Jindal: Political Meteor or Meteorite?

Charles Johnsonfollow me on twitter
Politics • Mon Dec 1, 2008 at 5:40 pm PST • Views: 244

Is Bobby Jindal the next Barack Obama?

No less an aspiring kingmaker than Steve Schmidt, the chief strategist of McCain’s failed presidential bid, sees Jindal as the Republican Party’s destiny. “The question is not whether he’ll be president, but when he’ll be president, because he will be elected someday.” The anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist believes, too, that Jindal is a certainty to occupy the White House, and conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh has described him as “the next Ronald Reagan.”

Jindal is, above all else, a political meteor, sharing Obama’s precocious skills for reaching the firmament in a hurry. It was just four years ago, after losing a gubernatorial election, that he won election to Congress, and only this year that he became Louisiana’s governor, the first nonwhite to hold the office since Reconstruction. And now, 10 months into his first term, the talk of a presidential bid is getting louder among his boosters.

… or the next William Jennings Bryan?

The record is still evolving, like the rest of him. But social conservatives like what they have heard about the public and private Jindal: his steadfast opposition to abortion without exceptions; his disapproval of embryonic stem cell research; his and his wife Supriya’s decision in 1997 to enter into a Louisiana covenant marriage that prohibits no-fault divorce in the state; and his decision in June to sign into law the Louisiana Science Education Act, a bill heartily supported by creationists that permits public school teachers to educate students about both the theory of “scientific design” and criticisms of Darwinian evolutionary concepts.

Advertisement

1293 comments

  • Comments 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 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:42:26pm
2 NYCHardhat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:43:21pm

If he is it for 2012... We will get slaughtered.

3 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:44:32pm

Running for cover under a religious umbrella is not going to fly anymore for the Republicans.

4 MJ  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:44:44pm

Grover Norquist...

'nough said.

5 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:44:46pm

Notice the Washington Post's little zinger: "The record is still evolving."

6 gclaghorn  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:45:32pm

re: #5 Charles

Notice the Washington Post's little zinger: "The record is still evolving."

I was just going to ask if that was intended.

7 jwpaine  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:46:05pm

re: #2 NYCHardhat

If he is it for 2012... We will get slaughtered.

Oh yes indeedy. If the GOP doesn't get that "social conservatism" out of its system, the fiscal conservatives are gonna find another party.

8 sngnsgt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:46:50pm

re: #5 Charles

Just like Pres-elect Barack Obama's campaign promises are.

9 LoFlyer  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:47:04pm

What is the issue Charles? Jindal obviously supports educational debate of both theories. If Evolution is a strong theory, it will withstand the debate with flying colors!

10 NYCHardhat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:47:11pm

re: #7 jwpaine

Oh yes indeedy. If the GOP doesn't get that "social conservatism" out of its system, the fiscal conservatives are gonna find another party.

Which one?

11 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:48:19pm

I certainly won't vote for Jindal. Go ahead and nominate him. He won't win.

12 jwpaine  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:49:38pm

re: #10 NYCHardhat

Which one?

The beer party.

13 reine.de.tout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:49:45pm

re: #5 Charles

Notice the Washington Post's little zinger: "The record is still evolving."

And not well, in my opinion, although many folks here love him.
I am sorely disappointed, for his support of the "Education Freedom" act, but also for several other things as well.

14 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:49:47pm

re: #9 LoFlyer

The debate ended a long time ago. Should we also entertain debates about returning the periodic table of elements to include earth,water,air and fire?

15 Desert Dog  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:49:52pm

Even if Obama makes every possible mistake and gets every position and policy bassackwards, they will just blame it on Bush and the aura of "The One" will not be diminished one candle watt. I know 4 years is a long time from now, but it's hard to unseat an incumbent, and I do not see anyone coming from the Republicans that is up to the task. Palin is too polarizing, Jindal is unknown right now, but I think he is similar to Palin in many ways. It will be harder for the left to launch a mega smear job like they did on poor old Sarah, because he is not white (sad, but true). But, the left will pull out his religious beliefs and beat him over the head with them until he cannot be elected.

16 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:51:26pm

re: #13 reine.de.tout

He is failing on many grounds. He almost was recalled recently for signing an exorbitant pay raise for the legislature. He's not a very good reformer.

17 sngnsgt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:51:29pm

re: #12 jwpaine

I'm a beer card carrying member.

18 IslandLibertarian  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:51:47pm

The Dem's found a superstar!
We need a superstar!
The Dem's found a candidate of color!
We need a candidate of color!
The Dem's got a guy with questionable beliefs!
We need a guy with questionable beliefs!

/see where I'm goin' with this

19 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:51:50pm

"No less an aspiring kingmaker than Steve Schmidt, the chief strategist of McCain’s failed presidential bid, sees Jindal as the Republican Party’s destiny."

We knew Schmidt was a loser, now we know why.

