsbest

Part of me wants McCain to give a "tough guy" speech to the jackal media. "Look here devil-dirge...this is milady, my running pardner and I am tired of the lack of respect you folks are giving her." *Drops maternity test results loudly on the podium* "Next fool who writes another lie about her is going to get a knuckle sandwich!"

Anyway, wow...this former Huckabee supporter is now psyched to vote McCain/Palin and looks forward to the demise of liberal politics.

I thought the same at first, but the MSM is drowning in its own mud. McCain has proven himself to be a very saavy candidate. The MSM is a bigger threat than Obama will ever be, and McCain has pulled back the curtain so a few more people will see. Between Hillary's campaign (PUMAs blame the MSM for its failure) and now the out and out attack on Palin, it is impossible to claim the major news organizations are not in the tank for Obama.

452 ploome hineni[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:30:11am
453 itellu3times  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:30:21am

re: #397 kansas

Olbermann jumped the shark last night. After Thompson's speech Olbermann, with a puzzled looked, said something like, "That was strange. All I saw was a flag and gun." Then he handed off to Chris Matthews who I swear had this "WTF?" look, and completely ignored him.

That's cuz he saw Olbermann had spent the entire time looking down his own pants.

454 Typicalwhitey  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:30:23am

re: #444 CyanSnowHawk

OMG, John McCain is a Cylon!

LMAO
they really believe that

455 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:30:49am

re: #431 looking closely

No, and I agree that a response at that time would be appropriate.

IMO, the appropriate response would be something along these lines:

"Since there is no evidence that shows or proves that the creatures on Earth were put there fully formed by a creator (or intelligent designer), that belief is really a faith-based belief, not a scientific one. As such, we can't spend any more class time discussing this. Feel free to come meet me after class (during recess/whenever) if you want to discuss this further."

By the way, I *do* think insufficient time is spent in high school and grade school "science" class discussing what exactly science is and how the scientific method works. *IF* such time were devoted (and it usually isn't), then it might be appropriate to discuss Creationism as a counter-example of a faith based belief.

I'm all for discussing what is and isn't science in the science classroom (and especially why), but given necessary time contraints, I don't think its appropriate to MANDATE time for non-science teachings in science class. I'm also all for teaching children about Creationism; they need to know that not everyone accepts evolution. Again, the issue is in what context are they going to be taught this.

And the way that I read the Louisiana law, this is exactly what is allowed, codified into law.

456 unreconstructed rebel  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:30:55am

re: #435 hippieforlife

Based on the century just past, the list is quite long. 100 million souls perished at the hands of the socialist state. Near as I can tell, for no other reason than they stood in the way of the Perfect State.

457 Typicalwhitey  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:30:58am

re: #447 cblesz

Yup. Tonight. I wonder if the Kos KOOKS are going crazy! What about MoveOn? Didn't they threaten Obama NOT to go on Fox?

TOMORROW NIGHT
The same night McCain makes his acceptance speech!

458 opnion  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:31:03am

re: #428 runrabbitrun

The media types far left Fifth Column has no interest in Palin's child, McCain's age, women in politics, the wellbeing of the citizens, Barry O's accomplishments or abilities, the Annenberg records, or anything peripheral to achieving power by any means necessary and expanding socialism.

I do not disagree with that. To me though this is a new low. A Down baby that the parents welcomed into this world.
When does Roger Alies sack Colmes?

459 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:31:11am

re: #449 quickjustice

It's like Harry Potter's magic! You're turning into a troll in front of my very eyes! ;-)

Funny, but leave her/him alone, s/he's more of a little goblin or smurf. I'm waiting for another bit of Catholic wisdom from him/her.

460 Kenneth  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:31:13am

re: #444 CyanSnowHawk

I think that website is a spoof. I think.

461 wolfie  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:31:14am

re: #323 jordank

Catholicism isn't like Judaism where born a Jew, always a Jew. You are not Catholic until baptized, and even then if you renounce the church then you are kicked out the door as far as membership is concerned. Please provide me documentation if I am wrong.

You are ignorant. No one is kicked out of the door of the Catholic Church as far as membership is concerned. Not even formal excommunication, a rare occurence, does that.

And I am not aware that Palin "renounced" Catholicism. Most people who switch churches or stop going to churches don't "renounce" their former denomination. Was this a weird case where she had some amazing ceremony formally burning her baptismal certificate and pledging her disdain for Catholicism or something? Is there a new anti-sacrament here you are conjuring up in your imagination?

462 sojerofgod  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:31:15am

re: #358 Mardukhai

Ah,... That party in Alaska came out and stated that she was never a member.
So that just plain ain't so.

I couldn't give a damn what her husband thinks. HE ain't running for anything except a lot of headaches. I pity the man. (Though I think he is well able to handle himself)

463 jcm  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:31:18am

Farewell to a grand ship.

BREMERTON, Wash. - The aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk has arrived in Puget Sound on its final voyage before decommissioning at Bremerton.

Thank you to all who sailed on her in the past 47 years.

464 Charles  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:31:19am

re: #430 realwest

Charles, are you saying that the two sentences that I quoted in my #414 are inaccurate (sorry, but I've never actually read the law itself)?

I'm saying that this is a deliberately deceptive bill, carefully crafted to avoid the pitfalls that the Discovery Institute fell into in the Dover case. Here's my previous post on it, with a better analysis of what the bill is all about than the Dishonesty Institute's propaganda.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

465 lawhawk  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:31:26am

re: #422 Typicalwhitey

It's a somewhat effective ad since it brings into question who is Obama running against? McCain or Palin? Palin has more experience than Obama, and a record to run on. Obama? Not so much.

Too bad they didn't hammer on that part more.

466 Cap'n DOC  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:32:19am

re: #323 jordank

You are not Catholic until baptized, and even then if you renounce the church then you are kicked out the door as far as membership is concerned.

I'm a cradle Catholic. Can you understand the meaning of that? Yes, I was baptized, but I was born of Catholic parents, which makes me a Catholic by birth. If I have a disagreement with the Church (or renounce it as you put it), does not change the fact that I am still a Catholic.

467 ploome hineni[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:32:27am
468 Typicalwhitey  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:32:28am

re: #465 lawhawk

'There will be another one out later today.
More contrast

469 opnion  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:32:37am

re: #447 cblesz

Yup. Tonight. I wonder if the Kos KOOKS are going crazy! What about MoveOn? Didn't they threaten Obama NOT to go on Fox?


Thank you. Now it is time for O'Reilly to step up to the plate & do an honest , tough interview.

470 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:32:59am

re: #384 jordank

Do you kiss your Mother with that mouth?

No, but I kiss your mother with this mouth! Suck it Trebek!

/Sean Connery

471 realwest  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:33:22am

re: #447 cblesz MoveOn
threatened Obama not to go on Fox?
What did they threaten him with - that they'd support McCain or was that threat made during the Dem primaries?

472 cblesz  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:33:48am

re: #469 opnion

Thank you. Now it is time for O'Reilly to step up to the plate & do an honest , tough interview.


Hw will not. He could have gone after Hillary more forcefull and did not. I am not saying be mean, but call him out on his crap!

473 sojerofgod  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:33:48am

re: #413 Who Watches the Watchmen?

What is it with moonbats and puppets?

They are too cowardly to stand up and say this stuff to the face of their targets: They have to hide behind a veil so they don't soil themselves with fright.

474 Sol Roth  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:33:59am

re: #350 Dave the.....

Sorry, repost....go to the web site and the radio stations phone number is there for anyone wishing to discuss with them the support of violence. Below is from a local radio station that all year has been encouraging violence against Republican delegates in St Paul. They have been working with the anarchists.

[Link: www.kfai.org...]

www.kfai.org

KFAI, 1808 Riverside Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 5545

Violent anti-warriors. This is what passes for intelligence and bravery on the Left.

475 Fat Jolly Penguin  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:34:22am

Yikes. Massive troll alert on Rush now.

476 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:34:56am

re: #444 CyanSnowHawk

OMG, John McCain is a Cylon!

Cool, he provides me with 1 of each female Cylon and he's got my vote.

477 sattv4u2  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:34:57am

re: #323 jordank

Catholicism isn't like Judaism where born a Jew, always a Jew. You are not Catholic until baptized, and even then if you renounce the church then you are kicked out the door as far as membership is concerned. Please provide me documentation if I am wrong.

re: #466 Cap'n DOC

If you "renounce" (as you put it) the church the church does NOT kick you out the door as far as membership.

478 jill e  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:34:59am

From Michael D. Guinan, O.F.M. [my Catholic perspective]

First, at Sunday Mass we recite the Creed, which begins, “We believe in God, the Father almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.” We believe! This is a statement of faith. God, the Father, has created all things in, through and for the Son, Jesus Christ. This affirms our deepest religious belief about all creation, and it is not subject to scientific proof or disproof.

Second, religious language, though it may be the deepest and most true, is not the only way to talk about the wonders of creation. Clearly, science is another. It has its own methods and procedures, and, as science, does not and cannot deal with issues of ultimate concern. One can be both a devout and committed Christian and an evolutionary scientist.

Many evolutionary scientists are deeply Christian. There is no necessary conflict between science and religion, provided that each respects the limits of its own way of seeking understanding. This has been recognized down through the centuries, e.g., by St. Augustine (d. 430), St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), Pope Leo XIII (Providentissimus Deus, 1893), Pope John Paul II (Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Oct. 3, 1981), and Pope Benedict XVI (Speech to seminarians, Castel Gandalfo, July 25, 2007).

Third, conflict does indeed occur when these limits are violated. This, by the way, can happen on either side. On the one hand, there are scientists who appeal to evolution as evidence to reject faith in God. This is wrong. But, on the other hand, the attempt to turn religious faith into science is the same mistake, but in the opposite direction. Both creationism and intelligent design fail in this regard. Creationism is based on a wholly inadequate understanding of biblical texts. Intelligent design tries to pass off as science a philosophical position in a way that many Catholic theologians would find inadequate.

Finally, new scientific discoveries may challenge us to deepen our understanding of a biblical text or of a theological position. We believe, however, in the deepest sense, that there can be no ultimate contradiction. The Source of Truth is One, and that Source is God, the Father of Jesus Christ, in, through and for whom all things are created.

479 Typicalwhitey  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:35:05am

re: #472 cblesz

Hw will not. He could have gone after Hillary more forcefull and did not. I am not saying be mean, but call him out on his crap!

NO NO NO
This should not be happening on the SAME NIGHT McCain is making his acceptance speech.

It is rude and steps on McCains night.

Something McCain DID NOT do to him and he could have with the Palin announcement!

480 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:35:05am

re: #475 Fat Jolly Penguin

Yikes. Massive troll alert on Rush now.

Just means we're on the right path! Sounds like a 12 year old.

481 jcm  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:35:05am

re: #475 Fat Jolly Penguin

Yikes. Massive troll alert on Rush now.

ROFLMAO!

482 wolfie  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:35:29am

re: #349 jordank

Prove me wrong

How about showing us the results of your whole family's DNA tests first?

483 opnion  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:35:36am

re: #472 cblesz

Hw will not. He could have gone after Hillary more forcefull and did not. I am not saying be mean, but call him out on his crap!


Unfortunately, I think that your are correct. O'Reilly is a bit of a windbag fraud.

484 DeafDog  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:36:00am

re: #446 runrabbitrun

well, then I guess Bill will do ONLY that.... his major aim is to maintain access if the boob (the barry one, not the bill one) gets elected in November.

You speak truth.

The timing of Obama's appearance, however, is interesting. On the one hand, having O give an interview on McCain's night seems to be undercutting the convention tradition. On the other hand, if O wanted to get a truly easy interview, he would go to CNN or one of the networks.

Bill will at least give an appearance of 'toughness' by asking some good questions. When Barak gives a way out answer or an answer that does not conform with facts, however, bill will let him slide....like he did for Hillary.

485 jcm  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:36:12am

re: #482 wolfie

How about showing us the results of your whole family's DNA tests first?

It's a cyclon but we can't trust Baltar's test.......

486 looking closely  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:36:27am

re: #381 wolfie

If that is the most straightforward interpretation, it is indeed surprising that none of the Fathers of the Church and no Christian theologian of any standing in the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, or Calvinist traditions has ever put forth that view!
Not from the first century AD up to the present. NONE.
The only religious tradition that even suggests such a thing is, I believe, Mormonism. (I'm no expert on Mormonism and may be wrong about that.)


Just because something is the simplest explanation, doesn't make it the easiest to accept!

Without getting into a heavy discussion of the anthropomorphic nature of God, suffice it to say that there has been much theological discussion on this. Christian, Jewish, and Muslim theology all ultimately reject the concept of an anthropomorphic God.

But you do point out something ironic and relevant here, which is that the church, since its inception, has not relied on a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible, and neither has the Jewish faith.

So if God wasn't physically walking in the Garden of Eden (as the Bible explicitly says he was), and that is simply a metaphor, than why are the accounts of his creation necessarily literally true?

487 Killgore Trout  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:36:39am

re: #372 Mardukhai

The Koskidz have been making some noise about that but I haven't bothered looking into it.

488 Fat Jolly Penguin  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:36:40am
"How is John McCain going to destroy the economy?"

"Because George Bush destroyed the economy."

*clawing at eyes*

489 Spenser (with an S)  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:36:43am

re: #470 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

No, but I kiss your mother with this mouth! Suck it Trebek!

/Sean Connery

Heh. My lovely bride, who normally has no use for slapstick, giggles uncontrollably when those Will Ferrell/jeopardy skits come on.

490 Dianna  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:36:48am

re: #444 CyanSnowHawk

That is a satire site, right? I have problems perceiving satire, so I'm asking honestly.

491 jcm  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:37:04am

re: #475 Fat Jolly Penguin

Yikes. Massive troll alert on Rush now.

Rush is losing his patients with this one...

492 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:37:18am

re: #460 Kenneth

I think that website is a spoof. I think.

It looks like a troofer spoof, using the 4/29/07 I-35W bridge collapse in the bay area as a spoof base. A friend sent me the link this morning and I had to share.

493 MandyManners  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:37:19am

re: #34 Padre

What is the big deal with teaching, "Class, some people view the creation of the world as being the work of God, and believe such and such....?"

Why is presenting more than one side of the issue so bad? It is not religious indoctrination.

IT IS NOT INDOCTRINATION!

Are some afraid that evolution will NOT be taught? Am I missing the big point?

Are you willing to have Muslims come to teach their beliefs that Allah created the world?

494 joncelli  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:37:40am

re: #307 unreconstructed rebel

Science examines how He pulled it off. Theology examines why and for whom. Mix the two & you get nonsense.


Excellent summary.

495 sattv4u2  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:37:42am

re: #487 Killgore Trout

The Koskidz have been making some noise about that but I haven't bothered looking into it.

Statement from a party official says she was never a member

496 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:37:43am

re: #402 Charles

The Discovery Institute is behind this bill, like they were behind the Dover school board's previous attempt to sneak creationism into schools. Their credibility is nil, and their dishonesty is legendary.

Charles, did the Discovery Institute even exist 30 years ago? This bill is a rewrite of one that has been in the works in Louisiana for that period of time. The previous version was struck down by SCOTUS.
[Link: article.nationalreview.com...] is what the National Review has to say -

Here is a statement from the ACLU - [Link: www.arn.org...]

Here is the final text of the bill itself -
[Link: www.legis.state.la.us...]

497 press_ie  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:37:46am

It boggles the mind that this forum would highlight attacks against Intelligent Design when most Americans don't buy into the theory of evolution.

We are talking about an election here that is only two months away and what is it that we see on Little Green Footballs, but “ a continual streaming on the doctrinal bowing down and worship of the theory of Evolution. And sadly anyone that doesn't knuckle under is essentially dismissed as a fundamentalists religious zealot.

The truth is, this whole Evolutionary topic is killing unity, and any possibility of LGF being a positive force in getting McCain elected.

And ipso facto -- a brilliant political strategy to get Barak elected.

Divide and conquer, and in this case your own party.

TP

498 looking closely  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:38:27am

re: #439 realwest

I don't think we disagree about this topic.

No, we don't.

As it see it, the only issue is whether or not Creationism becomes a formal part of any public school science curriculum. IE, is it on the syllabus, or not? If its introduced by discussion, or outside the context of science teaching that's a different matter.

499 smokefire  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:38:40am

re: #469 opnion

anybody that REALLY thinks O'Reilly will do more than toss softball batting practice with Barry is a fool. Fair and Balanced? After tomorrow night, Fox may have to drink the kool aid too. O'Reilly has no balls, and will not risk it, for fear if Obama wins, (GOD HELP US IF HE DOES), FOX news will become totally irrelevant.

500 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:38:42am

re: #493 MandyManners

Are you willing to have Muslims come to teach their beliefs that Allah created the world?

No, because G-d created the world and evolution. Allah is a construct of an Arabian warlord to steal Jewish interests in the Middle East.

501 jcm  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:39:02am

re: #497 press_ie

Registered since: Sep 16, 2004 at 6:54 am
No. of comments posted: 32
No. of links posted: 0

502 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:39:04am

re: #447 cblesz

Yup. Tonight. I wonder if the Kos KOOKS are going crazy! What about MoveOn? Didn't they threaten Obama NOT to go on Fox?

Nope. Tomorrow - just before McCain's acceptance speech.

503 Fat Jolly Penguin  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:39:25am
press_ie

Registered since: Sep 16, 2004 at 6:54 am
No. of comments posted: 32
No. of links posted: 0

Ballsy for a hatchling, ain'tcha?