20 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:52:20pm

re: #15 Desert Dog

Even if Obama makes every possible mistake and gets every position and policy bassackwards, they will just blame it on Bush and the aura of "The One" will not be diminished one candle watt. I know 4 years is a long time from now, but it's hard to unseat an incumbent, and I do not see anyone coming from the Republicans that is up to the task. Palin is too polarizing, Jindal is unknown right now, but I think he is similar to Palin in many ways. It will be harder for the left to launch a mega smear job like they did on poor old Sarah, because he is not white (sad, but true). But, the left will pull out his religious beliefs and beat him over the head with them until he cannot be elected.

How is Jinal similar to Palin?

21 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:52:45pm

Jindal was a direct response to the idiocy that was Kathleen Blanco.

22 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:53:14pm

re: #16 Killgore Trout

He is failing on many grounds. He almost was recalled recently for signing an exorbitant pay raise for the legislature. He's not a very good reformer.

Could the pay raise be a quid for their quo passing the creationism bill?

23 RubyTuesday  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:53:19pm

re: #15 Desert Dog
The Left? Apparently, the right is beginning to give "social conservatives" (translate: Christians) the cold shoulder as well.

24 NYCHardhat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:53:23pm

re: #12 jwpaine

The beer party.

I like it.

25 reine.de.tout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:54:16pm

re: #16 Killgore Trout

He is failing on many grounds. He almost was recalled recently for signing an exorbitant pay raise for the legislature. He's not a very good reformer.

And that was after running for office on a promise of "no legislative pay raises".

btw, he ended up vetoing the pay raise anyway, once it became apparent that the public was very angry about the pay raise.

He "didn't know" there would be such controversy. How did he not know? He should have known that. He keeps himself surrounded by people who keep him isolated.

In the end - the public was angry, the legislators were angry - everybody was angry. No one was well-served by that episode. It should not have happened.

26 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:54:25pm

re: #22 MandyManners

Could the pay raise be a quid for their quo passing the creationism bill?

I don't think the two were connected, there was already plenty of support for the "Academic freedom" bill already.

27 MarkX  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:54:31pm
No less an aspiring kingmaker than Steve Schmidt, the chief strategist of McCain’s failed presidential bid, sees Jindal as the Republican Party’s destiny. “

The kiss of death.

28 kansas  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:54:39pm

Oh boy. 2012 Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin. Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Democrats.

29 reine.de.tout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:54:53pm

re: #22 MandyManners

Could the pay raise be a quid for their quo passing the creationism bill?

He ended vetoing the pay raise. See:
re: #25 reine.de.tout

30 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:55:48pm

If the GOP had backed Newt for president long ago, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Maybe they'll wise up before the next run.

31 MarkX  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:55:55pm

re: #1 buzzsawmonkey

LOL

32 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:56:24pm

re: #28 kansas

It's going to take a while for new faces and ideas to emerge in the GOP. We are looking at 8 years of Obama, maybe Republicans will wise up by then.

33 druik  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:56:28pm

Newsflash: You're going to need the Religious Right to get another Republican in the White House, at leasts barring a >major< shift in the electorate.

This Jindal guy looks to be the most dynamic of the upcoming generation of GOP statesmen, so at least give him the benefit of the doubt when he is trying to govern a deeply religious (Louisiana counties= parishes) state.

34 ArmyWife  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:56:47pm

re: #7 jwpaine

This makes me want to bang my head against the closest wall. Jindal is NOT our answer for a number of reasons. We need to embrace the values of Reagan if we want our party back, and Reagan WAS a socon. We just need a much better understanding of what that term means. Read this article, please:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

35 ClosetConservative  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:56:55pm

If Bobby Jindal is the best the GOP can offer up, then we have a leadership crisis. I know we can do better; anti-intellectualism isn't a codified policy set.

36 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:57:13pm

Scientists have learned - meteors make craters.

Quiz: The Meteor Crater outside of Flagstaff, Arizona is

a) 50,000 years old, as established by dating the trace radioactive decay from the event.

b) 5,000 years old when created by God, who sprinkled the area with partly decayed material so as to head fake future humans in a cruel effort to undermine faith in creationism.

37 pingjockey  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:57:55pm

Is the creationism bill or whatever the hell it is teach creationism as science or as an alternative scientific theory? Damn that is worded crappy, sorry. Aiso is that YEC stuff?

38 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:57:58pm

re: #26 Killgore Trout

I don't think the two were connected, there was already plenty of support for the "Academic freedom" bill already.

I find that very sad.

39 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:58:08pm

re: #35 ClosetConservative


anti-intellectualism isn't a codified policy set.


Unfortunately it has become a mainstay of conservative politics.

40 ArmyWife  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:58:09pm

re: #32 Killgore Trout

I really hope you are wrong. So far, Barry hasn't knocked the socks off of those in his OWN party, much less impressed those of us who are convinced he is a failure waiting to happen.

41 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:58:43pm

re: #35 ClosetConservative

The democrats have almost made it so, according to exit and post-election interviews with Obama voters on their knowledge of the candidate they put in office.
Their level of understanding? Next to nada.

42 kansas  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:59:06pm

re: #30 tradewind

If the GOP had backed Newt for president long ago, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Maybe they'll wise up before the next run.

Newt was Borked just like Palin. He wouldn't have been President. And as far as I can tell, what with the media, neither will any other Republican for the next 50 years.

43 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:59:10pm

re: #29 reine.de.tout

He ended vetoing the pay raise. See:
re: #25 reine.de.tout

I'd forgotten.

How smart is he if he thought the voters would either forget or let him do what he wanted? Or, is it a matter not of intelligence but of ethics?

44 MarkX  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:59:23pm

re: #30 tradewind

If the GOP had backed Newt for president long ago, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Maybe they'll wise up before the next run.

Sorry, Newt wasn't the answer.

He was good for what he did, build up a weak GOP, on the congressional level, and win the House. Anything beyond that is over his pay grade.

45 ArmyWife  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 5:59:40pm

re: #41 tradewind

They knew he looked great behind podiums and in front of columns. What else do you need?

///

46 pingjockey  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:00:12pm

re: #34 ArmyWife
Dinged you up for that. RWR brand conservatism works every time. Not this diluted crap the party "leadership" keeps pushing.

47 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:00:15pm

re: #40 ArmyWife

Actually, so far I'm very impressed with Obama. His staffing picks have largely been practical level headed folks. If I knew he was capable of being sane and moderate I might have voted for him.

48 Hobbes  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:00:43pm

re: #11 Killgore Trout

I certainly won't vote for Jindal. Go ahead and nominate him. He won't win.

Did you vote in the last election?

49 Desert Dog  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:00:47pm

re: #20 MandyManners

They are both fiscally conservative new Governors. They are both fairly religious. They are both new to the scene. They are both "non-old white guys", which, unfortunately, is a rarity in the Republican party. They both favor lower taxes and limited government (when it suits them). They are both prolife. They are both "outsiders" and not part of the Washington scene.

I will give Jindal the advantage in speaking ability. He is very well spoken and comes across as very intelligent when he speaks, the same way a certain formerly unknown Senator from Illinios does. Sarah Palin is a rockstar right now, but she polls like Hillary, 50% love - 50% unadulterated hate. I do not think she can make it 4 years from now and be the top of the ticket. I think she has reached her zenith already.

50 yochanan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:00:53pm

off topic
[Link: www.dailymail.co.uk...]

51 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:01:12pm

re: #33 druik

Newsflash: You're going to need the Religious Right to get another Republican in the White House, at leasts barring a >major< shift in the electorate.

This Jindal guy looks to be the most dynamic of the upcoming generation of GOP statesmen, so at least give him the benefit of the doubt when he is trying to govern a deeply religious (Louisiana counties= parishes) state.

He gets NO benefit of my doubt after allowing non-science to be taught in public schools' science classes. None.

52 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:01:36pm

re: #42 kansas

Take heart. Clinton and his triple sweep ushered in the Republican Revolution, of which they unfortunately failed to take advantage . Maybe they will have learned something.
Whoever is president in this particular cycle will have to be superman to be successful, so Republicans should be getting it together now.

53 traderjoe9  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:01:41pm

As long as there is no embryonic stem cell research.

54 ArmyWife  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:01:48pm

re: #46 pingjockey

Thanks!

55 sngnsgt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:02:05pm

re: #50 yochanan

off topic
[Link: www.dailymail.co.uk...]

No more fist bumps with that baby!

56 kansas  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:02:09pm

re: #47 Killgore Trout

Actually, so far I'm very impressed with Obama. His staffing picks have largely been practical level headed folks. If I knew he was capable of being sane and moderate I might have voted for him.

Yeah, and he already brought the gas prices down, and he's Abe Lincoln and FDR before he takes office. I particularly like Eric Holder. Maybe Osama Bin Laden will get a pardon./

57 TaeJohnDo  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:02:23pm

re: #6 gclaghorn

I was just going to ask if that was intended.

As much as we pun? Heck yeah it was intentional!

58 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:02:30pm

How the GOP Can Take Back the Youth Vote

We need to emphasize the elements of conservatism that empower the individual, expand liberty, and defend freedom. We need to break down issues like earmarks into simple terms, and explain that it’s not about changing the rules in the Senate. It’s about fixing our government and building a future without debt, a future with strong American consumers making individual decisions. We need to talk about the elements of conservatism that create a strong culture, instead of talking about the “inside baseball” issues surrounding the Supreme Court. We need an ambassador to the idealists just as John McCain or Mitt Romney were ambassadors to the pragmatists who focused on policy solutions but not public relations solutions. To win the youth, conservatism needs to become “sexy” again, and we have to start talking about issues in a way that shows that they matter to my generation.

We don’t have to dumb down our agenda or abandon our principles for populist rhetoric, but we need a strategy that convinces people they need to vote for America’s future, and that the Republican Party isn’t the party of old ideas or “rich white guys.”

59 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:02:34pm

We will lose in 2010 and see 8 years of Obama if we continue to obssess over who's running in 2012. On the other hand if Jindal's our candidate in '12, I'll be voting libertarian or something and campaigning full time against him.

60 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:02:40pm

re: #49 Desert Dog

Good analysis.

61 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:02:40pm

re: #52 tradewind

To clarify a bad sentence, ' they'= the Republicans. PIMF.