504 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:39:42am

re: #497 press_ie

It boggles the mind that this forum would highlight attacks against Intelligent Design when most Americans don't buy into the theory of evolution.

We are talking about an election here that is only two months away and what is it that we see on Little Green Footballs, but “ a continual streaming on the doctrinal bowing down and worship of the theory of Evolution. And sadly anyone that doesn't knuckle under is essentially dismissed as a fundamentalists religious zealot.

The truth is, this whole Evolutionary topic is killing unity, and any possibility of LGF being a positive force in getting McCain elected.

And ipso facto -- a brilliant political strategy to get Barak elected.

Divide and conquer, and in this case your own party.

TP

What party?

505 Typicalwhitey  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:40:26am

re: #504 Celtic Templar

What party?


WHOOOP...WHOOOOP

Moby alert

506 opnion  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:40:46am

re: #499 smokefire

anybody that REALLY thinks O'Reilly will do more than toss softball batting practice with Barry is a fool. Fair and Balanced? After tomorrow night, Fox may have to drink the kool aid too. O'Reilly has no balls, and will not risk it, for fear if Obama wins, (GOD HELP US IF HE DOES), FOX news will become totally irrelevant.

Wait, is it tonight or tomorrow night?

507 Typicalwhitey  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:40:50am

re: #505 Typicalwhitey

WHOOOP...WHOOOOP

Moby alert

Not you Celtic!

508 Killgore Trout  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:41:02am

Here come the sockpuppets.

509 wahabicorridor  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:41:03am

re: #372 Mardukhai

Anyone have anything on Palin and the Alaskan Independence Party?

Yep. From today's NYT
Alaska Party Official Says Palin Was Not a Member

The chairwoman of an Alaskan political party that advocates a vote on the state’s secession from the union said Tuesday that she had been mistaken when she said Gov. Sarah Palin was a member of the group.

A front-page story in The New York Times on Tuesday and articles in other news media reported that Ms. Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party for two years in the 1990’s.

The information in the Times article was based on a statement issued Monday night by Lynette Clark, the party’s chairwoman, who said that Ms. Palin joined the party in 1994 and in 1996 changed her registration to Republican.

On Tuesday night, Ms. Clark said that her initial statement was incorrect and had been based on erroneous information provided by another member of the party whom she declined to identify. The McCain campaign also disputed the Times report, saying that Ms. Palin had been registered consistently as a Republican.

After checking the party’s archives, Ms. Clark said that she could find no documentation that Governor Palin had been a member of the party. She said Ms. Palin attended the party’s 1994 and 2006 conventions and provided a video-taped address as governor to the 2008 convention.

Ms. Clark said that Ms. Palin’s husband, Todd, was a former member of the party.

Parse this. The NYT printed hearsay w/o cooboration and blamed Clark. The last line, bolded - well they just did it again, didn't they? And that last line does not appear in my dead tree version today.

510 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:41:16am

re: #507 Typicalwhitey

Hehe I know ;)

511 jorline  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:41:21am

re: #505 Typicalwhitey

WHOOOP...WHOOOOP

Moby alert

LMAO

512 Typicalwhitey  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:41:29am

re: #506 opnion

Wait, is it tonight or tomorrow night?


Thursday night
8 pm ET

The SAME night McCain is giving his acceptance speech

This is SO WRONG

513 Sharmuta  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:41:38am

re: #497 press_ie

Perhaps you'd be surprised to learn there are republicans voting for obama because they feel the republican party has been taken over by "crazies" (their word, not mine) and explicitly stated creationism as one of the issues they felt the "crazies" were pushing.

514 jcm  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:41:46am

re: #500 Celtic Templar

No, because G-d created the world and evolution. Allah is a construct of an Arabian warlord to steal Jewish interests in the Middle East.

Public education has to be blind toward religion. Teach one, all will get equal time.

I prefer none, than all.

515 Charles  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:42:19am

re: #496 galloping granny

Charles, did the Discovery Institute even exist 30 years ago? This bill is a rewrite of one that has been in the works in Louisiana for that period of time. The previous version was struck down by SCOTUS.

[Link: article.nationalreview.com...] is what the National Review has to say -

The National Review article is by a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, John G. West.

516 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:42:24am

re: #493 MandyManners

Are you willing to have Muslims come to teach their beliefs that Allah created the world?

As a scientist, I am not willing to have any non-scientist from anywhere of any religious conviction come teach their theory about how the world was created in the first place. I am willing to address the topic in the line of "some people believe" - and I have done so. How else to convince the young person who is quite convinced that men have one fewer rib than women? Luckily, I taught in a public university, where the issue is a non-starter from the get go.

517 looking closely  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:42:39am

re: #493 MandyManners

Are you willing to have Muslims come to teach their beliefs that Allah created the world?

Or how about the Native American Indian Sioux story that the Earth was created by the Creator smoking Buffalo chips?

Either we give "equal time" or we don't, right?

The point is, though, that there is a scientific method, and if the thing doesn't fit, its not "science". That doesn't mean it isn't potentially interesting or valuable, just that things that are not science, should be taught as science.

518 opnion  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:42:42am

re: #512 Typicalwhitey

Thursday night
8 pm ET

The SAME night McCain is giving his acceptance speech

This is SO WRONG

Ok, why is O'Reilly going along with this?
It should not take place before Friday.

519 kansas  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:42:55am

re: #437 galloping granny

Yes, just before John McCain's acceptance speech.


If O'Reilly does that, he loses me. Just one guy but he can eat shit.

520 David IV of Georgia  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:42:59am

re: #206 jwb7605

And, God looks like what again?

Being created in the "image and likeness" [cf. Genesis (or Bereshith) 1:26&27] of God was never meant to anthropomorphize God or suggest that we look like God. One of the older Christian views is that the image of God was man's ability to reason, consider, and the other mental-spiritual abilities humans have that are absent or diminished in the rest of animal life. The likeness was seen as man's ability* to sinlessly act with God's love, goodness, mercy, and so on. The likeness to God was lost when Adam and Eve sinned.

*ability is not the same as being limited to

521 smokefire  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:43:05am

re: #502 galloping granny

Stay tuned for some more bombs the next few days. Especially tonight. There will be something out of left media to take the focus off Palin. This is straight out of the Chicago Democratic Thug playbook.

522 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:43:35am

re: #490 Dianna

That is a satire site, right? I have problems perceiving satire, so I'm asking honestly.

Yes. Check the rest of the site. They are spoofing troofers. I think they hit a home run with this one.

523 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:43:44am

re: #506 opnion

Wait, is it tonight or tomorrow night?

According to all of the various announcements I have read an hour or two ago it is tomorrow. If it is now tonight then O'Reilly has changed the time because of the uproar.

524 MandyManners  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:44:05am

re: #500 Celtic Templar

No, because G-d created the world and evolution. Allah is a construct of an Arabian warlord to steal Jewish interests in the Middle East.

A public school could be forced to teach that belief if it teaches the others.

525 cblesz  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:44:15am

This AIP question is laughable, period. Even if Palin's husband was a member, wasn't Barry's OWN FATHER A COMMUNIST OR SOCIALIST? I am going insane over the freaking media and the Obama campaign's bullshit, seriously I am eventually gonna have a stroke!

526 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:44:26am

re: #514 jcm

Public education has to be blind toward religion. Teach one, all will get equal time.

I prefer none, than all.

Public education teaches multiculturalism is religion and the government should be the agent of redistribution and reallocation. Sorry, everyone has a religion, I pick mine if asked what I want taught to my children.

527 mean Gene  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:44:36am

Voters can chose whoever they want to vote for for any stupid reason.
I knew female voters who went JFK because ''he was cute.''
Loads of black voters went for Bill Clinton because he was ''black.''

I would only hope we are more aware than that.
Politics is a game of strange bedfellows.
It is a complicated game.
And it is for all the marbles so it is a serious game.

I only hope no potential McCain/Palin voter sits home because of one irrelevant issue.
There's just too much at stake.

Dems first made abortion a ''litmus test'' for SCOTUS nominees.
We needn't follow their idiocy.

528 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:45:14am

While we're talking about things that shouldn't be taught in schools,
I wish the schools would stop teaching Marxism as if it was a valid political theory, whether explicitly, or implicitly, the way Zinn's books do.
It is fine to teach about Marxism, and show how it has failed every time it has been implemented.

Especially if it is taught as political science; that's like teaching astrology in an astronomy course or alchemy in chemistry. Those can be taught as part of the history of the sciences, but not as if they really are scientifically valid.

529 kansas  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:45:14am

re: #513 Sharmuta

Perhaps you'd be surprised to learn there are republicans voting for obama because they feel the republican party has been taken over by "crazies" (their word, not mine) and explicitly stated creationism as one of the issues they felt the "crazies" were pushing.

That's kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Plus, any Republican who "feel" the party has been taken over by anyone is really a Democrat. A Republican would have some data.

530 MandyManners  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:45:15am

re: #497 press_ie

Go piss up a rope.

531 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:45:32am

re: #517 looking closely

Or how about the Native American Indian Sioux story that the Earth was created by the Creator smoking Buffalo chips?

Either we give "equal time" or we don't, right?

The point is, though, that there is a scientific method, and if the thing doesn't fit, its not "science". That doesn't mean it isn't potentially interesting or valuable, just that things that are not science, should be taught as science.

And in order to teach the scientific method you have to teach people to discern between fact and fiction, science and religion, logic and feelings. Otherwise they are not scientists, they are simply technicians. That would be the death of scientific discovery.

532 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:45:33am

re: #497 press_ie

It's not nice to tell the blog owner what to discuss.

533 Typicalwhitey  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:46:08am

re: #518 opnion

Ok, why is O'Reilly going along with this?
It should not take place before Friday.


Because he is an asshole!

534 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:46:15am

re: #524 MandyManners

A public school could be forced to teach that belief if it teaches the others.

I'd prefer not to have to pay for public schools as the agenda for socialism / multiculturalism / moral relativism / historical relativism is the antithesis to my beliefs. But alas, I would lose my house if I didn't pay into the system.

535 ploome hineni[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:46:16am
536 cblesz  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:46:41am

One more thing...we all know O'Reilly's stance about the EEEEEVil oil companies...ya think he will give Obama's windfall profit tax relevance? I think so...

537 ploome hineni[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:46:46am
538 runrabbitrun  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:46:56am

re: #484 DeafDog


Bill will at least give an appearance of 'toughness' by asking some good questions. When Barak gives a way out answer or an answer that does not conform with facts, however, bill will let him slide....like he did for Hillary.

Bill's primary weapon against those he dislikes are grounded in triangulation. He maintains his disinterest creds - and his bi-partisan audience - by claiming that he only wants to find out the truth. So he interviews a left partisan hack, claims that he cannot dispute the hack's sincereity, and then turns to his guest to do his hatchet work for him. "So, Laura Ingraham, now tell us what YOU think about what that Obama spokesperson just said...."

If only Bill had half the b@lls Palin has, he'd be twice as fun to watch.

539 smokefire  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:46:59am

re: #512 Typicalwhitey

Thursday night
8 pm ET

The SAME night McCain is giving his acceptance speech

This is SO WRONG

Is it any wonder that Barry chose Thursday to grant his interview with FOX? Funny the GOP gave the Dem's their week, but can there be reciprocation? Of course not. It is all about the DEM'S. I hate them so much with such vitriol, I cannot describe it.

540 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:47:03am
541 MandyManners  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:47:11am

re: #534 Celtic Templar

I'd prefer not to have to pay for public schools as the agenda for socialism / multiculturalism / moral relativism / historical relativism is the antithesis to my beliefs. But alas, I would lose my house if I didn't pay into the system.

We have to work withing reality no matter how much it sucks.

542 Sol Roth  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:47:14am

re: #525 cblesz

This AIP question is laughable, period. Even if Palin's husband was a member, wasn't Barry's OWN FATHER A COMMUNIST OR SOCIALIST? I am going insane over the freaking media and the Obama campaign's bullshit, seriously I am eventually gonna have a stroke!

You don't understand. Being a Collectivist is a PLUS for the vermin in the media. IT'S WHAT THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY WANT THE U.S.A. TO BECOME!

543 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:47:26am

re: #535 ploome hineni

listening to Obama is disturbing

his tone and cadence..

Which is why I'm hoping we get the rapid fire uh-um Obama to setup McCain and Country First.

544 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:47:58am
545 joncelli  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:48:05am

re: #358 Mardukhai

She's been a Republican since '82 -- a fact the LAT story buries at the end. What her husband believes is his business. And attending a convention != endorsement of the conventioneers' beliefs.

546 Typicalwhitey  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:48:08am

Obama down to 5.8 in the RCP
Yesterday was at 6.5

547 realwest  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:48:26am

Well y'all I gotta go mush some lunch now.
I hope you all have a great day and that I get the chance to see you down the road.

548 jcm  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:48:40am

re: #526 Celtic Templar

Public education teaches multiculturalism is religion and the government should be the agent of redistribution and reallocation. Sorry, everyone has a religion, I pick mine if asked what I want taught to my children.

That's true, but a roll back of the status quo. Sadly repairing the current system is needed. It will be easier to fight that battle without the "help" from the Disco Institute and hangers on.

549 Sharmuta  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:48:43am

re: #529 kansas

That's kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Plus, any Republican who "feel" the party has been taken over by anyone is really a Democrat. A Republican would have some data.

My opinion is that anyone who feels the party isn't on the right track should either leave or get involved in the party- I prefer involvement over leaving. But I don't think the solution for a republican who thinks the party has spent too much money, is too strict on their stance of gays, and harbors creationists is to vote for a marxist. (Those were the obama voter's issues, not mine).

550 kansas  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:48:46am

re: #538 runrabbitrun

Bill's primary weapon against those he dislikes are grounded in triangulation. He maintains his disinterest creds - and his bi-partisan audience - by claiming that he only wants to find out the truth. So he interviews a left partisan hack, claims that he cannot dispute the hack's sincereity, and then turns to his guest to do his hatchet work for him. "So, Laura Ingraham, now tell us what YOU think about what that Obama spokesperson just said...."

If only Bill had half the b@lls Palin has, he'd be twice as fun to watch.

Yeah, but then just at the moment Laura is making her point, O'Reilly will talk over it. His microphone is always louder.

551 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:49:18am
552 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:49:57am

re: #524 MandyManners

A public school could be forced to teach that belief if it teaches the others.

Mandy there is a huge difference between stating that a particular belief exists and advocating for that belief.

553 kansas  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:50:05am

re: #549 Sharmuta

My opinion is that anyone who feels the party isn't on the right track should either leave or get involved in the party- I prefer involvement over leaving. But I don't think the solution for a republican who thinks the party has spent too much money, is too strict on their stance of gays, and harbors creationists is to vote for a marxist. (Those were the obama voter's issues, not mine).

Sharm, that's a better way to state my point. That's why calling these folks Republican is likely bullshit.

554 doppelganglander  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:50:51am

Now Rush is saying the Dems got ahold of Sarah Palin's social security number and released it. Shades of Schmucky Chucky Schumer.

555 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:51:03am

re: #548 jcm

That's true, but a roll back of the status quo. Sadly repairing the current system is needed. It will be easier to fight that battle without the "help" from the Disco Institute and hangers on.

I agree, the subversive nature cheapens the argument. I'm a RC so we have room for evolution (but we believe G-d created it).

As far as the status quo and public schools, just let me keep my tax money - I'll spend it on my Church.

556 MandyManners  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:51:08am

re: #552 galloping granny

I guarantee you that CAIR is following this issue and will jump in to demand that Islam's beliefs be given equal footing to all the others.

557 Typicalwhitey  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:51:20am

re: #539 smokefire

Is it any wonder that Barry chose Thursday to grant his interview with FOX? Funny the GOP gave the Dem's their week, but can there be reciprocation? Of course not. It is all about the DEM'S. I hate them so much with such vitriol, I cannot describe it.


You and me both.

This is just bad manners and wrong

558 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:51:51am

re: #539 smokefire

Is it any wonder that Barry chose Thursday to grant his interview with FOX? Funny the GOP gave the Dem's their week, but can there be reciprocation? Of course not. It is all about the DEM'S. I hate them so much with such vitriol, I cannot describe it.

I think most Americans still recognize good manners when they see them - and when they don't.

559 Pyrocles  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:51:57am

You stole that from my parents!

re: #488 Fat Jolly Penguin


"How is John McCain going to destroy the economy?"
"Because George Bush destroyed the economy."
*clawing at eyes*

560 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:53:04am

re: #556 MandyManners

I guarantee you that CAIR is following this issue and will jump in to demand that Islam's beliefs be given equal footing to all the others.

Mandy, even the director of the ACLU in Louisiana says that the bill as signed by Bobby Jindal is on solid constitutional footing. [Link: www.arn.org...]

561 2SoonOld2LateSmart  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:53:08am

re: #358 Mardukhai

Anybody read the LAT piece on Palin and the Alaskan Independence Party? It's a pretty ripe group of secessionists.

On the Middle East, I wouldn't trust a thing an LAT reporter says, but local politics is often handled straight. Anybody know more about this?

AP says that her husband was a member.

Not sure that a secessionist belongs a heartbeat from the White House.

A local radio station up here had an interview with Lynette Clark (sp?) this morning. If you are interested in hearing this audio interview, you can hear it here:

AM770 CHQR Audio Vault.

Select Date: Wed Sep.3 and Time: 9am then click GO.

When audio starts to play, fast forward to 48:40 for the interview. Goes on about 6 minutes.

562 wolfie  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:53:49am

re: #486 looking closely

They aren't. The modern notion that a literalist interpretation of all Scripture is the best one is, well, ....modern.

563 ploome hineni[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:53:50am
564 Pyrocles  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:54:00am

I never took a Political Science course in college, but everyone I know who has is a Leftist. Is Marxism the only type of "political system" taught in PoliSci anymore?

re: #528 Kosh's Shadow

While we're talking about things that shouldn't be taught in schools,
I wish the schools would stop teaching Marxism as if it was a valid political theory, whether explicitly, or implicitly, the way Zinn's books do.
It is fine to teach about Marxism, and show how it has failed every time it has been implemented.

Especially if it is taught as political science; that's like teaching astrology in an astronomy course or alchemy in chemistry. Those can be taught as part of the history of the sciences, but not as if they really are scientifically valid.

565 press_ie  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:54:13am

re: #513 Sharmuta

Perhaps you would be surprised to learn that a majority of (us) poor ignorant Americans don't buy into evolution, and pushing it as sacrosanct is definitely not helping Republicans get McCain elected.

566 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:54:15am

re: #491 jcm

Rush is losing his patients with this one...

Rush is a doctor?

567 jcm  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:54:26am

re: #555 Celtic Templar

I agree, the subversive nature cheapens the argument. I'm a RC so we have room for evolution (but we believe G-d created it).

As far as the status quo and public schools, just let me keep my tax money - I'll spend it on my Church.

I'm Evangelical, and seriously considering RC schools for my kids. The theological differences are of minor consequence compared to the pervasive indoctrination of public schools.

On the tax part... Amen!

568 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:54:55am

re: #380 galloping granny

This does not look like he is shoving creationism down anyone's throat by a long shot. [Link: www.evolutionnews.org...]

Citing the Disco Institute as a reference is not a credibility-enhancing move.

569 jcm  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:55:20am

re: #566 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Rush is a doctor?

Dr. of Democracy!

D'oh! PIMF.

570 wrenchwench  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:56:01am

re: #497 press_ie

I am the latest victim/perpetrator of the "hit the + when I meant to hit the -" phenomenon.

571 BrianA  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:56:31am

Charles has a problem with Jindal but I'm not sure he understands where Jindal is comming from. The education system in South Louisiana is primarily controlled by the Catholic Church. Most who can afford it go to private Catholic schools, the public schools suck, bad, real bad. It is no suprise to me that Jindal leans toward creationism. It's part of the local culture. It's a strong reason why school cirriculums should be controlled locally. It also argues for a school voucher system where parents can decide what their kids are tought and by whom. You won't find many in South LA who prefer the public education system over the Catholic system, even if it teaches creationism.

572 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:57:03am

re: #561 2SoonOld2LateSmart

A local radio station up here had an interview with Lynette Clark (sp?) this morning. If you are interested in hearing this audio interview, you can hear it here:

AM770 CHQR Audio Vault.

Select Date: Wed Sep.3 and Time: 9am then click GO.

When audio starts to play, fast forward to 48:40 for the interview. Goes on about 6 minutes.

How about a summary?

573 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:57:30am

re: #564 Pyrocles

I never took a Political Science course in college, but everyone I know who has is a Leftist. Is Marxism the only type of "political system" taught in PoliSci anymore?

I did take Political Science (I have a 18 credit minor). I had one professor who was a genius- we analyzed Soviet / Nazi propaganda. The stuff that seeps into the collective consciousness. Very pervasive stuff. I also had a class on Fascism and another on Terrorism, without much liberal bias. Political economics was a seriously lefty class, but I learn from those who are out to get me (and my money).

574 press_ie  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:57:37am

re: #551 taxfreekiller

68 & 69.

No.

575 Sharmuta  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:57:53am

re: #553 kansas

The larger point is that there are people who are actually turned off to the party by creationism. I was surprised when he mentioned it, not because I felt he was wrong, but because so many here at LGF don't seen to think it's an issue. Well- it is. It's hurting our party in the eyes of moderate voters we need to have and I'm glad it's being discussed at this blog.

576 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:58:13am

re: #568 Salamantis

Citing the Disco Institute as a reference is not a credibility-enhancing move.

Go back up the thread. I cited a few more too - like the ACLU and the full text of the bill.

577 Taqyia2Me  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:58:23am

re: #554 doppelganglander

Now Rush is saying the Dems got ahold of Sarah Palin's social security number and released it. Shades of Schmucky Chucky Schumer.

May I suggest Chuck(wad) Schumer?

578 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:58:38am

re: #387 Irene NYC

Because post-modernism is not interpretation - it is based on a specific far left ideology that is beyond questioning and specifically designed to undo the philosophical underpinnings of the Enlightenment. It has a specific political aim, and it ain't shy about it anymore.

Remind me again, academics are 90% democrats, and the percentage is even higher if you discount the hard sciences, right? I'm not being snide when I ask, surely you noticed while you were/are in academia the lockstep mentality going on there?

I might also add that the post-modernists are now pointing their guns at the hard sciences and the "scientific method." Getting Larry Summers, the prez of Harvard, fired, and stifling discussion on women in math and science, was one of their great accomplishments. We can look forward to many, many more.

To be precise, deconstructionist literary criticism, inasmuch as it privileges the circumstances of the author's life over and above the text that the author penned, is an extended exercise in pesudoliterary ad hominem.

579 Pullus Iulius  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:58:48am

Anyone really exercised about the possibility of Alaska seceding might want to check out some serious (and not-so-serious) secessionists. It's amazing we've survived this long.

580 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:59:00am

re: #567 jcm

I'm Evangelical, and seriously considering RC schools for my kids. The theological differences are of minor consequence compared to the pervasive indoctrination of public schools.

On the tax part... Amen!

IIRC we've had muslim and jewish kids in our schools - they're generally open. Not sure how theology classes work out though.

581 Sharmuta  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:59:03am

re: #565 press_ie

It has nothing to do with your income, but you do choose to be ignorant.

582 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:59:42am

re: #497 press_ie

Fuck off

(back to sulking)

583 unreconstructed rebel  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:00:07am

So, I was driving home the other day & had the misfortune of falling in behind a car festooned with hate Bush bumper-stickers including

$4.00/gallon for gas, Mission Accomplished

Is this because we emptied out all the loony-bins or what? But then ... I do have a neighbor who swears the sun comes up each morning because his rooster crows.

/Sorry, having a slow day

584 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:00:17am
585 HoosierHoops  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:00:45am

re: #511 jorline

LMAO


hey Jorline.. I had the salmon w/dill sauce today...mmmmm
At the current rate of posting press_ie has only 1.5 posts left to contribute here before the elections..
Time to gear it up press_ie...
:)

586 jwb7605  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:02:00am

re: #531 galloping granny

And in order to teach the scientific method you have to teach people to discern between fact and fiction, science and religion, logic and feelings. Otherwise they are not scientists, they are simply technicians. That would be the death of scientific discovery.

darnit, granny and looking closely, I was trying to stay out of this.

That link is seriously the most entertaining version of "Noah's Ark" I have ever read. Them Injuns (of which I is 1/32) know how to get your attention.

587 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:02:41am

re: #584 buzzsawmonkey

The question is not whether creationism is "part of the local culture," whatever that means. The question is whether non-science should be taught in science class. The sane answer is no--no more than German should be taught in Spanish class, or math in history class.

You apparently look on creationism in the public school as a sort of Extra Value Meal designed to lure prospective students away from the Catholic school system. It would be difficult to come up with a more absurd view of the issue.

Buzz, we do teach math in history class. Or perhaps it would be better termed that we teach History & social studies in math class. All part of the modern "integrated curriculum" and exactly why Johnny Can't Add Either.

588 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:04:10am

re: #586 jwb7605

darnit, granny and looking closely, I was trying to stay out of this.

That link is seriously the most entertaining version of "Noah's Ark" I have ever read. Them Injuns (of which I is 1/32) know how to get your attention.

Which link - the one to the stealth Discovery institute (sorry about that) or the three to more "reputable" sources - like NRO, the ACLU assessment that the bill is constitutional and the text of the bill itself?

589 nikis-knight  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:04:33am

re: #310 SixDegrees

I see no difference at all between the Taliban and the IDers

Other than, of course, aiding terrorists, subjugating women, murdering gays and anyone else who breaks their moral code, and getting into a war with America.
You are certifiably insane if you see no difference between Taliban and an ID proponet.

590 jwb7605  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:06:29am

re: #588 galloping granny

Which link - the one to the stealth Discovery institute (sorry about that) or the three to more "reputable" sources - like NRO, the ACLU assessment that the bill is constitutional and the text of the bill itself?

What bill? None of the above.
http://chnm.gmu.edu/exploring/pre_18thcentury/crea tionstories/pop_sioux.html

591 press_ie  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:07:09am

re: #540 taxfreekiller

re: #540 taxfreekiller

From Danang to DMZ, and Laos.

Alpha Co., 1st Bn. 9th Mar Reg., 3rd Mar Div.

Arty FO.

592 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:07:14am
593 2SoonOld2LateSmart  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:07:20am

re: #572 galloping granny

How about a summary?

Sorry, I should have done that. Look at #509 above, it pretty well covers the main points.

Sarah Palin was never a member of AIP, but her husband was.

Plus some more about what AIP is really all about. (again, I apologize, as I did not take notes and don't want to mis-state what was said)

594 snowcrash  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:07:27am

I am not going to let ANYONE in the media define Palin. I will listen to her speak and outline her positions and accomplishments tonight. I will make up my own mind. I am sick and tired of the personal attacks, facts and opinions on record are fair game.

595 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:08:25am
596 jwb7605  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:08:53am

re: #589 nikis-knight

Other than, of course, aiding terrorists, subjugating women, murdering gays and anyone else who breaks their moral code, and getting into a war with America.
You are certifiably insane if you see no difference between Taliban and an ID proponet.

What does ID stand for? I've seen the acronym a few times, didn't bother researching ....

597 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:09:12am
598 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:09:47am
599 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:10:01am

re: #470 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

No, but I kiss your mother with this mouth! Suck it Trebek!

/Sean Connery

Drainage! Drainage, Eli, you boy. Drained dry. I'm so sorry. Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? You watching?. And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake... I... drink... your... milkshake!
[sucking sound]
I drink it up!

/Daniel Day-Lewis

600 WrathofG-d  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:10:05am

re: #541 MandyManners

We have to work withing reality no matter how much it sucks.

Celtic's comment directly goes to my personal belief/complaint about how Socialist/Marxist/Humanist/Atheist religion is constantly pushed on our children in public schools...and G-d centered religion would only be a competing opinion.

Those in favor of militant atheism/humanism/marxism/self-worship are quick to state their beliefs in our school are an absense of religion but I see things quite on the the contrary. Their argument is just a way to shut the alternative opinion out of the discussion.

601 mean Gene  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:10:10am

re: #589 nikis-knight

Other than, of course, aiding terrorists, subjugating women, murdering gays and anyone else who breaks their moral code, and getting into a war with America.
You are certifiably insane if you see no difference between Taliban and an ID proponet.

I really think this is the unintended consequence of these posts at LGF.
Nothing wrong with having a bee-in-one's-bonnet about those who would push an agenda you don't agree with on impressionable children.
And there's always (well not always, but quiet often) that disclaimer by Stinky B.
But these threads jump off in all directions from their starting point.
And, it is never surprising in this type of thread to see a comment such as #310 (the one you had to respond to).
Nikis-knight, you are right.

602 looking closely  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:10:11am

re: #520 David IV of Georgia

Being created in the "image and likeness" [cf. Genesis (or Bereshith) 1:26&27] of God was never meant to anthropomorphize God or suggest that we look like God.

How about this, see verse 8:
[Link: www.mechon-mamre.org...]

So there is explicit reference to God walking in the Garden, and having a voice. The term "presence" here is used in the English translation but I believe a more literal translation from the Hebrew actually is "face" (with being in someone's "face" the same as in their presence).

Of course the whole thing could be interpreted in a variety of ways (eg God wasn't physically there, but Adam and Eve perceived him that way, etc), but ultimately there *IS* an anthropomorphic description of God in the Bible.

603 BrianA  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:10:24am

re: #584 buzzsawmonkey

You apparently look on creationism in the public school as a sort of Extra Value Meal designed to lure prospective students away from the Catholic school system. It would be difficult to come up with a more absurd view of the issue.

You have no fucking idea how I look on creationism. Nowhere in my post did I say anything about how I feel. I was simply explaining how it is in south LA, something I have some experience with.

604 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:11:44am
605 looking closely  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:12:10am

re: #588 galloping granny

Which link - the one to the stealth Discovery institute (sorry about that) or the three to more "reputable" sources - like NRO, the ACLU assessment that the bill is constitutional and the text of the bill itself?

I think he was referring to my link of the Native American Sioux Creationist story.

606 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:12:50am

re: #486 looking closely

Just because something is the simplest explanation, doesn't make it the easiest to accept!

Without getting into a heavy discussion of the anthropomorphic nature of God, suffice it to say that there has been much theological discussion on this. Christian, Jewish, and Muslim theology all ultimately reject the concept of an anthropomorphic God.

But you do point out something ironic and relevant here, which is that the church, since its inception, has not relied on a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible, and neither has the Jewish faith.

So if God wasn't physically walking in the Garden of Eden (as the Bible explicitly says he was), and that is simply a metaphor, than why are the accounts of his creation necessarily literally true?

They weren't. It is empirically demonstrable that the Universe, the Earth, and millions of terrestrial species were not independently created as is in the span of a week some 6000 years ago.

607 colin nelson  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:20:28am

#357 JS. Thanks for your support. As I was unable to find an email address for the President, M. Lacroix, I sent my note to the ombudsman, Mr. Carlin. I also sent it to the news department.

Here is his reply:
Dear Mr. Nelson
I write to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail, which I have shared with Mark Harrison, acting Executive Producer of The National, along with the request that your concerns be addressed.

Sincerely,
Vince Carlin
CBC Ombudsman

I cannot wait for the convoluted rationalization that will surely be the jist of the reply!

608 jwb7605  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:20:29am

I was just interrupted by a "survey" phone call.
First question, "on a scale of one to five, five meaning not at all interested, how much attention are you paying to this election".
I said "zero. That's higher than one, isn't it?"
She said "the way this survey scales, yes, it is"
Second question, "who do you favor as President?".
my reply was "Sarah Palin".
caller said "That's not one of the major presidential candidates".
I said "You asked me who I favored."
caller continued, "do you favor Mark Udall or Bob Shaffer"
I replied "Mark Udall is a pleasant man, but I won't vote for him because he refused to support drilling on the Western Slopes. He even took credit for lobbying Governor Bill Ritter to veto the bill. Now he supports quote responsible drilling unquote. That means I can't trust him, so it must be time for a change, right? I'm going to vote for Bob Shaffer."
caller (pleasant woman) Thanked me for my time and said the survey was being conducted on behalf of the Colorado Democratic Party.

609 Charles  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:20:41am

re: #588 galloping granny

Which link - the one to the stealth Discovery institute (sorry about that) or the three to more "reputable" sources - like NRO, the ACLU assessment that the bill is constitutional and the text of the bill itself?

The NRO article is also propaganda straight from the Discovery Institute, as I pointed out in #515. At National Review, John Derbyshire has spoken out very forcefully against the DI's writers who've appeared there.

610 press_ie  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:21:10am

re: #581 Sharmuta

Your omniscience humbles me.

611 wrenchwench  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:22:12am

re: #596 jwb7605

What does ID stand for? I've seen the acronym a few times, didn't bother researching ....

"Intelligent Design." At the bottom of the post that starts this thread, there is a list of tags, including Intelligent Design. Click on it for more info than you can handle in one day.

612 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:23:46am

re: #597 buzzsawmonkey

I assume you're referring to the mishmash which PC has made of curriculum and subject matter. If so, no argument there. And I'm not suggesting for a minute that skills learned at one class should be checked at the door when in another; a little math and a little science goes a long way towards debunking some of the woozier claims of "people's history."

That's still no reason to intentionally inject non-science into a science class.

I can think of a couple of reasons.

First, there is very little in the world that is "non-science." I very often use cooking, computers and other rather strange things to teach science.

Secondly, not all people are smart or logical. Many people honestly and truly believe and teach their children to believe that the creation story as outlined in the first chapter of Genesis (there are actually two different creations stories in Genesis) is literally true. Those people and their child invariably come into science class with a firm belief that all men are missing a rib because of Adam.

We invariably teach Spontaneous Generation in science class. Why should the Biblical creation story be off limits?

613 press_ie  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:23:57am

re: #592 taxfreekiller


Do I know you? :)

614 wrenchwench  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:24:41am

re: #582 Walter L. Newton

Fuck off

(back to sulking)

[channeling Gramma:] Stop sulking!

615 jordank  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:26:42am

re: #609 Charles

The NRO article is also propaganda straight from the Discovery Institute, as I pointed out in #515. At National Review, John Derbyshire has spoken out very forcefully against the DI's writers who've appeared there.

And they grow more and more everyday at that website and magazine, as I have noticed

616 jwb7605  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:27:49am

re: #611 wrenchwench

"Intelligent Design." At the bottom of the post that starts this thread, there is a list of tags, including Intelligent Design. Click on it for more info than you can handle in one day.

My Bad.
I view Intelligent Design as a fundamentally good concept taken to the bad extreme by adding too much detail, much like the average Senate bill.