62 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:02:48pm

re: #48 Hobbes

Nope, I stayed home.

63 NYCHardhat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:03:21pm

I do believe our best bet is Michael Steele.

64 reine.de.tout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:03:48pm

re: #43 MandyManners

I'd forgotten.

How smart is he if he thought the voters would either forget or let him do what he wanted? Or, is it a matter not of intelligence but of ethics?

He is unaware of what is going on. He keeps himself isolated, as I said. He listens to no one, except a few trusted folks.

The latest - one day after asking the state Civil Service Commission for 100 new appointive positions to be paid at $120,000+, he set a "hiring freeze" for rank and file state employees.

65 RubyTuesday  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:04:02pm

re: #49 Desert Dog
If Hillary and Sarah, who are ideologically polar opposites, poll with the same numbers, does this mean that America really isn't ready for a woman President?

66 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:04:35pm

re: #59 Thanos

I would like to vote Libertarian but they're too nutty. They end up looking like anarchists in suits. The Libertarian party has a lot of work to do before they will earn my vote.

67 kansas  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:04:58pm

I was thinking that it might be a good idea to become a Democrat and try to move the party to the right a bit. What the hell?re: #65 RubyTuesday

If Hillary and Sarah, who are ideologically polar opposites, poll with the same numbers, does this mean that America really isn't ready for a woman President?

I would say from they way they both were treated that's exactly what that means.

68 MarkX  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:05:11pm

re: #32 Killgore Trout

I'm not so pessimistic... look where was Obama 5 years ago. 80% of America didn't know who he was...

The right guy/gal can emerge from "no where" with in the next four years. Chances are we've never heard of who will be the GOP candidate in '12.

The GOP definitely needs new blood.

69 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:05:13pm

re: #64 reine.de.tout

He is unaware of what is going on. He keeps himself isolated, as I said. He listens to no one, except a few trusted folks.

The latest - one day after asking the state Civil Service Commission for 100 new appointive positions to be paid at $120,000+, he set a "hiring freeze" for rank and file state employees.

A serious lack of intelligence.

70 pingjockey  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:05:24pm

re: #65 RubyTuesday
I actually thought we'd have a woman as President before a black guy.

71 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:05:26pm

re: #66 Killgore Trout

That's why I said "or something" ... it will depend on who they run.

72 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:05:44pm

re: #67 kansas

I was thinking that it might be a good idea to become a Democrat and try to move the party to the right a bit.


Interesting idea.

73 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:05:52pm

re: #45 ArmyWife

For starters, I'd have him get that mole thingy removed from the side of his nose, stat.
But then, I'm all about the deep core issues.

74 Hobbes  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:05:58pm

re: #40 ArmyWife

I really hope you are wrong. So far, Barry hasn't knocked the socks off of those in his OWN party, much less impressed those of us who are convinced he is a failure waiting to happen.

But, the MSM and over half the general public adore him.

75 VegasRick  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:06:30pm

re: #74 Hobbes

But, the MSM and over half the general public adore him.

For now.

76 Nevergiveup  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:06:41pm

re: #72 Killgore Trout

Interesting idea.

Yeah that worked well for Lieberman? Jeesh!

77 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:06:54pm

re: #67 kansas

We still have plenty of those down South where I live.
Doesn't help.
Well, maybe a little, on the local level.

78 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:07:38pm

re: #33 druik

Newsflash: You're going to need the Religious Right to get another Republican in the White House, at leasts barring a >major< shift in the electorate.

This Jindal guy looks to be the most dynamic of the upcoming generation of GOP statesmen, so at least give him the benefit of the doubt when he is trying to govern a deeply religious (Louisiana counties= parishes) state.

"Deeply religious," come on, more like deeply traditional, a lot like France, fancy churches, great cemeteries and themed holidays that come off more like a Bacchus celebration than a religious one. Graft and corruption that is legendary (and proud of it).

But "deeply religious," forget it.

79 kansas  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:07:40pm

re: #74 Hobbes

But, the MSM and over half the general public adore him.

Wait till he takes office and the Joe Biden prediction comes true, he gets tested, a bunch of us die, and he votes present. Pretty sure they might bitch about that a little. Unless the stock market goes up a lot that particular day.

80 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:07:40pm

re: #48 Hobbes

Did you vote in the last election?

He told us that he didn't.

81 ArmyWife  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:07:42pm

re: #47 Killgore Trout

Really? You find Rahm Emanuel and Eric Holder sane and moderate? That is without commentary on his choice of Janet Napolitano and the virtuous Hillary Clinton. The only pick I am ok with thus far is Gates.

82 gclaghorn  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:07:45pm

re: #75 VegasRick

For now.

The MSM will always adore him. They both live in the same sunshiny fantasy world.

83 pingjockey  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:07:48pm

re: #72 Killgore Trout
Obambi is in the proverbial between a rock and a hard place. He's getting what he considers experienced people for the real world and the kossaks and other lefty loons want their utopia NOW!

84 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:08:18pm

How is Barry's hawk-lite security team playing with the koskids and other assorted moonbats?

85 RubyTuesday  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:08:22pm

re: #70 pingjockey
Since so little of his genetics is African, I'll say, "...before a communist."

86 Zimriel  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:08:26pm

re: #33 druik

Newsflash: You're going to need the Religious Right to get another Republican in the White House, at leasts barring a >major< shift in the electorate.

Agreed. But a fellow believer who supports their cultural demands, without caving to them on magic, will be enough.

This Jindal guy looks to be the most dynamic of the upcoming generation of GOP statesmen, so at least give him the benefit of the doubt when he is trying to govern a deeply religious (Louisiana counties= parishes) state.

Uh, no. He's already earned a black mark for the "Science Education" Act. At this point it's up to him to redeem himself.

87 pingjockey  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:09:09pm

re: #85 RubyTuesday
Damn, that is more accurate for sure!

88 Rancher  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:09:12pm

I would have loved Newt, he didn't run. I'm not for abandoning social conservatives but Jindal forced creationism on the schools and that is too big a deal to get him elected. That leaves Sarah, Huckabee, or Mitt, Giuliani won't have enough base support.

89 RubyTuesday  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:09:24pm

re: #78 Walter L. Newton
Broadbrushing again.

90 The Shadow Do  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:09:35pm

As much as the media would like to promote it, Jindal is not the future of the GOP. I have a hunch that a few years of Obama will lead a considerable number of people to rethink this whole fashionable youth thing. Depending on how bad it gets, yes even Newt could become viable.

91 Desert Dog  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:09:40pm

re: #65 RubyTuesday

If Hillary and Sarah, who are ideologically polar opposites, poll with the same numbers, does this mean that America really isn't ready for a woman President?

I think a woman can win the Presidency now. All stops are off. That is one benefit of this past election. (Maybe the only one)

Hillary is hated with the same burning searing passion from the right as Palin is from the left. If we can find a less polarizing woman candidate, why couldn't she win? We just elected the least prepared, most radical person in modern history. After that, we can elect anyone from any background. And, that is way it should be, yes?

92 Truck Monkey  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:09:59pm

re: #68 MarkX

I'm not so pessimistic... look where was Obama 5 years ago. 80% of America didn't know who he was...

The right guy/gal can emerge from "no where" with in the next four years. Chances are we've never heard of who will be the GOP candidate in '12.

The GOP definitely needs new blood.

I don't think we'll be looking for "no where" man after 4 years of "The One". We'll of had our fill of it by then.

93 Zimriel  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:09:59pm

Yoo hoo! LesLein, the phantom downdingleberry! Care to defend your choice of comments to slap, this time 'round? Might you agree with Jindal on "teaching the controversy"? Step on up and make your case!

...coward

94 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:10:03pm

re: #88 Rancher

Newt was asked the other day about a possible run in '12, and said he would be ' looking into it'.

95 ClosetConservative  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:10:16pm

In my view, the leadership of the GOP has underestimated the intelligence of its constituents. Conservatism is the ideology of nuance; it requires some economic and political knowledge to understand why what might appear to be "greed" (tax cuts for the top earners) benefits everyone. It also requires principle and a desire to learn to understand the reasoning behind the War in Iraq. There is material out there that defends the invasion succinctly and powerfully (War and Decision by Douglas J. Feith), but the Bush administration has done woefully little to promote and explain its decisions. Theoretically, a more informed electorate will tend to vote towards the right side of the political spectrum because they ought to be able to see through the economic policies of Congressional liberals, which as a rule of thumb means no codified policy at all.

The GOP needs to begin engaging their voters on a higher intellectual plane. Bobby Jindal is not the candidate to do that.

96 NYCHardhat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:11:37pm

re: #84 tradewind

Here

97 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:11:46pm

re: #89 RubyTuesday

Broadbrushing again.

Don't bet on it. My mothers side of the family goes back to the 1600's in that area. Both Spanish and French. I'm rather familiar with both the people and the culture there.

98 Perplexed  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:11:55pm

Prefer him to Kat Blanco. Regardless of who the Republicans run in 2012 they will have detractors. Guess it depends on how much of an issue this has with the rest of the voters. Sort of like voters in Massachusetts voting for Teddy and returning him to office term after term, knowing that he effectively killed his pregnant girlfriend in a bout of (most likely) drunken driving.

99 Bumr50  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:11:55pm

re: #88 Rancher

I'll take Jindal over Huckabee any day of the week.

100 pingjockey  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:11:55pm

re: #93 Zimriel
I've been here over a year, how did you find the phantom down dinger?
Cripes, as much as I'm here you'd think I'd know that?!

101 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:12:17pm

The Republican party doesn't need a good candidate, they need a good vision for the future, not a laundry list of things they are against.

102 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:12:17pm

re: #91 Desert Dog

I hate to throw the cold water of reality on the Obama election, but, bi-racial as he may be in actuality , he was still elected because first and foremost, he was/ is seen as an African American. Never would have made it to the Senate in his district, never would have been nominated for democrat presidential run.

103 NYCHardhat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:12:17pm

re: #93 Zimriel

Thank you for saying that. What a dweeb that person is.