A couple years ago, before all the gory detail, it just held that "something really smart beyond our comprehension started all this. It didn't come about as part of chaos theory". Published material didn't really go any further at that time.

Thanks for handling my "research", though.

617 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:28:08am

re: #497 press_ie

It boggles the mind that this forum would highlight attacks against Intelligent Design when most Americans don't buy into the theory of evolution.

We are talking about an election here that is only two months away and what is it that we see on Little Green Footballs, but “ a continual streaming on the doctrinal bowing down and worship of the theory of Evolution. And sadly anyone that doesn't knuckle under is essentially dismissed as a fundamentalists religious zealot.

The truth is, this whole Evolutionary topic is killing unity, and any possibility of LGF being a positive force in getting McCain elected.

And ipso facto -- a brilliant political strategy to get Barak elected.

Divide and conquer, and in this case your own party.

TP

Empirical evidence is not amenable to a layperson popularity contest. Facts do not bend to accommodate desires. No one needs to worship, or even believe in, an empirical-evidence-supported theory, which one can come to know as valid via a dispassionate and objective perusal of the data, unlike a religious dogma, which is either believed in or not, but cannot be known, becuse it lacks any supporting empirical evidence whatsoever.

To sacrifice truth for the sake of a dogmatic unity is the way of fanatically fervent zealots, not the way of a responsible and accountable political movement. We lose by becoming that which we oppose - in this case the puritanical Taliban - when we adopt their perspective in order to prevail. What avails us if we win a political contest at the cost of our honesty and integrity and sense of what is the right thing to do - as McCain himself pointed out when he pushed the Surge at the risk of his political career, stating he would rather lose an election than lose a war? And make no mistake about it; the Disco Institute and their IDers are waging a sectarian religious war on American science, society, culture, and the US Constitution itself. And our children are their battlefield.

618 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:29:12am

re: #609 Charles

The NRO article is also propaganda straight from the Discovery Institute, as I pointed out in #515. At National Review, John Derbyshire has spoken out very forcefully against the DI's writers who've appeared there.

I have no personal knowlege of the author of the NRO article or any connections he might have elsewhere, only the reputation of the NRO and the the fact that they have not labeled the article with some disclaimer.

I am very familiar with the ACLU - who would long since have had this bill right straight back in court if there was something unconstitutional about it.

And I did read the law. Some people may be trying to use this law in a way that was not intended , but then lots of people try to use our laws about Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech in ways that were never intended too.

Just because some organization we don't happen to agree with supports something does not mean that it the thing is inherently bad. That sounds way too much like the railroad job people are trying to do to Sarah Palin.

619 looking closely  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:29:28am

re: #606 Salamantis

They weren't. It is empirically demonstrable that the Universe, the Earth, and millions of terrestrial species were not independently created as is in the span of a week some 6000 years ago.


I don't disagree.

But there are individuals who *DO* believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old, and these are the sorts of individuals who are pushing "Intelligent Design" (aka Creationism) in the public schools.

I'm saying that even their own Church probably accepts that *SOME* of the Bible is metaphorical, not literal. If they can accept that God was NOT literally walking in the Garden of Eden, why can't they accept that the creation story isn't literally true either?

620 galloping granny  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:31:28am

re: #619 looking closely

I don't disagree.

But there are individuals who *DO* believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old, and these are the sorts of individuals who are pushing "Intelligent Design" (aka Creationism) in the public schools.

I'm saying that even their own Church probably accepts that *SOME* of the Bible is metaphorical, not literal. If they can accept that God was NOT literally walking in the Garden of Eden, why can't they accept that the creation story isn't literally true either?

And there is no better place to teach them that it is not than science class. Which you cannot do without mentioning "creation."

621 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:31:40am
622 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:31:40am
623 J.S.  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:37:00am

re: #603 BrianA

Oooh....calm down...There was an article in the National Post (was it today or yesterday?) about the changes in curriculum in Quebec...(I think Louisiana bears some similarities with Quebec -- French Catholics, etc.) Anyway, last year there was a secularization bill put forward and now Quebec's educational system needs to accommodate all religions (including, Glooscap, Islam, etc.) Here's a link at Dawkin's the atheist's site...Note that even private religious schools will be under the new guidelines...(I'm not in favor of this sort of "solution.") Perhaps this is what Jindal wishes to avoid?

624 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:37:02am

re: #500 Celtic Templar

No, because G-d created the world and evolution. Allah is a construct of an Arabian warlord to steal Jewish interests in the Middle East.

And Muslims believe just the opposite; that Jehovah is not a real deity, but a propagandistic misnaming of Allah. So more than a billion people believe either way - and many on both sides are willing to kill and die for their beliefs. And neither of them possess a single shred of corroborating empirical evidence for their positions. Which reveals both of their stances to be religious dogmas, not empirical facts or scientifically credible theories, and neither of their creation myths to be proper subjects of study in public high school science classes.

625 jwb7605  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:39:07am

re: #617 Salamantis

Empirical evidence is not amenable to a layperson popularity contest. Facts do not bend to accommodate desires. No one needs to worship, or even believe in, an empirical-evidence-supported theory, which one can come to know as valid via a dispassionate and objective perusal of the data, unlike a religious dogma, which is either believed in or not, but cannot be known, becuse it lacks any supporting empirical evidence whatsoever.

To sacrifice truth for the sake of a dogmatic unity is the way of fanatically fervent zealots, not the way of a responsible and accountable political movement. We lose by becoming that which we oppose - in this case the puritanical Taliban - when we adopt their perspective in order to prevail. What avails us if we win a political contest at the cost of our honesty and integrity and sense of what is the right thing to do - as McCain himself pointed out when he pushed the Surge at the risk of his political career, stating he would rather lose an election than lose a war? And make no mistake about it; the Disco Institute and their IDers are waging a sectarian religious war on American science, society, culture, and the US Constitution itself. And our children are their battlefield.

I absolutely agree with what you say, especially with the Dogma part.
All I can do in "rebuttal" is offer the following caveat:
Facts are not "darn stubborn things".
Daily KOS, Democrat Underground, Ann Coulter.
ya see, there are facts, then there are facts.

My son had an American Indian kindergarten teacher, who used to read Indian parables (like the link that got me started), only she had the decency to send home a note that indicated what some of the parables might contain, and invited us all to come in and talk to her with concerns and suggestions.
So I did. I ended up telling her "as long as I know what you're teaching him, I can unlearn him from things I disagree with".
She said she wished other parents were that understanding, and soon stopped reading seriously cool Indian stories.

We're talking religion and faith here.
That's a fact.
And all generalizations are false.

626 Hooray for Captain Spaulding  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:42:37am

re: #103 jcm

I demand a DNA test on Chelesa to prove Janet Reno is not her father.


......

I just wanted this one repeated

......

627 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:44:25am

re: #526 Celtic Templar

Public education teaches multiculturalism is religion and the government should be the agent of redistribution and reallocation. Sorry, everyone has a religion, I pick mine if asked what I want taught to my children.

If you want your religion taught to your children, then teach it to them yourself, or send them to a private school that adhere's to your religious beliefs, or send them to your church if you have one. Just don't demand that your - and everybody else's - kids be taught it in public schools.

628 Intrepid  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:45:12am

re: #485 jcm

It's a cyclon but we can't trust Baltar's test.......

ITA - look at what he did with Boomer's test, even though it showed she was a cylon. But he listened to Head6, who was wearing a gorgeous dress and whispering naughty things to him.

/BSG fans unite!

629 Teh Flowah  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:46:07am

re: #391 Spenser (with an S)

Please separate the I-D Movement pushing for science curriculum changes with the many of us who believe in a Creator. Some of us even went to college and everything...

I separate the "ID movement" from the "people who accept ID" from the "people who believe in God". The first two groups are idiots. End of story.

630 Charles  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:47:13am

re: #618 galloping granny

I have no personal knowlege of the author of the NRO article or any connections he might have elsewhere, only the reputation of the NRO and the the fact that they have not labeled the article with some disclaimer.

...

And I did read the law. Some people may be trying to use this law in a way that was not intended , but then lots of people try to use our laws about Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech in ways that were never intended too.

No need for a disclaimer -- the byline at the bottom of the article tells you who he is: John G. West on Louisiana Science Education Act on National Review Online.

-- John G. West is the author of Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science and a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.

The point is not that people are trying to "use the law in a way that was not intended" -- it's that the law was deliberately crafted from the start as a stealth creationist bill.

I linked to an earlier LGF post with more information, from a non-Discovery Institute source, a Louisiana scientists' group very disturbed by this legislation, and very aware of who was behind it.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

631 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:52:54am
632 press_ie  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:55:04am

re: #617 Salamantis

If it is a war then so be it. I fought in one, and it is my considered opinion that at least this one is well worth fighting. Of course, we stand on separate shores.

Obviously, the passion of faith exhibited by Evolutionists rivals that of ID'ers. Both theories, can't be proved so which has the most evidence: Clearly chance cannot stand against purpose.

My only concern in posting, is that there is no way that making this topic an icon can help get McCain elected. You can argue all the details you want, but you can't change the reality that most folks don't buy your arguments and many of them vote. My contention is that mixing politics and the theory of evolution is political suicide.

TP

633 Sharmuta  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:58:23am

re: #632 press_ie

Not that I think you care, but evolution has 150 years worth of evidence supporting it and has come under more scrutiny and survived in that time frame than any other scientific theory. If you want to learn more about evolution, you certainly can take the time to do so, but trust me on this- arguing from a position of ignorance is not going to help you.

634 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 11:58:36am

re: #565 press_ie

Perhaps you would be surprised to learn that a majority of (us) poor ignorant Americans don't buy into evolution, and pushing it as sacrosanct is definitely not helping Republicans get McCain elected.

Well, it's unlikely that anyone will buy a car when they refuse to even check it out on the lot. You most probably ARE ignorant of evolutionary theory, and willfully so.

But 'sacrosanct' is a projective smear; science is anything but; it proceeds and advances by virtue of scientists questioning, challenging, experimentally investigating and empirically checking each other's conclusions, and they are recognized and rewarded when they find and correct an error, while religious dissenters have typically been denounced as blaspheming apostate heretics and burned, beheaded, hung or drowned for trying to do the same.

635 sparrowlake  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 12:02:34pm
"I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she has been quoted as saying.

Palin's agnostic position concerning the origins of the species (i.e. I don't know) is the key to Palin receiving a political pass on the evolution/DI issue. By stating her personal belief in this fashion she allows herself room to support the teaching of evolution in science class AS FACT without being accused of complicity in teaching facts to science students which she believes to be false.

And if she is smart she will refuse to answer any more questions concerning details of her personal religious beliefs and instead should reaffirm her constitutional position that religion has no place in the science class.

636 Slumbering Behemoth  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 12:07:01pm

re: #533 Typicalwhitey

Because he is an asshole!

Careful, the dingbats might come along and lecture you to "learn who the REAL enemy is".
/s

637 BrianA  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 12:07:33pm

re: #621 buzzsawmonkey

creationism is "part of the local culture,"

Yes, that I said...

should be taught on that basis

I NEVER opined on what they should or should not teach....

that there should be local control of schools to ensure that this is possible

I believe in local control but your putting words in my mouth with that last part.....

and that creationism in the public schools would be a reason students might be attracted to the public schools.

You made that up, not me.

638 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 12:10:40pm

re: #576 galloping granny

Go back up the thread. I cited a few more too - like the ACLU and the full text of the bill.

The ACLU guy was basically saying that the bill as written was crafted to crack open the door to the Louisiana public school system as wide as possible for biblical creationists while still endeavoring to avoid the constitutional pitfalls that doomed the Dover bill. The devil is in the details, and the individual interpretations. I can imagine that there are quite a few Biblical literalist teachers there who are planning to try to use the crack that the law provides in order to slide in Creationist propaganda as credible scientific fact under the 'supplemental materials' clause. I am also quite certain that the ACLU's lawyers are watching carefully so they can detect and prosecute any such examples of such wink-and-nod 'abuse' of the bill's ulterior intent. I am on the side of the ACLU, and of Louisiana's kids, on this one.

639 Naso Tang  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 12:15:38pm

re: #584 buzzsawmonkey

re: #571 BrianA

The question is not whether creationism is "part of the local culture," whatever that means. The question is whether non-science should be taught in science class. The sane answer is no--no more than German should be taught in Spanish class, or math in history class.

You apparently look on creationism in the public school as a sort of Extra Value Meal designed to lure prospective students away from the Catholic school system. It would be difficult to come up with a more absurd view of the issue.


I read #571 as simply stating the likely political view of Jindal. In other words, Jindal is just pandering to creationists in order to get their votes. It is difficult to see how you came up with your conclusion.

640 press_ie  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 12:16:48pm

re: #633 Sharmuta

By all means, question the intelligence of anyone who fails to worship at the alter of your beloved Darwinism. The only reason that evolution is still around as a viable theory, scientifically speaking, is Hobson's Choice.

While you may continue to release arrows at my position on Darwin, you cannot dismiss my main contention that your stance suffers the most politically.

641 BrianA  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 12:16:58pm

re: #639 Naso Tang

Thank you!

642 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 12:17:32pm

re: #600 WrathofG-d

Celtic's comment directly goes to my personal belief/complaint about how Socialist/Marxist/Humanist/Atheist religion is constantly pushed on our children in public schools...and G-d centered religion would only be a competing opinion.

Those in favor of militant atheism/humanism/marxism/self-worship are quick to state their beliefs in our school are an absense of religion but I see things quite on the the contrary. Their argument is just a way to shut the alternative opinion out of the discussion.

You confuse absence of belief with belief in absence, which is a presence of belief.

643 Charles  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 12:17:50pm

The ACLU's position on the Louisiana "academic freedom" bill is hardly an endorsement: ACLU plans to keep eye on Science bill.

The ACLU says it will be keeping a close eye on a bill called the Louisiana Science Education Act should it become law. ...

ACLU Executive Director Marjorie Esman said that if the Act is utilized as written, it should be fine; though she is not sure it will be handled that way. “I think there’s a lot of room for things to get sneaked into the classrooms that shouldn’t be there,” she said.

But those in favor of the bill point to the wording, which says, “shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or promote discrimination against religion or non-religion.”

Esman said the wording walks a fine line. “It does not say it prohibits the introduction of religion, and there’s a difference,” she noted.

The legislation does allow for teachers to use supplemental resources in the classroom to take on the new topics. And while it doesn't specifically define what those resources will be it does give school districts the power to regulate them.

Political analyst Clancy DuBos said the legislation’s wording may keep it from being challenged legally, but depending on how school systems use it, it could be challenged in its application. “We're known for suing school boards when we need to do so and we won't shy away from doing that if that's what we need to do this case," said Esman.

DuBos said it’s possible some lawmakers voted for the measure with the knowledge that it could be challenged legally, a move that could cost the state a lot of money. DuBos said some lawmakers may have done that to please a vocal constituency.

"Sometimes lawmakers will do that they just don't want to antagonize that block of voters out there, so they pass it and quietly cross their fingers and hope that the courts toss it out."

644 pygmalienation  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 12:18:00pm

Ain't it the truth! There for a while it seemed like just another ho-hum "lesser of two evils" election. Then all of a sudden... It's fantastic!
McCain/Palin 2008!

re: #8 pbird

645 Celtic Templar  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 12:18:23pm

re: #640 press_ie

By all means, question the intelligence of anyone who fails to worship at the alter of your beloved Darwinism. The only reason that evolution is still around as a viable theory, scientifically speaking, is Hobson's Choice.

While you may continue to release arrows at my position on Darwin, you cannot dismiss my main contention that your stance suffers the most politically.

Hey, what's with the political angle crap? Spreading disunity is unbecoming ;) Ask the PUMA group.

Moby.

646 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 12:22:11pm
647 Hooray for Captain Spaulding  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 12:23:23pm

re: #491 jcm

Rush is losing his patients with this one...

He's a physician?

648 Charles  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 12:26:10pm

It's interesting that the conservatives who don't believe in creationism never complain about what a horrible "wedge issue" this is.

649 Cygnus  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 12:29:51pm

re: #645 Celtic Templar

Hey, what's with the political angle crap? Spreading disunity is unbecoming ;) Ask the PUMA group.

Moby.

FYI:
Registered since: Sep 16, 2004 at 6:54 am
No. of comments posted: 39
No. of links posted: 0

650 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 12:31:22pm

re: #640 press_ie

By all means, question the intelligence of anyone who fails to worship at the alter of your beloved Darwinism. The only reason that evolution is still around as a viable theory, scientifically speaking, is Hobson's Choice.

While you may continue to release arrows at my position on Darwin, you cannot dismiss my main contention that your stance suffers the most politically.

I chuckle at your attempts to failed and futile attempts to relabel evolutionary theory as a religion; it's some thing that is resorted to only because there is no way whatsoever to credibly pretend that creationism is scientific. But religions are not empirically supported, nor are they empirically testable, nor are their constituent dogmas amenable to revision or renunciation in the light of subsequently discovered facts. All of these are, of course, demonstrably true of evolutionary theory. To claim that creationism is a science or that evolutionary theory is a religion is to grossly and woefully misunderstand what constitutes both religion and science.

Can you give me a SINGLE alternative explanation that accounts for and is empirically supported by all of the credible data gleaned by 150 years of scientific experimentation and investigation, while opposed by none of it? No, you can't. Even George Gilder, a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, admitted that the propagandistically renamed creationism called Intelligent Design was empty of content, and only existed as a means by which to attack evolutionary theory. Michael Medved, another Discovery Institute member, admitted the same.