104 Desert Dog  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:12:58pm

re: #88 Rancher

I would have loved Newt, he didn't run. I'm not for abandoning social conservatives but Jindal forced creationism on the schools and that is too big a deal to get him elected. That leaves Sarah, Huckabee, or Mitt, Giuliani won't have enough base support.

I really like Newt too. But, he is a marked man from his days in the House. The Clinton machine chopped him down like a row of corn in October. He is super smart and a very good communicator. I would vote for him, no problem. But, he's kinda like Rudy...there's not a skeleton in his closet, there's a graveyard.

105 ArmyWife  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:12:59pm

re: #58 Killgore Trout

You win the youth vote back by showing them how THEIR money goes away under a Dem regime - when you lay it out in black and white, it becomes rather eye opening. What is the quote? If you are conservative at 20 you have no heart, if you are not conservative at 30 you have no brain?

106 Rancher  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:13:01pm

re: #47 Killgore Trout

Staying with Gates was great. I still wouldn't have voted for him but so far he looks like he is willing to abandon his base and many of his promises. If he turns out to be another Bill Clinton this country will be allot better off than if he is the Obama we thought we knew.

107 Gordon Marock  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:13:19pm

Why can't we just nominate Thomas Sowell and be done with it.

108 rawmuse  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:13:25pm

One thing I know is I'll take Louisiana's (or Alaska's) balance sheet over California's.

109 Desert Dog  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:13:38pm

re: #102 tradewind

I hate to throw the cold water of reality on the Obama election, but, bi-racial as he may be in actuality , he was still elected because first and foremost, he was/ is seen as an African American. Never would have made it to the Senate in his district, never would have been nominated for democrat presidential run.

Of course he was...and, he used that to his advantage.

110 quickjustice  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:13:42pm

For Jindal to become a viable national candidate, he's going to have to backtrack on Intelligent Design. It'll be interesting to watch how and if he does that.

111 RubyTuesday  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:13:44pm

re: #91 Desert Dog
But don't we consider RWR "polarizing"? I mean, he was transparent with his beliefs and convictions, right? Hillary flipped and flopped around with the tides. At least Sarah was firm in her conservative convictions. Still, the negative numbers...

112 Perplexed  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:14:23pm

re: #106 Rancher

Jury is still out on the lightworker. He's picked up a nervous tic already and he hasn't assumed office.

113 Zimriel  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:14:25pm

#100 pingjockey, I caught it at MandyManners #51...

114 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:14:34pm

re: #104 Desert Dog

I really like Newt too. But, he is a marked man from his days in the House. The Clinton machine chopped him down like a row of corn in October. He is super smart and a very good communicator. I would vote for him, no problem. But, he's kinda like Rudy...there's not a skeleton in his closet, there's a graveyard.

I like Newt as well - one of the few Socons I could vote for simply because he is able to talk about the future and where we should be going. This last election we ceded the future to the Dems.

115 RubyTuesday  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:14:47pm

re: #97 Walter L. Newton
I'm sure you are - each and every one of them.

116 VegasRick  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:14:53pm

re: #105 ArmyWife

You win the youth vote back by showing them how THEIR money goes away under a Dem regime - when you lay it out in black and white, it becomes rather eye opening. What is the quote? If you are conservative at 20 you have no heart, if you are not conservative at 30 you have no brain?

Churchill.

117 NYCHardhat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:15:01pm

re: #106 Rancher

Staying with Gates was great. I still wouldn't have voted for him but so far he looks like he is willing to abandon his base and many of his promises. If he turns out to be another Bill Clinton this country will be allot better off than if he is the Obama we thought we knew.

So it will be the illusion of safety 1992-2000.

118 Bumr50  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:15:13pm

re: #101 Thanos

I can't see the Republican brand recovering, but my Pa says that I'm just young and naive.
I think we need to "Escape the Elephant."
If that sounds crazy, mind that I've been traveling all day.

119 ClosetConservative  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:15:21pm

re: #107 Gordon Marock

True 'dat!

120 HoosierHoops  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:15:31pm

re: #88 Rancher

I would have loved Newt, he didn't run. I'm not for abandoning social conservatives but Jindal forced creationism on the schools and that is too big a deal to get him elected. That leaves Sarah, Huckabee, or Mitt, Giuliani won't have enough base support.

Hey Rancher! Nice seeing you..
A few months ago how many lizards had even heard of Sarah? We have time to develop great talent in the next couple of years...Bobby J. won't make it out of single A ball..

121 RubyTuesday  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:16:07pm

re: #102 tradewind
Perception not equaling reality is going to be a beyotch down the line.

122 pingjockey  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:16:13pm

re: #113 Zimriel
Nah, how do you know who did it? Since the coward isn't commenting?

123 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:16:28pm

re: #110 quickjustice

Obama shook off Black Liberation theology... 20 years' worth. Jindal oughta be able to shed some creationism-in-the-schools with equal ease.

124 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:16:35pm

re: #111 RubyTuesday

But don't we consider RWR "polarizing"? I mean, he was transparent with his beliefs and convictions, right? Hillary flipped and flopped around with the tides. At least Sarah was firm in her conservative convictions. Still, the negative numbers...

The entire MFM were out to get her from the beginnng. Even the entertainment wing of the MFM went after her.

125 IslandLibertarian  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:16:53pm

...Does Jindal smoke "Kools"?

126 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:17:29pm

re: #118 Bumr50

I can see it, the Republicans have recovered every time they needed to in the past. This is a new century and a new millenium, we need to get out of our last century speak and mentality. The Dems stole a march on us because we fought them as if they were the same old tired nihilists.

127 Perplexed  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:17:31pm

The republicans lost because they were democrats lite. Stick to Reaganism and conservative values (i.e. small government) and they will be returned to office. Don't, and they become a postscript in history. Drop the Rinos.

128 Zimriel  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:17:41pm

re: #110 quickjustice

For Jindal to become a viable national candidate, he's going to have to backtrack on Intelligent Design. It'll be interesting to watch how and if he does that.

"How" is important. If he doesn't go before Louisiana's legislature and demand they repeal that act, then he's not worthy of our respect. No-one will let him weasel out with "personal opposition but I had to play ball".

129 kansas  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:17:44pm

re: #107 Gordon Marock

Why can't we just nominate Thomas Sowell and be done with it.

Certainly be fun to watch the MSM destroy him. Sowell isn't very smart you know.//

130 quickjustice  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:17:51pm

It's way too early to start looking at candidates. I'd like to know that the GOP is evolving into a competent, honest party that knows how to rebuild an economy. McCain could not answer the question: "How do we help the economy recover?"

131 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:17:54pm

re: #106 Rancher

If he turns out to be another Bill Clinton this country will be allot better off than if he is the Obama we thought we knew.


Agreed. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

132 gclaghorn  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:17:58pm

re: #124 MandyManners

The entire MFM were out to get her from the beginnng. Even the entertainment wing of the MFM went after her.

Saturday Night Live was particularly disgraceful. I once counted ten Palin snarks in one night and only one joke that hinted at an Obama snark.

133 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:18:01pm

re: #117 NYCHardhat

The rumor is that Warren Buffet and some other econ guru sat him down and said ' you're gonna have to focus everything on the economy... give the country to the Clintons'.
Sad if true.

134 Bumr50  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:18:05pm

re: #105 ArmyWife

I agree, but don't think that they'll be "shown" in time for 2012.
I think that the standard of living must fall markedly yet.

135 ClosetConservative  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:18:08pm

The GOP needs a codified policy set that can be backed up with a million and one studies. No more pandering to its voters; the American people are smart enough to know good ideas when they see them. And they'll vote for them.

136 Zimriel  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:18:16pm

pingjockey, clicking the number pulls up the record

137 coquimbojoe  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:18:28pm

I think teaching ID or opening the door to it being taught in school is a problem. That being said, I am willing to not yet pass judgment on Jindal. I want to see how he handles a corrupt state like Louisiana. Give him a few years. He might be great, or he might make the proverbial crater. I like about 75% of what I see.

138 NYCHardhat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:18:31pm

re: #122 pingjockey

See who downdinged each post. #2 downdinged by leslien

139 Gordon Marock  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:18:38pm

My concern about Jindal, in addition to the creation fairy stories, is the fact that anyone who can go from being Hindu and converting to Catholicism really doesn't believe in anything, much less reality.

140 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:18:46pm
141 pingjockey  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:19:00pm

re: #124 MandyManners
Have you swapped the s in msm for that anglosaxon word for fornicate?

142 RubyTuesday  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:19:03pm

re: #124 MandyManners
Totally agree! I guess I didn't say it very well. Hillary was inconsistent due to the prevailing winds. Sarah was rock solid. Since when did the MSM or Hollyweird bet on the right horse?

143 NYCHardhat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:19:37pm

re: #133 tradewind

The rumor is that Warren Buffet and some other econ guru sat him down and said ' you're gonna have to focus everything on the economy... give the country to the Clintons'.
Sad if true.

Makes sense. The folks who gave him the billion dollars are running the country.

144 Shr_Nfr  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:19:47pm

You have (unfortunately) 3 years to think about it. Right now Jindal is an interesting story but a non starter for president. Lets wait a while. Lots can happen.

145 gclaghorn  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:19:58pm

re: #138 NYCHardhat

See who downdinged each post. #2 downdinged by leslien

LesLein is downdinging every anti-Jindal comment in the thread.

Hello? Is anyone there? Care to explain why?

146 Perplexed  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:20:09pm

re: #139 Gordon Marock

My concern about Jindal, in addition to the creation fairy stories, is the fact that anyone who can go from being Hindu and converting to Catholicism really doesn't believe in anything, much less reality.

He was born and raised in the US. First generation born often drop the religion their parents brought with them. Not a big issue.

147 pingjockey  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:20:16pm

re: #136 Zimriel
Thanks. Sheesh, I'm asleep at the computer!