At one time, the idea that the sun circled a flat earth was prohibitively popular among the masses, but that didn't render it any more factually correct then than it is now.

651 Sharmuta  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 12:35:00pm

re: #640 press_ie

By all means, question the intelligence of anyone who fails to worship at the alter of your beloved Darwinism. The only reason that evolution is still around as a viable theory, scientifically speaking, is Hobson's Choice.

While you may continue to release arrows at my position on Darwin, you cannot dismiss my main contention that your stance suffers the most politically.

I didn't question your intelligence. "Ignorant" does not mean "stupid". But it's clear when you make comments stating evolution is "just a theory" and has no proof, that you are indeed ignorant.

And I have to disagree with your second point- when republicans are leaving the party over the support the party has given to ID and creationism, that it is indeed your stance that is costing our party politically. Please find me a person who has left their party because of the party's stance supporting evolution, and I'll reconsider my opinion.

652 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 12:44:49pm

re: #645 Celtic Templar

Hey, what's with the political angle crap? Spreading disunity is unbecoming ;) Ask the PUMA group.

Moby.

Yeah, that's the ticket! Let's all publicly embrace popular lies for political advantage! And that would distinguish us from the global warmists how? And how would it allow us to look in the mirror at ourselves without retching?

It's about as noble or honorable as smearing Sarah Palin and her family with vicious but tittilating lies for perceived political advantage. I'm also, you see, not prepared to dig beneath the bottoms of gutters for such slime to sling at political opponents, just because despised others are doing it

I'm not willing to check my empirical understanding, honesty and integrity at the door to the political arena, and hold those who are willing to do so in exceedingly low esteem. Such people are not deserving or worthy of my respect, nor will they receive it. What they merit is my contempt and disdain, and they have it.

653 Perplexed  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 12:54:29pm

Creationism vs Evolution? A tempest in a teapot where people who would normally agree are in a bitter internecine battle. Darwinism (I read some of his works when around 14) isn't perfect. In both cases we seek answers to our origins.

Anyone remember the battle between little endian vs big endian Intel vs Motorola? Pretty funny now that you look back at it. Choose your battles wisely.

654 press_ie  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 12:58:32pm

re: #651 Sharmuta

I never said there was no proof, but it is true and factual that it is "just a theory."

Those who might leave or have according to you left the party, is an insignificant number compared to those who vote and are either creationists or Intelligent Design proponents. Listening to this debate on LGF has to be very disconcerting for millions of believers. And despite your efforts, it takes a measure of faith either way on this subject.

150 years of Darwinian research, is a drop in the bucket compared to 15 billion. To think that the present evolutionary theory has it all nailed down, is an audacious proposition. Anyone that thinks that evolution is anywhere near fact, needs some serious intervention in my opinion.

655 Querent  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 1:05:36pm

re: #503 Fat Jolly Penguin

Ballsy for a hatchling, ain'tcha?

About as much of a hatchling as i am -- been registered for years, but rarely post unless i feel i have something worthwhile to contribute.

i may be on the evolution side, but he does have a point -- these threads all too quickly devolve into hissing matches.

656 BlueBottle  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 1:06:48pm

Does the theory of evolution belong in the science curriculum?

Who cares! Leave it in the American History curriculum where it belongs. Clarence Darrow and the Scopes trial was one of the most interesting things to study in high school; I and my classmates learned way more about evolution in that week of AH than in any stodgy old science class anyway.

657 Charles  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 1:06:50pm

Scientific Theory:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

658 Charles  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 1:11:45pm

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

-- Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory", Discover, May 1981

659 Naso Tang  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 1:14:38pm

re: #646 buzzsawmonkey

re: #639 Naso Tang

Apparently we have symbiosis; one person who writes what he claims he does not mean, and one person who does not read what is written.

You would be the latter then. May I suggest some poetry to calm down?

660 Naso Tang  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 1:18:42pm

re: #653 Perplexed

Creationism vs Evolution? A tempest in a teapot where people who would normally agree are in a bitter internecine battle. Darwinism (I read some of his works when around 14) isn't perfect. In both cases we seek answers to our origins.

What do you mean by perfect, and in what way do you define "origins" that conflict with evolution (as it is today, not what you think you read when 14)?

661 Nancy  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 1:18:53pm

NOTE: I would ask Charles to delete this if it isn't appropriate. I am don't want to have it appear that I am suggesting any intentional strategy on the part of the Democrats but there is some similarity to the charges made against his congressional opponent which were TRUE --are not being used against Palin, such as her being a Dominionist. Or the more vague implications that she is an "outsider" (in this case of the US) by sounding as though Alaska is not a "real state."

This is relevent is it is put into the context with the sort of smears and attacks on Palins qualifications and on her personal values and views.

In August 2004, with less than three months to go before Election Day, Alan Keyes accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.[46] A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination. In the November 2004 general election, Obama received 70% of the vote to Keyes's 27%, the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history.[48]
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Obama won that congressional seat by such a large margin NOT because he was so exceptional but because he WAS more qualified than the GOP candidate and Republicans crossed over to vote for him rather than see their own candidate elected.

And using the "more qualified" has also been his theme with Palin. Except the press don't even seem to question that he isn't running against Palin.

Here's his opponent: Who was so far to the right that even conservative Illinois Republicans voters would not support him. Nor was he even an Illinois resident at the time he sought the nomination. When Republicans found out more about him they actively campaigned against their own candidate. Which is how Obama ended up with such a large margin.

Keyes: He is known for his Christian Dominionist views on the role of government and societal issues.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

In other words, they are in essence attempting to paint a picture of Sarah Palin as another Alan Keyes.

662 pittrader1988  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 1:25:40pm

this is off topic, but I am here at the convention. Was just outside, and code pink was protesting near the MSNBC set up.

At a lunch today, I heard an excellent speech by former Rep Dick Armey. He delineated why there are differences in the parties. It should be required hearing from everyone.

The Code Pink and all the other troofers are out. They are just crazy. Two Peta pigs were walking down the street. I had my daughter take my picture with them.

Funny thing is, I trade pork carcasses. It's my business!

663 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 1:42:38pm
664 littleO  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 1:43:37pm

This site is way to predictable! Oh, well.

re.656 blue bottle
Did you know Darrow lost the Scopes trial? Though, he did gain fame from it, and went on the public speaking and debate curcuit. The quote about him was "don't debate Darrow he'll make a monkey out of you".
However, he did debate G.K. Chesterton about religion and such, and by newspaper accounts and interviews with some in attendence, he lost.

Oh, another fact about that case. The case against creationism was first peddled to the school board and they declined to participate. Interested party's then persuaded Scopes to act as the affected party. He hadn't ever taught the course, or evolution.

665 Captain Faris  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 1:45:16pm

re: #652 Salamantis
Knowing you are a philosopher helps. Despite my previous remarks, I do agree with you and Charles about keeping ID and Creationism out of state-sponsored curriculum materials for science classes. And, by holding this view, I am dissenting with "my" side of this argument. I will stop "asserting" that there are many like me on "my" side, since this is only a personal observation of mine despite being derived from many years active involvement with this issue.

I do find that your remark (below) tells us more about you than you might hope, however:


"I'm not willing to check my empirical understanding, honesty and integrity at the door to the political arena, and hold those who are willing to do so in exceedingly low esteem. Such people are not deserving or worthy of my respect, nor will they receive it. What they merit is my contempt and disdain, and they have it."
666 BrianA  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 1:46:59pm

re: #663 buzzsawmonkey

Sure your not a Kos kiddie? You sure act like one.

667 Naso Tang  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 1:48:36pm

Off to the baseball game.

668 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 1:53:53pm
669 BrianA  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 1:58:30pm

re: #668 buzzsawmonkey

Once again, sweetie: if you don't like what you wrote, correct it.

Yep, definate KK.

670 J.S.  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 2:06:12pm

re: #651 Sharmuta

Usually I would agree with you, Sharmuta...however, I do have a slight quibble here (or perhaps it's due to my misunderstanding?) In an earlier post you wrote: "Perhaps you'd be surprised to learn there are republicans voting for obama because they feel the republican party has been taken over by 'crazies' (their word, not mine) and explicitly stated creationism as one of the issues they felt the 'crazies' were pushing." Are you then suggesting that we need to do that which is politically expedient? (that is, so that Republicans are not called "crazy", they need to adopt agenda X?) Personally, I don't like that (I think it's a weak argument). Why can't the notion of teaching Evolutionary Theory in a Science Classroom be embraced because it's the principled thing to do -- not because it's going to lead to more votes (?)...(If political expediency becomes the end all and be all -- well there could be quite a number of policies which the Republican Party would be required to jettison...) also, here's another danger, if keeping creationism out of the classroom is simply a matter of the "numbers" (that is, who's "right" is determined by who's position has the greatest number of supporters -- you could possibly find in certain locales the pro Evolution camp in a minority position...). So, let's support keeping Evolutionary Theory in science classrooms because it's the "right thing to do" (not because it's popular or will lead to votes)...

671 J.S.  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 2:08:59pm

re: #661 Nancy

Now that's a scary angle...

672 Sharmuta  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 2:32:11pm

re: #670 J.S.

My point in making that comment was that it was suggested that evolution is killing party unity, when it's actually creationism that is driving people away. I do not think that we should embrace evolution because it's politically expedient, we should embrace scientific teachings in the classrooms because it is what is best for this country and our future.

As for dealing with this within the party, people who are bothered by this need to get involved in the party and work from within to bring about change- not leaving. Leaving the party is defeatist, and while easy, it's more rewarding to work to improve and strengthen the party. I know- I've done it. It's easy to quit- it takes time and effort to work for a party, but quitting is not any more of an option for me than voting for obama.

673 Basho  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 2:41:23pm

re: #654 press_ie

Anyone that thinks that evolution is anywhere near fact, needs some serious intervention in my opinion.

Maybe you should be educated in the matter first before belittling others.

674 press_ie  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 2:48:02pm

It is self evident that few minds will be changed on the topic, and its continued contentiousness is not helpful when it comes to the election. So I won't be commenting any further on this matter after this post.

While I agree that there is evidence to support the theory of evolution, it is not proved, or it would cease to remain a theory; it would become a law.

And it seems to me that paying homage to the unproved defines the meaning of faith. What we don't know about all the particulars surrounding creation far exceeds the sum total of all human knowledge.

It takes a measure of faith either way, and no amount of mental gymnastics can change that reality.

And as Penzias ( Nobel laureate that is certainly no Creationists) said,

"the best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole" (Browne, 1978). Penzias goes on to ask:
How could the everyday person take sides in this dispute? ... trying to fit dogma and fact into the same mind seems too difficult....wanting to hold on to the teaching of faith, but as a rational person wanting to keep a grasp on everyday facts - [one is] being pulled by two opposing "truths." One held that the universe was created out of nothing, while the other proclaimed the evident eternity of matter. The "dogma" of creation was thwarted by the "fact" of the eternal nature of matter .... This dogma comes from the intuitive belief of people (including the majority of physicists) who don't want to accept the observational evidence that the universe was created - despite the fact that the creation of the universe is supported by all the observable data astronomy has produced so far. As a result, the people who reject the data can arguably be described as having a "religious" belief .... These people regard themselves as objective scientists. (Penzias, 1983, p. 3)

For experts both political and scientific to make claims that they are above dogma, jealousy, envy, etc., that somehow they are infallible because they examine the empirical evidence, and furthermore cannot be tainted in their own world views is absurd.

An atheist by nature will see the creation data in a different light than a believer. To say that scientists are not affected by their world view is not supported by the empirical evidence.

675 Lynn B.  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 2:54:20pm

re: #674 press_ie

As someone else suggested earlier, it would behoove you to educate yourself a little better on this topic before pontificating on it, regardless of whether you choose to pontificate further. You'd get a great start by following some of the links Charles has posted in this thread, which very effectively eviscerate all of the arguments you're making.

676 Basho  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 2:57:24pm

re: #497 press_ie

It boggles the mind that this forum would highlight attacks against Intelligent Design when most Americans don't buy into the theory of evolution.

Physical reality isn't decided by a majority vote.

677 Basho  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 2:59:13pm

re: #674 press_ie


While I agree that there is evidence to support the theory of evolution, it is not proved, or it would cease to remain a theory; it would become a law.

You have no idea how stupid that line makes you look.

678 Mencius  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 3:03:33pm

re: #643 Charles

Charles, given that the ACLU and presumably other constitutional law experts said the bill as it was written was not a problem, on what basis would you have expected Jindal to veto it? It clearly has a broader scope than just evolution (global warming, etc). Why not keep the ability to bring in supplemental materials and then monitor to be sure that religion is not introduced.

I would think that is the status quo position for most school districts all over the country. What makes this bill in Louisiana so offensive?

679 Nancy  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 3:16:44pm

re: #671 J.S.

I have no idea if they are actually using the same charges that were made against Keyes against Palin other than they are very similar. There were some family issues with Keyes as well.

it did turn Republicans against Keyes. Maybe they thought if they could attach the same sort of "labels" to Palin, it would accomplish the same.

Except she is not even remotely close to Keyes.

I don't remember the family issues in Keyes case and I don't want to get into libel but they were not anything as ordinary as a teenage daughter getting pregnant.

680 Sharmuta  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 3:18:28pm

re: #678 Mencius

Why not keep the ability to bring in supplemental materials and then monitor to be sure that religion is not introduced.

It's a slippery slope, to begin with. In this sentence alone you acknowledge that religious material might be brought into class. Also- what is to stop history teachers from bringing in supplemental material, say.... questioning the Holocaust? If the supplemental material is so important to the subject, then it should be brought before the school board and added to the curriculum.

681 Nancy  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 3:27:50pm

I didn't even realize this. Apparently Alan Keyes the person Obama defeated is ON the presidential ballot for November but only in 3 states!

When McCain won the primary, Keyes who was also in the presidential race split from the Republicans.

Keyes has formed a new third party, America's Independent Party, for his presidential candidacy. However, the AIP ticket, which may have either Rev. Wiley Drake of California or Brian Rohrbough of Colorado as its vice presidential candidate, will only be on the ballot in California, Colorado, and Florida.

His candidacy has been endorsed by the Christian Falangist Party of America

682 Perplexed  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 3:33:29pm

re: #660 Naso Tang

What do you mean by perfect, and in what way do you define "origins" that conflict with evolution (as it is today, not what you think you read when 14)?

By not perfect I mean that there exist holes in his theory and that folks who bow down at Darwin's feet should reexamine some of what he says. I don't specifically know how species came about so can't really point to this change led to this change which led to this change. I don't know specifically how life started either. To go further back I can't say what was before our universe came into being.

That's when you've got to question how it all began. That's a question of religion/philosophy because science lacks the answers as well.

683 Perplexed  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 3:38:18pm

As far as that goes, what difference does it make if I believe in:

young earth
darwinism
creationism
intelligent design

It doesn't adversely effect anyone but me. There's people who claim we've never walked on the moon as well. What harm do they do other than to cause furled brows and elevated blood pressure in those that try to tell them differently.

684 Mencius  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 3:42:47pm

re: #680 Sharmuta

Is there any law now that prevents supplemental material?

Most school districts don't have a very strict curriculum, at least in the state where I live. The teachers are very much in control of what gets taught in their classrooms, and the only requirement is that it can somehow be linked to the state standards. When I asked for the curriculum for my son's 9th grade health class, I was informed that there was not set curriculum except for a half-page of topics they intended to cover. They did use a textbook in that class, but many classes don't even have textbooks.

If Louisiana is the same way, this law would not change the status quo at all.

685 Sharmuta  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 3:44:54pm

re: #683 Perplexed

I have to tell you who it hurts- it hurts us when creationists are turning republican voters on to obama. When I asked a republican gentleman if he was for real and why he was voting for obama, and he mentioned creationism, it only reaffirmed to me that zombie and Charles have been correct all along. It's fine if you want to believe whatever crazy ass thing you want, but leave it outside the tent. Political parties are for politics, not religions.

686 Sharmuta  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 3:46:02pm

re: #684 Mencius

Is there any law now that prevents supplemental material?

Most school districts don't have a very strict curriculum, at least in the state where I live. The teachers are very much in control of what gets taught in their classrooms, and the only requirement is that it can somehow be linked to the state standards. When I asked for the curriculum for my son's 9th grade health class, I was informed that there was not set curriculum except for a half-page of topics they intended to cover. They did use a textbook in that class, but many classes don't even have textbooks.

If Louisiana is the same way, this law would not change the status quo at all.

Then if that's so, why would they need the additional law?

687 arizona9  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 3:51:51pm

It would not shock me if Olberman, or some other member of the deranged Left, breaks the story that Palin is a Voodoo Priestess.

Andrew Sullivan has come close. Apparently, he's written that Palin's children are named after witches.

On topic, didn't I read that Palin's father was a science teacher?

688 Perplexed  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 3:52:24pm

re: #685 Sharmuta

It's fine if you want to believe whatever crazy ass thing you want, but leave it outside the tent. Political parties are for politics, not religions.

Bingo. You just hit the nail on the head. Politics be politics. Religion be religion. I promise as a fundamentalist Christian that I won't push for creationism/ID to be taught in schools. Creation really can't be covered except by faith. When a scientist can create out of nothing a bucket of dirt I might begin to believe he has the answers. Until then it is just intelligent guesses.

689 Basho  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 3:53:56pm

re: #683 Perplexed

As far as that goes, what difference does it make if I believe in:

young earth
darwinism
creationism
intelligent design

It doesn't adversely effect anyone but me. There's people who claim we've never walked on the moon as well. What harm do they do other than to cause furled brows and elevated blood pressure in those that try to tell them differently.

Do you have any idea how much time, money, and resources are wasted on these quack movements? They don't advance any knowledge, they don't better society, and they actively block actual real-life progress. The only people that benefit are charlatans. They are a black hole of usefulness.

690 Basho  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 3:59:59pm

re: #688 Perplexed

When a scientist can create out of nothing a bucket of dirt I might begin to believe he has the answers. Until then it is just intelligent guesses.

Answers to what? If a scientist creates a buck of dirt out of nothing, all that answers is that it is possible to create a bucket of dirt out of nothing.

People will continue to believe. Science has no moral positions.

691 Perplexed  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 4:05:53pm

re: #689 Basho

Do you have any idea how much time, money, and resources are wasted on these quack movements? They don't advance any knowledge, they don't better society, and they actively block actual real-life progress. The only people that benefit are charlatans. They are a black hole of usefulness.

Well Basho, since you've dinged me down on nearly everything I've posted about this issue, just what difference does it make to you how other people invest their time, money, and resources when it comes to quack movements? Got a relative who does that? Your problem, not mine.

Galileo was thought a quack. Copernicus was thought a quack as well. We learn. When was the last time you heard of the ether (not anesthetic)? During WWII physics classes taught that it was impossible to travel at Mach speeds, even though WWII rifles fired rounds at +2500 fps. They, the scientists were wrong. Read what's good for you to eat lately? How about ten years ago? Guess what, the scientists only have a vague clue as to what is good and what is bad for you to eat. That happens today. Heard of Moore's Law? For how many years have they been predicting the end of the shrinkage of electronics? Guess what, every time they are about to throw their collective hands in the air, some researcher proves them wrong. 70 years ago blood transfusions were incredibly risky and folks said they couldn't be done. Today, routine.

692 Lynn B.  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 4:07:12pm

re: #678 Mencius

The Discovery Institute actually drafted its own model legislation, specifically and explicitly designed (~) to push its creationist agenda into the classroom. The text is here. Notice this paragraph, in particular, which somehow found its way virtually verbatim into SB733 (the LA legislation in question):

Section 7. Nothing in this act shall be construed as promoting any religious doctrine, promoting discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promoting discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

This in itself doesn't prove the stealth nature of the law but it does prove that self-serving language designed to deny the clear nature and intent of the legislation (or proposed legislation) of which it is a part can't be taken at face value.

What makes the LA bill offensive is that it's designed to circumvent a US Supreme Court decision by working in through the back door what has been prohibited through the front. Rather than explicitly permitting the teaching of creationism (constitutionally prohibited) its purpose is instead to remove all legal obstacles to teaching that evolution is false. John West:

Why is the law needed?

For two reasons. First, around the country, science teachers are being harassed, intimidated, and sometimes fired for trying to present scientific evidence critical of Darwinian theory along with the evidence that supports it. Second, many school administrators and teachers are fearful or confused about what is legally allowed when teaching about controversial scientific issues like evolution. The Louisiana Science Education Act clarifies what teachers may be allowed to do.

The problem is that, while there may be "scientific evidence critical of Darwinian theory," in the strict sense (because evolutionary theory has advanced quite a bit in the last 150 years and has self-corrected as it goes), there is NO scientific evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory as it's taught in biology classes today. There are only a) religious objections and b) pseudo-scientific non-evidence dreamed up by the Discovery Institute and its fellows for the sole purpose of undermining the existing science curriculum and leaving a void that can only be filled with the DI's preferred "theory," i.e., bibical creationism and, specifically, Christian biblical creationism.

That's at least a part of what's so offensive about the bill. (See, the post Charles linked earlier, where you can find corroboration of and links to this information.)

Hope this helps.

693 Basho  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 4:12:31pm

re: #691 Perplexed

Well Basho, since you've dinged me down on nearly everything I've posted about this issue, just what difference does it make to you how other people invest their time, money, and resources when it comes to quack movements? Got a relative who does that? Your problem, not mine.

It makes a difference to me because:

"They don't advance any knowledge, they don't better society, and they actively block actual real-life progress. The only people that benefit are charlatans."


Galileo was thought a quack. Copernicus was thought a quack as well. We learn. When was the last time you heard of the ether (not anesthetic)? During WWII physics classes taught that it was impossible to travel at Mach speeds, even though WWII rifles fired rounds at +2500 fps. They, the scientists were wrong. Read what's good for you to eat lately? How about ten years ago? Guess what, the scientists only have a vague clue as to what is good and what is bad for you to eat. That happens today. Heard of Moore's Law? For how many years have they been predicting the end of the shrinkage of electronics? Guess what, every time they are about to throw their collective hands in the air, some researcher proves them wrong. 70 years ago blood transfusions were incredibly risky and folks said they couldn't be done. Today, routine.

Red herrings.
What does any of that have to do with:


young earth
darwinism
creationism
intelligent design
694 Perplexed  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 4:18:28pm

re: #693 Basho

It makes a difference to me because:

"They don't advance any knowledge, they don't better society, and they actively block actual real-life progress. The only people that benefit are charlatans."

So do the handicapped, mentally ill, incarcerated people. Do you propose eugenics to improve life as you know it? We all know how well the last eugenics experiment played out. And who are you to judge the worthiness of another life?

695 Basho  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 4:21:01pm

re: #694 Perplexed

So do the handicapped, mentally ill, incarcerated people. Do you propose eugenics to improve life as you know it? We all know how well the last eugenics experiment played out. And who are you to judge the worthiness of another life?

WOW. What an ad hominem. And you're a bigot as well.

696 Perplexed  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 4:27:33pm

re: #695 Basho

WOW. What an ad hominem. And you're a bigot as well.


Bigot? Hahahaha^10000^10000. I laugh in your face while mocking your entire existence.

Got to try better basho.

697 Basho  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 4:31:05pm

re: #696 Perplexed

YOU implied the handicapped and mentally ill are useless in society. Are you clueless in how offensive you sounded?

698 Basho  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 4:35:05pm

re: #696 Perplexed

I laugh in your face while mocking your entire existence.

And to borrow your quote: Who are you to judge the worthiness of another life?

BTW, I don't judge the "worthiness" of another's life. I judge the worthiness of ideas. Some ideas are stupid, and that lets me form an opinion about the individual who holds those ideas. And you are an idiot.

699 Perplexed  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 4:36:31pm

re: #697 Basho

You point out that people who have beliefs that clash with yours that their existence is a drain on humanity. That sounds like the opinion of a person who believe in eugenics. Asa proponent of eugenics people, who are of a lesser value to society, the handicapped, mentally ill, incarcerated are the first to go. So who's first to the ovens, eh? The folks who believe in young earth? The folks that believe in intelligent design? Do you realize how you sound?

700 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 4:37:47pm

re: #632 press_ie

If it is a war then so be it. I fought in one, and it is my considered opinion that at least this one is well worth fighting. Of course, we stand on separate shores.

Yep; I stand on the side of reason, rationality, logic and evidence, and you stand against them. And I'm a vet, too.

Obviously, the passion of faith exhibited by Evolutionists rivals that of ID'ers. Both theories, can't be proved so which has the most evidence: Clearly chance cannot stand against purpose.

The theory of evolution is supported by Everests of evidence, tsunamis of evidence; Biblical literlism is supported by none, and flatly contradicted by artifactual retroviral DNA evidence and radiometric dating evidence. So while it is not the business of science to prove something to be absolutely true, since that would forclose subsequent evidence improving upon a theory, regardless of that evidence's content, the stastistical probability that humans and great apes evolutionarily diverged from common ancestors asymptotically approaches apodictic certainty. And there can be no doubt that the earth is older than 6000 years; even the city of Jericho is older than that, for cryin' out loud! While science cannot absolutely prove the truth of an assertion, it can empirically prove contentions to be absolutely FALSE; in fact, if a contention is not empirically falsifiable, it cannot be considered to be science. And science has indeed proven Genesis literalism to be empirically false. Which all goes to show that you don't know wtf you are talking about.

My only concern in posting, is that there is no way that making this topic an icon can help get McCain elected. You can argue all the details you want, but you can't change the reality that most folks don't buy your arguments and many of them vote. My contention is that mixing politics and the theory of evolution is political suicide.

TP

If we dare not mix politics and facts, politics and logic, or politics and empirical evidence, we are a screwed theocracy already. My contention is that it is the kiss of death - and richly, deservedly so - for a candidate on the national stage to loudly embrace, in the face of mountains and oceans of empirical evidence to the contrary, the teaching of the empirically disproven sectarian religious dogma of Biblical Genesis literalism as fact in public high school science classes.

701 Basho  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 4:40:35pm

re: #699 Perplexed

You point out that people who have beliefs that clash with yours that their existence is a drain on humanity.

I believe in reason. There was a time when people who didn't believe in reason ran civilization. One of those times was called the dark ages. For modern examples visit the Middle East.

702 Lynn B.  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 4:40:41pm

re: #699 Perplexed

You point out that people who have beliefs that clash with yours that their existence is a drain on humanity. That sounds like the opinion of a person who believe in eugenics. Asa proponent of eugenics people, who are of a lesser value to society, the handicapped, mentally ill, incarcerated are the first to go. So who's first to the ovens, eh? The folks who believe in young earth? The folks that believe in intelligent design? Do you realize how you sound?

Cut it out, P. You asked what difference it makes what people believe. Basho pointed out that certain beliefs are a drain on society and add nothing to it. Regardless of whether that idea has merit or not (I think it could have been phrased better) Basho never said anything or implied anything about the value of the existence of people who disagree with him/her. Calm down. You're way out of line here.

703 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 4:42:59pm

re: #653 Perplexed

Creationism vs Evolution? A tempest in a teapot where people who would normally agree are in a bitter internecine battle. Darwinism (I read some of his works when around 14) isn't perfect. In both cases we seek answers to our origins.

Anyone remember the battle between little endian vs big endian Intel vs Motorola? Pretty funny now that you look back at it. Choose your battles wisely.

You need to update your reading list. A few things have been added since then, like Mendel's explanation of the inheritance of dominant and recessive traits, Watson & Crick's isolation of the material substrate DNA, and the decoding of genomes. I recommend Darwin's Dangerous Idea, by Daniel C. Dennett.

704 Perplexed  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 4:47:26pm
You asked what difference it makes what people believe. Basho pointed out that certain beliefs are a drain on society and add nothing to it.

Hmmmm, a drain on society?

Every time I've heard that term it raises the hackles on my neck because of the historical references to people who followed that belief system.

705 Basho  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 4:50:39pm

re: #704 Perplexed

Hmmmm, a drain on society?

Every time I've heard that term it raises the hackles on my neck because of the historical references to people who followed that belief system.

Yeah. Like President Bush who believed nothing good could come out of the beliefs of the Taliban and decided to wipe them out.

I know that wasn't who you were thinking of but.....

706 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 4:57:01pm

re: #654 press_ie

I never said there was no proof, but it is true and factual that it is "just a theory."

As if we haven't heard THIS ignorant canard eleventy-twelve times! (sigh) But, once again, fyi; the word 'theory' in scientific parlance, indicates something much stronger than the capricious whim often denoted in casual conversation; just remember the theory of relativity or the theory of gravitation or the heliocentric theory of the solar system:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Excerpt:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

Of several competing theories, one theory may be superior to another in terms of its approximation of reality. Scientific tests of the quality of a theory include its conformity to known facts and its ability to generate hypotheses with outcomes that would predict further testable facts.

End Excerpt.

Those who might leave or have according to you left the party, is an insignificant number compared to those who vote and are either creationists or Intelligent Design proponents. Listening to this debate on LGF has to be very disconcerting for millions of believers. And despite your efforts, it takes a measure of faith either way on this subject.

Wishful think much? In state after state, creationist school boards are being voted after office by outraged parents, most recently in Kansas, when they attempt to impose scientific laughingstock curricula on their students. And faith is only necessary in the absence of empirical evidence, not in its presence. Evidence: Evolutionary theory's got it, Biblical Genesis literalism doesn't - except, that is, for the conclusive empirical evidence against it.

150 years of Darwinian research, is a drop in the bucket compared to 15 billion. To think that the present evolutionary theory has it all nailed down, is an audacious proposition. Anyone that thinks that evolution is anywhere near fact, needs some serious intervention in my opinion.

What's this 15 billion year figure? (btw: it's actually 13.7 billion) I thought Biblical Genesis literalists were the 6000 year people. Are you picking and choosing where you accept your scriptures literally, and where you concede the point to science? And how do you explain away all the genetic evidence, which can be checked and rechecked at will? Now, it is true that the the theory is incomplete (and in empirical science, no theory is EVER declared to be complete), but there is a major difference between being incomplete and being incorrect. The basic tenets of evolutionary theory - random mutations nonrandomly selected by environmental exigencies - is as sound, valid and solid as anything in science.

707 mad doc  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 5:03:24pm

The people here who "believe" in evolution. Should watch this video:

[Link: multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu...]

If you still believe in evolution afterwards then,

1. You didn't understand the video.
In that case watch it several times until you do.
2. Don't understand the implications of the video.
In that case sleep on it and watch it again if necessary.
3. If you understand this video and its implications and still believe that
Darwinian evolution is the only possible cause of what you have seen,
then you are a closed minded bigot and it is unlikely anything will ever
change your mind.

For the people who read this who believe in free enquiry I hope this video is instructive.

708 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 5:06:44pm

re: #665 Captain Faris

re: #652 Salamantis

Faris: Knowing you are a philosopher helps. Despite my previous remarks, I do agree with you and Charles about keeping ID and Creationism out of state-sponsored curriculum materials for science classes. And, by holding this view, I am dissenting with "my" side of this argument. I will stop "asserting" that there are many like me on "my" side, since this is only a personal observation of mine despite being derived from many years active involvement with this issue.

I do find that your remark (below) tells us more about you than you might hope, however:

"I'm not willing to check my empirical understanding, honesty and integrity at the door to the political arena, and hold those who are willing to do so in exceedingly low esteem. Such people are not deserving or worthy of my respect, nor will they receive it. What they merit is my contempt and disdain, and they have it."

Tose remarks tell people that I am consistent; in other words, that I cannot bring myself to retain respect for others who choose to take actions that, if I were to choose them, would cause me to lose respect for myself.

709 Basho  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 5:08:33pm

re: #707 mad doc

Maybe you should ask the scientists who made all of the amazing discoveries presented in the video what their opinions are about the validity of evolution.

710 Charles  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 5:14:39pm

re: #707 mad doc

I think we have a winner.

711 Perplexed  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 5:15:30pm

re: #705 Basho

Yeah. Like President Bush who believed nothing good could come out of the beliefs of the Taliban and decided to wipe them out.

Bush was going to ethnically cleanse the Taliban? Didn't know that the Taliban were a separate ethic group. Thought that they were a hodgepodge of Afghanis, Iranians, Pakistanis, etc.

712 Basho  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 5:20:10pm

re: #711 Perplexed

Red herring. You criticized me because I lumped BELIEFS together.

You can't even remember what your problem with me was. I suggest you quit before you continue to make yourself look even more foolish than you already have.

713 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 5:23:03pm

re: #674 press_ie

It is self evident that few minds will be changed on the topic, and its continued contentiousness is not helpful when it comes to the election. So I won't be commenting any further on this matter after this post.

While I agree that there is evidence to support the theory of evolution, it is not proved, or it would cease to remain a theory; it would become a law.

Wrong.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles which can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions. Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. This is not true, as scientific theory and scientific law have different definitions. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory

And it seems to me that paying homage to the unproved defines the meaning of faith. What we don't know about all the particulars surrounding creation far exceeds the sum total of all human knowledge.

It takes a measure of faith either way, and no amount of mental gymnastics can change that reality.

What requires mental gymnastics is the endeavor to equate the empirical evidence-supported with the empirical evidence-bereft.

And as Penzias ( Nobel laureate that is certainly no Creationists) said,

"the best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole" (Browne, 1978). Penzias goes on to ask:
How could the everyday person take sides in this dispute? ... trying to fit dogma and fact into the same mind seems too difficult....wanting to hold on to the teaching of faith, but as a rational person wanting to keep a grasp on everyday facts - [one is] being pulled by two opposing "truths." One held that the universe was created out of nothing, while the other proclaimed the evident eternity of matter. The "dogma" of creation was thwarted by the "fact" of the eternal nature of matter .... This dogma comes from the intuitive belief of people (including the majority of physicists) who don't want to accept the observational evidence that the universe was created - despite the fact that the creation of the universe is supported by all the observable data astronomy has produced so far. As a result, the people who reject the data can arguably be described as having a "religious" belief .... These people regard themselves as objective scientists. (Penzias, 1983, p. 3)

This has to do with the Big Bang theory, not evolutionary theory. But nice attempt at a bait and switch.

For experts both political and scientific to make claims that they are above dogma, jealousy, envy, etc., that somehow they are infallible because they examine the empirical evidence, and furthermore cannot be tainted in their own world views is absurd.

An atheist by nature will see the creation data in a different light than a believer. To say that scientists are not affected by their world view is not supported by the empirical evidence.

Scientists correct each other's mistakes, and are recognized and rewarded for doing so. That's how science, as a discipline, filters out the biases of individual scientists. Believers don't view the data differently so much as they deny what it longically entails.

714 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 5:27:30pm

re: #678 Mencius

Charles, given that the ACLU and presumably other constitutional law experts said the bill as it was written was not a problem, on what basis would you have expected Jindal to veto it? It clearly has a broader scope than just evolution (global warming, etc). Why not keep the ability to bring in supplemental materials and then monitor to be sure that religion is not introduced.

I would think that is the status quo position for most school districts all over the country. What makes this bill in Louisiana so offensive?

The inclusion of such things as global warming in it were trojan stalking horses meant to ease its passage and signage by ostensibly diluting its specificity and, in the case of global warming specifically, by linking it to school-taught criticism of a perspective that is unpopular in an oil-producing state.

Have no doubts whatsoever about the creationist intentions of its authors.

715 Perplexed  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 5:28:56pm

re: #712 Basho

Basho, is English your first language? This is pretty simple. You write something. I quote it. Then comment on it. How is that a red herring?

Bizarre.

716 Basho  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 5:33:13pm

re: #715 Perplexed

I said:
"Yeah. Like President Bush who believed nothing good could come out of the beliefs of the Taliban and decided to wipe them out."

You said:
"Bush was going to ethnically cleanse the Taliban? Didn't know that the Taliban were a separate ethic group. Thought that they were a hodgepodge of Afghanis, Iranians, Pakistanis, etc."

WHERE DID I MENTION ETHNICITY?
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BELIEF SYSTEMS.

717 MadJadBad  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 5:34:20pm

The night that Bristol Palin's pregnancy was announced some of the non-political blogs that I read had comments heckling Gov. Palin's support of "abstinence only" education, saying that this proved that it didn't work. I had to point out that just because she supported it doesn't mean that is what was actually being taught in Bristol's school. If she goes to a public school, I'd say the chances are very slim that they teach abstinence only. Also nobody considered that she may have been trying to get pregnant intentionally.
The responses that I got showed me that many libs really do think that a child is a "punishment", and that her life is ruined.

718 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 5:35:47pm

re: #682 Perplexed

By not perfect I mean that there exist holes in his theory and that folks who bow down at Darwin's feet should reexamine some of what he says. I don't specifically know how species came about so can't really point to this change led to this change which led to this change. I don't know specifically how life started either. To go further back I can't say what was before our universe came into being.

Please enlighten us all by specifically pointing out these holes and supplying credible empirical evidence to support your contentions. If you succeed, you will have done something that neither the Discovery Institute nor the Institute for Creation Research has been able to do.

When or how terrestrial life or the Universe began have nothing to do with evolutionary theory, which is all about how species evolve, diverge, and speciate. The beginning of terrestrial life is covered by origins of life theory, and the beginning of the universe is covered by cosmological physics.

That's when you've got to question how it all began. That's a question of religion/philosophy because science lacks the answers as well.

But just because science doesn't have ALL the answers doesn't mean that it hasn't answered some pretty important questions. And, in evolutionary theory, it indeed has answered some important questions, and quite definitively - just not the way that Biblical Genesis literalists would have preferred them to.

Tough turds. Facts are facts, logic is logic, and empirical evidence is empirical evidence. Emotional preferences do not bend physical reality.

719 Basho  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 5:38:56pm

re: #717 MadJadBad

That's TOLERANCE for you!

Like I mentioned in another thread; these left-wingers are parasites. They abuse freedom of speech to its worst extremes, but won't lift a finger to defend it.

720 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 5:40:21pm

re: #683 Perplexed

As far as that goes, what difference does it make if I believe in:

young earth
darwinism
creationism
intelligent design

It doesn't adversely effect anyone but me. There's people who claim we've never walked on the moon as well. What harm do they do other than to cause furled brows and elevated blood pressure in those that try to tell them differently.

I don't personally care if you believe that dwarves are fellating unicorns beneath the mountains of the moon, so long as you do not strive to mandate your dogma being taught as fact to other peoples' kids in public schools. Unfortunitely, this is precisely what the IDiots are trying to do; legislatively force the institutional brainwashing of other peoples' kids into their sectarian religious dogmas in public schools

721 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 5:50:16pm

re: #688 Perplexed

Bingo. You just hit the nail on the head. Politics be politics. Religion be religion. I promise as a fundamentalist Christian that I won't push for creationism/ID to be taught in schools. Creation really can't be covered except by faith. When a scientist can create out of nothing a bucket of dirt I might begin to believe he has the answers. Until then it is just intelligent guesses.

You don't have to be able to create a bucket of dirt from scratch to be able to compare the artifactual retroviral DNA sequences in the genomes of humans and great apes and grok the ramification that the results of such a comparison demonstrates beyond rational dispute that they evolutionarily diverged from common ancestors, or to take radiometric measurements of fossils and rocks to determine that many of them are a almost million times as old as biblical literalists claim that the earth is.

722 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 5:54:46pm

re: #691 Perplexed

Well Basho, since you've dinged me down on nearly everything I've posted about this issue, just what difference does it make to you how other people invest their time, money, and resources when it comes to quack movements? Got a relative who does that? Your problem, not mine.

Galileo was thought a quack. Copernicus was thought a quack as well. We learn. When was the last time you heard of the ether (not anesthetic)? During WWII physics classes taught that it was impossible to travel at Mach speeds, even though WWII rifles fired rounds at +2500 fps. They, the scientists were wrong. Read what's good for you to eat lately? How about ten years ago? Guess what, the scientists only have a vague clue as to what is good and what is bad for you to eat. That happens today. Heard of Moore's Law? For how many years have they been predicting the end of the shrinkage of electronics? Guess what, every time they are about to throw their collective hands in the air, some researcher proves them wrong. 70 years ago blood transfusions were incredibly risky and folks said they couldn't be done. Today, routine.

The examples you cite are of people who overturned previously held ancient or not-so-ancient dogmas. Kinda like Darwin and Mendel did. And the last 150 years of scientific experimentation and empirical investigation have done nothing but further support evolutionary theory.

723 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 5:58:17pm

re: #694 Perplexed

So do the handicapped, mentally ill, incarcerated people. Do you propose eugenics to improve life as you know it? We all know how well the last eugenics experiment played out. And who are you to judge the worthiness of another life?

The eugenics canard again.

Evolutionary theorists are the exact antithesis of eugenicists, for they are in favor of allowing environmental selection to proceed unhindered, while eugenecists all want to impose their own pet 'intelligent designs.'

724 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 6:05:54pm

re: #699 Perplexed

You point out that people who have beliefs that clash with yours that their existence is a drain on humanity. That sounds like the opinion of a person who believe in eugenics. Asa proponent of eugenics people, who are of a lesser value to society, the handicapped, mentally ill, incarcerated are the first to go. So who's first to the ovens, eh? The folks who believe in young earth? The folks that believe in intelligent design? Do you realize how you sound?

Actually, he was pointing out that the Luddite ACTIONS of those who wish to impose their sectarion religious dogmas upon the impressionable young minds of other peoples' children in public schools are a drain on civilized societies. And so they are. Not to mention a drain on the school districts, once they pony up to pay for 'supplemental materials' that they can never use (which the publishing subsidiaries of the Disco Institute IDiots will eagerly sell them), the 'expert witness' fees that the the aforementioned Disco Institute IDiots will charge them, the court costs of trying the cases against them, and the fines that the courts will impose upon them for their 1st Amendment violating actions.

But meanwhile, the Disco Dewdes absorb NONE of the fines and court costs, while laughing all the way to the bank with the proceeds from their 'supplemental materials' sales and their 'expert witness' fees. So maybe they're not so idiotic; they're just bloodsucking vampires, preying on the religious tendencies of their victims.

725 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 6:08:54pm

re: #704 Perplexed

Hmmmm, a drain on society?

Every time I've heard that term it raises the hackles on my neck because of the historical references to people who followed that belief system.

You mean like the Dominican monks in Central America who baptized Native American infants, then swung them by their heels and bashed their heads against walls, so that they would not backslide from a heathen upbringing and their pristine innocent souls would go to Heaven?

726 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 6:10:40pm

re: #707 mad doc

The people here who "believe" in evolution. Should watch this video:

[Link: multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu...]

If you still believe in evolution afterwards then,

1. You didn't understand the video.
In that case watch it several times until you do.
2. Don't understand the implications of the video.
In that case sleep on it and watch it again if necessary.
3. If you understand this video and its implications and still believe that
Darwinian evolution is the only possible cause of what you have seen,
then you are a closed minded bigot and it is unlikely anything will ever
change your mind.

For the people who read this who believe in free enquiry I hope this video is instructive.

Just another assertion of Behe's discredited 'irreducable complexity' canard.

727 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 6:13:02pm

re: #711 Perplexed

Bush was going to ethnically cleanse the Taliban? Didn't know that the Taliban were a separate ethic group. Thought that they were a hodgepodge of Afghanis, Iranians, Pakistanis, etc.

They are almost exclusively Pashtuns. But the point wasn't to eliminate Pashtuns, it was to eliminate jihadis. Most ethnic Pashtuns are not jihadi-friendly.

728 mad doc  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 6:49:24pm

re: #726 Salamantis


You appear to fall into category 3. On second thoughts, you don't.

Salamantis, you have only recently discovered the difference between a nucleic acid and an amino acid so it is highly unlikely you understand the video or its implications. I remain hopefiul that as you become more educated your views may change.

Although perhaps I should have included a fourth category: those who choose to remain ignorant and uneducated. I think you probably fall into that one.

729 Basho  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 6:53:22pm

re: #689 Basho

Do you have any idea how much time, money, and resources are wasted on these quack movements? They don't advance any knowledge, they don't better society, and they actively block actual real-life progress. The only people that benefit are charlatans. They are a black hole of usefulness.

One thing I should have made clear when I wrote this:

Unlike some "militant athiests", I don't believe churches and religions themselves are quack movements. They fulfill the spiritual needs of individuals and make society a healthier place. It is when forcing or misleading someone to believe in one's interpretation of a belief system that one has crossed the line.

730 Basho  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 7:03:26pm

re: #728 mad doc

You use the successes of science to justify your opposition to it.

You're a fraud. You should apply to the [in]Discovery Institute.

731 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:07:06pm

re: #728 mad doc

You appear to fall into category 3. On second thoughts, you don't.

Salamantis, you have only recently discovered the difference between a nucleic acid and an amino acid so it is highly unlikely you understand the video or its implications. I remain hopefiul that as you become more educated your views may change.

Although perhaps I should have included a fourth category: those who choose to remain ignorant and uneducated. I think you probably fall into that one.

This is, of course, an appeal to authority, without naming any authority, combined with a pre-emptive ad hominem. You are implicitly claiming that those who are knowledgeable on the subject must either be dogmatic atheists, or they must agree with your views.

So, in order to kill both of these canards with a single counterexample, I present to you Francis Collins, a devoted Christian and accepter of evolutionary theory whose scientific and technological advances permitted the decoding of the human genome.

[Link: discovermagazine.com...]

The media often portray the religious right in the United States as antiscience. Is that a fair characterization?

I don't think it's fair to blame believers for getting defensive about attacks on the Bible when they see their whole belief system is under attack from some members of the scientific community who are using the platform of science to say, "We don't need God anymore, that was all superstition, and you guys should get over it." Believers then feel some requirement to respond, and this has led to an unfortunate escalation of charges and countercharges. As a result of the tensions over evolution, I think we see an increasing tendency for believers to dig in about things like Genesis 1 and 2, claiming that there is just one acceptable interpretation. That's not a strong position. St. Augustine, for example, came to the conclusion that we really don't know what the writer of Genesis was trying to describe in the creation story, and we should be careful about drawing conclusions about the nature of the world based on what those verses say. He was concerned that science would ultimately prove specific narrow interpretations to be incorrect, and then faith would be put up to scorn. It was as if he was sending us a warning 16 centuries ago, saying, "Guys, watch out for this."

What motivates those who polarize the debate?

I think the people who are most fervently opposed to evolution are not doing so on a political basis. I think that many of those folks have been brought up to believe that if you accept evolution, you lose your faith. If you're presented with only that option, then as a believer you have to resist Darwin with every fiber of your being. You'll congregate with people who believe as you do, you'll listen to radio shows that agree with you, and you'll try to hold it together against what's perceived as an onslaught of Godless, secularized science that threatens your core beliefs.

More excerpt to follow.

732 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 3, 2008 10:10:51pm

We keep hearing that the middle ground between science and faith is increasingly difficult to maintain. Do you feel that your position is precarious?

I think it's rock solid. If God chose to use the mechanism of evolution to create human beings, who are we to say He wouldn't have done it that way? It's unfortunate that this potential harmony between worldviews is perceived by some as delicate or fragile. Much of what seems to threaten this view are the ultraliteral interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2, as I mentioned, which are fairly recent arrivals on the scene and which many other theologians down through the centuries have not been comfortable accepting anyway.

Doesn't Scripture sometimes explicitly contradict science?

I don't find any troubling examples of that in the Bible, as long as you recognize that the point of Scripture was not to teach science. Can you imagine God lecturing to his chosen people about radioactive decay?

And yet people have been burned at the stake over this issue.

Before we start trashing religion, we should recognize that religion down through history has been misused by lots of people in terrible ways. But it's also done some profoundly good things. What has atheism done to help people? The worst examples of human carnage in the 20th century came from the atheist regimes of Stalin and Mao. The principles of faith are generally altruistic, gentle, and loving. The problem is when someone takes those principles and twists them to suit their own purposes—that was the Inquisition, and that is suicide bombers.

So what would you say to the scientists who are fervently opposed to religious thought and practice?

Is there any dogma more unsupported by the facts than from the scientist who stands up and says, "I know there is no God"? Science is woefully unsuited to ask the question of God in the first place. So give the religious folks a break. They are seeking the kind of spiritual truths that have always interested humankind but that science cannot really address.

Sal: Now, Mad, do you have the unnutterable hubris and gall to either claim that your scientific credentials are superior to those of Francis Collins, or that he's not a 'real' Christian?

733 mad doc  Thu, Sep 4, 2008 12:44:28am

re: #731 Salamantis

I don't know why you spend so much time talking about religion in your reply as I didn't mention anything about religion in my post. I do not need religion to debunk evolution so I have never resorted to it.

The fact that evolution is a ridiculous theory but people still believe in it deserves analysis. My opinion is that it is taught at school as gospel and people accept it unquestioningly. I was one of them.

It is frustrating to see such obviously intelligent people (yourself included) being hoodwinked by this theory and I am perplexed by their obduracy. Is there some secondary gain attached for these people to be so passionately resistant to accepting any possible counter argument to evolution?

734 Charles  Thu, Sep 4, 2008 8:10:52am

re: #733 mad doc

I don't know why you spend so much time talking about religion in your reply as I didn't mention anything about religion in my post. I do not need religion to debunk evolution so I have never resorted to it.

The fact that evolution is a ridiculous theory but people still believe in it deserves analysis. My opinion is that it is taught at school as gospel and people accept it unquestioningly. I was one of them.

It is frustrating to see such obviously intelligent people (yourself included) being hoodwinked by this theory and I am perplexed by their obduracy. Is there some secondary gain attached for these people to be so passionately resistant to accepting any possible counter argument to evolution?

You haven't posted a single word that "debunks evolution." You've been relentlessly dumping creationist talking points into our comments in every thread dealing with evolution, trying to trick gullible people into believing your nonsense. Are you affiliated with Answers in Genesis or Ken Ham?

735 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Thu, Sep 4, 2008 8:18:46am
736 MistahTibbs  Thu, Sep 4, 2008 8:41:22am

I am one of those crazy people who believe that we are special creations of a loving God.

So sue me.

Having said that the concept of creation is a philosophical one, and as such, I have no problem it being taught as a philosophical exercise positing on the origins of life and man. It's more a...um, legal/historical argument than a scientific argument.

Good on Palin.

MT

737 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 4, 2008 10:11:15am

re: #733 mad doc

I don't know why you spend so much time talking about religion in your reply as I didn't mention anything about religion in my post. I do not need religion to debunk evolution so I have never resorted to it.

The fact that evolution is a ridiculous theory but people still believe in it deserves analysis. My opinion is that it is taught at school as gospel and people accept it unquestioningly. I was one of them.

It is frustrating to see such obviously intelligent people (yourself included) being hoodwinked by this theory and I am perplexed by their obduracy. Is there some secondary gain attached for these people to be so passionately resistant to accepting any possible counter argument to evolution?

Charles is right; you haven't debunked jack shit, nor can you, as all of the empirical evidence - let me repeat: ALL of it - SUPPORTS evolutionary theory, and NONE of that evidence contradicts it. I brought up Francis Collins, whom I note that you did not even mention in your reply because his scientific credentials are outstanding and impeccable - to demonstrate that your 'closed-minded bigot' canard - seemingly an allusion to some 'dogmatic atheist' staw man you are surreptitiously stuffing - is absurd and nonsensical on its cloth face.

Once again, people do not require belief in order to accept the veracity of evolutionary theory; a dispassionate and objective perusal of the plethora of empirical evidence will suffice. What requires a surfeit of belief is to fly in the face of the artifactual retroviral DNA facts and obdurately assert that different species didn't evolutionarily diverge from common ancestors. In precisely what statistical universe could humans and great apes have arisen or emerged independently yet sharing 98+% of their DNA? And what is the meaning of 'arisen' or 'emerged' in a nonevolutionary context? Getting nostril-breathed into life by some conjectured deity? And just precisely how is such dogmatic myth rendered more scientific than is evolutionary theory?

And then there is the matter of the fact that if humans and great apes did not evolutionarily diverge from common ancestors, they would have had to have contracted thousands of the selfsame retroviral diseases, at the same times, and had all them splice into isomorphic positions in each of their 3-billion-base-pair genomes. The chances of that are about as great as the chance that you could piss in the ocean, wait a year, then dip a cup in and find it filled with your piss and nothing else. And you dare to call folks who refuse to embrace such a probabilistic infinitesimality obdurate and hoodwinked? What overweening temerity and blatant abject imbecility. Boy I have some gulfshore property in the lower Louisiana Delta to sell you, if you'll swallow such rancidly counterlogical tripe as independent and as-is species origination while dismissing bargeloads of solid empirical counterfactual science! If I could buy your grasp of this issue for what it's worth and sell it for what you think it's worth, I would be a wealthy man.

Let me know when you come up with a CREDIBLE counter-argument to evolutionary theory; one that includes a countermodel that explains the observed phenomena as well or better. Until then, your tiresome belittling of those who have not embraced a cognitive clonehood of your incomprehension only reflects upon your own obdurately willful ignorance.

738 buzzdroid  Thu, Sep 4, 2008 1:35:08pm

hey folks - i'm as pro-science as Charles as they come...

but - DAMN - there is some weird stuff happening in quantum physics.

By the way - Jindal is way out of line with regards to Catholic teaching. thats as bad as Pelosi's statements on abortion.

the Catholic church fully accepts scientific evidence - and that includes evolution.

they just think that it was God who set it all in motion.

see ? you can be evolutionist and religious at the same time. THERE ISNT A PROBLEM...

739 buzzdroid  Thu, Sep 4, 2008 1:43:19pm

re: #688 Perplexed

Bingo. You just hit the nail on the head. Politics be politics. Religion be religion. I promise as a fundamentalist Christian that I won't push for creationism/ID to be taught in schools. Creation really can't be covered except by faith. When a scientist can create out of nothing a bucket of dirt I might begin to believe he has the answers. Until then it is just intelligent guesses.

"create out of nothing a bucket of dirt"

they already can - and have been for years now.. its called particle physics.

you know - those particle accelerators? look it up. it'll amaze you.

now if you are religious , you find the hand of God in there. and i'm sure you will - heck, even as an atheist i'm just astounded by what those guys (and gals) are discovering.

good book to start on is "the elegant universe" by brian greene

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
[Link: www.amazon.com...]

please do try to buy or borrow it. its amazing.
if you are religious it will reinforce your wonderment of nature and Gods work. if you are non-religious, you'll be amazed at the wonderment of nature and kind of wondering , "hmmm... maybe there is a God there..."

its THAT good. and i say that as a lifelong atheist.

740 Captain Faris  Thu, Sep 4, 2008 1:55:02pm

Not that it matters in this dead thread, but:

The Mad-Dog vs Salamantis debate has been interesting as a study of how not to debate issues.

Charles and Salamantis both correctly point out that Mad-Dog does not offer evidence for his assertion that evolution is both false and a deliberate fraud or hoax motivated by anti-God activists.

For the record, most Christians are more like Francis Collins than Ken Hamm and don't much feel the need to convince anyone of this assertion; I, for my part, never try to disprove Darwinism and I don't claim that it has been disproven by anyone else. I merely say that when I used to be a Darwinist I was being taught how to teach evolution by professors in college. I concluded at that time that science didn't yet offer support for how random variations produced the "text" of our DNA. That's all.

The 2005 report about retrovirus intrusions into DNA does speed up the cycles of random activity enormously. But few scientists yet claim that this paper has "proven" evolution. It might simply explain how devolution can happen very quickly.

But, back to my topic regarding "the debate" between Mad-Dog and Salamantis. I don't think Mad-Dog has been trying to debate "evolution" or even the politics of forcing ID to be taught in schools. Many believers like Mad-Dog strive to debate the "rationality" of the Darwinist movement and the Darwinist suppression of dissent. But they (we) aren't allowed to do this until we successfully disprove evolution.

So invariably these arguments become emotional and both sides fall back on straw-man argumentss which are nearly exclusively ad homimen.

I enter the lists every now and then hoping to point out how the angriest side (almost always the Darwinists) discredits itself by writing "willful" propaganda. (Like I sometimes try to point out that many Russian expats write "willful" propaganda.) And I suggest that "sources" which issue propaganda cannot be regarded as reliable.

The "meanest" thing I ever say is that this or that author "knows" that he or she is writing propaganda and I know that they know it.

Propagandists, for their part, get quite angry and often resort to expletives. I sympathize with them, however; frustration does bring such words to mind and I sometimes think them.

But, Charles, if you glance at this, I think a "matrix" of debate topics could be produced to break-down these Creationism threads into more clearly delineated and more easily discussed sub-topics.

The main disconnect is that "we" try to discuss the behavior of Darwinists who intimidate and suppress debate. While "they" (the anti Discovery Institute team) try to debate either the evidence for speciation or the hidden agenda of the Intelligent Design theorists. Thus neither team thinks the other ever says anything "on topic".

Still, in the end, I do think the evidence exists for many of us to draw the conclusion that Salamantis is an overly emotionally engaged and unreliable debate participant. But I do think Salamantis' posts do collect lots of Darwinist points of view into brief and concise articles and can be used to create lists of sub-topics to discuss.

741 mad doc  Thu, Sep 4, 2008 2:14:38pm

re: #734 Charles

And you said I was a winner.

I don't know what Answers in Genesis is or who Ken Ham is.

Debunk.

OK.

The simplest life form is the bacteria. The simplest proteins in the bacteria are around 100 amino acids long. The chance of this sequence of amino acids arising spontaneously is 20 to the 100th power, which is about 10 to the power 120. Many proteins in the bacteria are 1000 amino acids long. A typical bacteria e.g. E. Coli has 4290 genes coding for proteins.
Lets calculate ( i will make the proteins only 100 aa's long for the sake of argument). 10^120 by~4000 = 10^ 480000.

10^480000.

Now according to Darwinian theory this would have had to come about by random mutation.

The number of atoms in the universe multiplied by age of the universe in seconds is 10^80. So as you can see there would not have been enough time for these mutations to occur.

Did you watch the video? Did you notice how all the proteins worked in concert. This bring in to play orders of complexity far greater than I have just described. This why people talk of the "multiverse".

There are, of course, other serious arguments against Darwin.

742 Basho  Thu, Sep 4, 2008 2:29:56pm

re: #741 mad doc

You can use your idiotic logic to show that everything is impossible.

Chemical reactions are not random. Things like DNA arises from simpler chemicals every time your cells divide. It happens every time you cut your hair.

Your ignorant and clueless statistics taken from stupid creationist websites have been debunked already. You're a moron. You're only embarrassing whatever righteous cause you think you're following.

743 Basho  Thu, Sep 4, 2008 2:36:36pm

re: #740 Captain Faris

"I concluded at that time that science didn't yet offer support for how random variations produced the "text" of our DNA. That's all."

"The 2005 report about retrovirus intrusions into DNA does speed up the cycles of random activity enormously."

For the record, like theory differs in science and common usage, random differs in science and common usage. In science, random does not mean "meaningless". It means that it cannot be predicted with any greater accuracy than that predicted by statistics.

Thermodynamics, quantum mechanics... those fields deal with random things. But they are not meaningless. It is observed. It is a fact of life. For Pete's sake get over this insecurity about reality being random.

744 mad doc  Thu, Sep 4, 2008 3:37:00pm

re: #740 Captain Faris

Please, it's mad doc

745 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 4, 2008 3:50:57pm

re: #740 Captain Faris

Not that it matters in this dead thread, but:

The Mad-Dog vs Salamantis debate has been interesting as a study of how not to debate issues.

Charles and Salamantis both correctly point out that Mad-Dog does not offer evidence for his assertion that evolution is both false and a deliberate fraud or hoax motivated by anti-God activists.

For the record, most Christians are more like Francis Collins than Ken Hamm and don't much feel the need to convince anyone of this assertion; I, for my part, never try to disprove Darwinism and I don't claim that it has been disproven by anyone else. I merely say that when I used to be a Darwinist I was being taught how to teach evolution by professors in college. I concluded at that time that science didn't yet offer support for how random variations produced the "text" of our DNA. That's all.

Yes it does. It's called nonrandom environmental selection, iterated over and over and over again over the span of 3+ billion years, and causing concatenations of selected mutations to emerge on top of one another.

The 2005 report about retrovirus intrusions into DNA does speed up the cycles of random activity enormously. But few scientists yet claim that this paper has "proven" evolution. It might simply explain how devolution can happen very quickly.

You entirely miss the significance of the artifactual retroviral DNA evidence. Let me explain it to you.

Artifactual retroviral DNA sequences did not originate their its host genomes, but were spliced into it by externally originating retroviruses during disease infections of the host. The indisputable fact that humans and great apes share thousands of such sequences, showing the same degree of genetic degradation (a marker of how long ago they were spliced in), and present in isomorphically identical locations in the respective host genomes, is quite easily explained by humans and great apes having evolutionarily diverged from common ancestors, who were infected with these diseases, and whose genomes received the spliced-in retroviral sequences, prior to evolutionary divergence.

However, to maintain that humans and great apes did not evolutionarily diverge from common ancestors requires the assumption that both humans and great apes were infected by the selfsame retroviral phages, at the same time, thousands of times over, and that all of them serendipitously spliced into precisely isomorphic locations in each host's genome, at a time millions of years ago from which, although many hominid fossils have been found, none have been found of either humans or great apes.

These are the two competing scenarios, and when subjected to statistic analysis, the probability of the first scenario, common ancestry, asymptotically approaches apodictic certainty, while the possibility of the second scenario, independent ancestry, is vanishingly small.

This is no mere talking point, nor is it propaganda, if by propaganda you intend to connote falsity; it is solidly grounded in genetic evidence that is empirically checkable and recheckable at will, and in the mathematical discoipline of statistical probability analysis. You cannot dissolve the message by spraying ad hominem acid on the messenger.

Try to address the substance of this post for once in your rhetorical life, and tell me precisely HOW, in light of the artifactual retroviral DNA sequence evidence, you could possibly claim that it would be rational or reasonable to claim veracity for an independent origination scenario over a divergence from common ancestors scenario. I sincerely doubt, given the empirical evidence and the logical entailments involved, that you can make a credible case for such a choice, but you're more than welcome to try. And there are ONLY these two alternatives to choose from; either humans and great apes DID evolutionarily diverge from common ancestors, or they DID NOT.

746 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 4, 2008 4:09:50pm

re: #741 mad doc

And you said I was a winner.

I don't know what Answers in Genesis is or who Ken Ham is.

Debunk.

OK.

The simplest life form is the bacteria. The simplest proteins in the bacteria are around 100 amino acids long. The chance of this sequence of amino acids arising spontaneously is 20 to the 100th power, which is about 10 to the power 120. Many proteins in the bacteria are 1000 amino acids long. A typical bacteria e.g. E. Coli has 4290 genes coding for proteins.
Lets calculate ( i will make the proteins only 100 aa's long for the sake of argument). 10^120 by~4000 = 10^ 480000.

10^480000.

Now according to Darwinian theory this would have had to come about by random mutation.

The number of atoms in the universe multiplied by age of the universe in seconds is 10^80. So as you can see there would not have been enough time for these mutations to occur.

Did you watch the video? Did you notice how all the proteins worked in concert. This bring in to play orders of complexity far greater than I have just described. This why people talk of the "multiverse".

There are, of course, other serious arguments against Darwin.

[Link: www.talkorigins.org...]

|So much for that assertion; have you any others?

747 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 4, 2008 4:19:40pm

[Link: www.talkorigins.org...]

1.2.3 Statistical impossibility of proteins?

What about the argument concerning the statistical improbability of obtaining a specific 141 amino acid sequence by looking for the correct sequence among randomly generated sequences? Certainly this mechanism could not explain the origin of protein sequences, but the creationist suggestion that this mechanism is part of evolutionary theory is false; it is a "straw-man" -- a false creationist caricature of evolution -- used repeatedly by creationists to mislead naive audiences into thinking that evolution is illogical. It is false because it demands a specific sequence in a SINGLE selection step from a pool of random sequences, whereas the real evolutionary model for the origin of protein sequences involves MULTIPLE ROUNDS OF RANDOM MUTATION followed by MULTIPLE selection steps as outlined above.

In a beautiful discussion of the distinction between these two models, British biologist Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker New York, 1986) simulated the creationists' straw-man caricature on a computer. He programmed the computer to generate random sequences to see if it would ever generate a line from Hamlet: "Methinks it is a weasel." This line has 28 characters (including spaces), so the computer was programmed to make 28 selections from the 27 possible characters (26 letters plus space). A typical output was

MWR SWTNUXMLCDLEUBXTQHNZVJQF
Since there are 2728 different possible ways of choosing from 27 alternatives 28 times, one can calculate the probability of picking the correct sequence and, based on the speed of the computer, estimate how long on average one would have to wait for the correct sequence to be printed. Dawkins figured a million million million million million years. If this were the best way protein evolution could be conceptualized -- by selection in a SINGLE step from random sequences -- one might conclude, along with the creationists, that a protein sequence could not have evolved. But the creationists' single step selection model is clearly a "straw-man" designed to ridicule the concept of randomness as a component of evolution. The real evolutionist model is that modern amino acid sequences evolved by successive steps in which random mutations of pre-existing sequences were subjected to selection; any rare mutant that provided more efficient function was propagated to future generations, in which the process of mutation and selection was repeated over and over. When Dawkins terminated his computer program simulating the straw-man "creationist version" of evolution and rewrote a program that more closely approximates the "evolutionist version" of evolution, the results of the simulation were quite different. Dawkins programmed the computer to generate an initial sequence randomly, as in the first model, and the computer produced:

WSLMNLT DTJBKWIRZRESLMQCO P
Then, following Dawkins's revised program, the computer made multiple copies (progeny) of this sequence, while introducing random "errors" (mutations) into the copies. The computer examined all the mutated progeny and selected the one that had most similarity (however slight) to the line from Hamlet. This selected sequence was used as the basis for another generation of progeny with further mutations, from which the best copy was again selected -- and so on. By ten generations, the sequence had "evolved" to

MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRQREZ MECS P
By thirty generations, it was:

METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL

Sal: to be continued...

748 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 4, 2008 4:20:16pm

Instead of taking millions of years, the computer generated METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL in about half an hour, at the forty-third generation. Thus a cumulative multi-step model is not at all implausible as a model for evolution, given both a mechanism for replicating imperfect copies and a strong selective pressure. (The replication mechanism is, of course, a big "given"; how such a mechanism might have developed is a separate question concerning the origin of life rather than its evolution, and is not the subject of this article.) The importance of Dawkins's simulation is that it highlights the error of all the creationist arguments against the statistical improbability of evolution, by showing that the creationists' choice of a single-step versus cumulative multi-step model creates a falsely low estimate of the potential for deriving a particular sequence via random mutation and selection. Although both the single-step model and the cumulative multi-step model involve random sequences and selection, the predicted consequences of the two models are very different. The creationists ignore this difference and intentionally discuss only the model that gives the result they like, even though this model corresponds least well to the theory of evolution.

749 mad doc  Thu, Sep 4, 2008 5:23:06pm

re: #748 Salamantis

Sal, you said:

The computer examined all the mutated progeny and selected the one that had most similarity (however slight) to the line from Hamlet.

No. The computer program selected the required information, not the computer. The computer is just a machine and can't do anything without a program.

The program, of course was written by a human being. No doubt a fairly intelligent one.

Unfortunately (for you) your argument actually suports intelligent design

750 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 4, 2008 5:58:44pm

re: #749 mad doc

Sal, you said:

The computer examined all the mutated progeny and selected the one that had most similarity (however slight) to the line from Hamlet.

No. The computer program selected the required information, not the computer. The computer is just a machine and can't do anything without a program.

The program, of course was written by a human being. No doubt a fairly intelligent one.

Unfortunately (for you) your argument actually suports intelligent design

No, it doesn't. The computer was mimicking the nonrandom selection function performed by the environment. The environment does not requre intelligence in order to select the mutations that confer upon their hosts differential reproductive advantage. The randomly generated letter strings represented different mutations of the starting string, and the sentence being successively approximated by the computer program represents the ideal organism/ecological niche fit. The string that best approximated the sentence was chosen as the new starting string, just like the most succcessful organism mutation survives and produces the most progeny, and the process was repeated. Again and again. Like mortal and reproducing organisms do through generations when confronted with a differentially selecting surrounding environment.

751 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 4, 2008 6:00:34pm

Umm...the computer PROGRAM was mimicking the nonrandom selection function performed by the environment...PIMF

752 mad doc  Thu, Sep 4, 2008 7:59:39pm

re: #751 Salamantis

I have to reject your argument.

The program would operate like this:
Random letters and spaces would be generated and compared against a template ( final out come) which in this case is " methinks it is like a weasel" When a letter or space is produced which corresponds to the template it is saved. The process is repeated until the sentence is completed and then the program terminates. That is why it only takes 43 "generations" to achieve the result. But according to darwinian evolution there is no perexisting template, there is no plan to life. Whereas ID says there is.

753 mad doc  Thu, Sep 4, 2008 8:21:20pm

Might call it quits until next time Sal. These pages are laoding real slow.