148 3 wood  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:20:30pm

OT:

So far it looks like the market will open slightly up tomorrow. The futures are up at this point slightly, the Nikkei is down 375 points and the Hang Seng is up 220 points.

149 Hobbes  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:20:38pm

re: #47 Killgore Trout

Actually, so far I'm very impressed with Obama. His staffing picks have largely been practical level headed folks. If I knew he was capable of being sane and moderate I might have voted for him.

Watched Larry Kudlow tonight. Robert Reich was one of the guests. His views on how to save the economic problem is nothing more than Socialistic bulls**t.
With him on BHO's economic advisory team we can only expect disaster.

150 pingjockey  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:20:46pm

re: #138 NYCHardhat
Thanks to you too.

151 LesLein  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:21:02pm

It was Reagan who said that evolution was "just a theory." In 1984 it hurt him a great deal, costing him Minnesota and the District of Columbia.

But seriously folks, the GOP can't possibly win without the social conservatives. This crusade against them amounts to a circular firing squad. As bad as creationism is, it's less harmful than teaching students that humans cause catastrophic global warming, or that we should "spread the wealth."

Next year the Democrats will attempt to give the District of Columbia representation in Congress and implement card check. Instead of opposing these power grabs, let's go after our own side!

152 HoosierHoops  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:21:06pm

re: #147 pingjockey

Thanks. Sheesh, I'm asleep at the computer!

Wake up Ping! The threat alarm just went off!

153 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:21:07pm

re: #139 Gordon Marock

I believe the many many former Buddhists, Hindus, and other practicers of various Asian religions who are now among the most devout Christian converts would disagree with that.

154 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:21:14pm

re: #141 pingjockey

Have you swapped the s in msm for that anglosaxon word for fornicate?

Yep.

155 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:21:51pm

re: #142 RubyTuesday

Totally agree! I guess I didn't say it very well. Hillary was inconsistent due to the prevailing winds. Sarah was rock solid. Since when did the MSM or Hollyweird bet on the right horse?

They not only bet on horses, they help deliver the foal and raise it.

156 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:22:24pm

The WaPo didn't bring it up, but there's also that exorcism thing.

157 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:22:34pm

re: #155 MandyManners

But what they really love to do is shoot horses, don't they...

158 Bumr50  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:22:51pm

re: #135 ClosetConservative

I must disagree that a majority of Americans are smart enough to recognize their backside from a rabid giraffe.
Perhaps the voting population, but with the MSM swaying unquestioning and ignorant minds doped up on sweeping generalities and "happy logic", I'm not willing to make that statement.
If I'm clear on anything after the last election, it's that this country is DANGEROUSLY stupid.

159 TaeJohnDo  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:23:07pm

re: #107 Gordon Marock

Why can't we just nominate Thomas Sowell and be done with it.

And Walter Williams as the Veep.

160 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:23:20pm

re: #156 Charles

Charles...
The mainstream Catholic church has a procedure... rarely used, but taken very seriously... for exorcism.

161 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:23:38pm

re: #151 LesLein

It was Reagan who said that evolution was "just a theory." In 1984 it hurt him a great deal, costing him Minnesota and the District of Columbia.

But seriously folks, the GOP can't possibly win without the social conservatives. This crusade against them amounts to a circular firing squad. As bad as creationism is, it's less harmful than teaching students that humans cause catastrophic global warming, or that we should "spread the wealth."

Next year the Democrats will attempt to give the District of Columbia representation in Congress and implement card check. Instead of opposing these power grabs, let's go after our own side!

Social Conservatism doesn't have to mean creationism just because that's where the dirty dollars with strings are. Give it up, he's a no go.

162 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:23:40pm
Is Bobby Jindal the next Barack Obama?

No.

163 Shr_Nfr  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:23:41pm

re: #130 quickjustice

In his defense, I do not think anyone can quite understand the depth of the credit problems that the Acorn folks created with the mortgage mess on a global scale. How do we fix it now after the fact? Part of it will be "tincture of time", but I do not think there is a magic wand.

btw, oil is currently 48.79 on the nymx at 20:53 (1/2 hr delay) extended trading session. off 1%

164 NYCHardhat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:23:51pm

re: #151 LesLein

It was Reagan who said that evolution was "just a theory." In 1984 it hurt him a great deal, costing him Minnesota and the District of Columbia.

But seriously folks, the GOP can't possibly win without the social conservatives. This crusade against them amounts to a circular firing squad. As bad as creationism is, it's less harmful than teaching students that humans cause catastrophic global warming, or that we should "spread the wealth."

Next year the Democrats will attempt to give the District of Columbia representation in Congress and implement card check. Instead of opposing these power grabs, let's go after our own side!

Be that is it may, you will NOT swing any of the 52% of the useful idiots over with Bobby Jindal as your candidate.

165 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:24:08pm

re: #151 LesLein

It was Reagan who said that evolution was "just a theory." In 1984 it hurt him a great deal, costing him Minnesota and the District of Columbia.

But seriously folks, the GOP can't possibly win without the social conservatives. This crusade against them amounts to a circular firing squad. As bad as creationism is, it's less harmful than teaching students that humans cause catastrophic global warming, or that we should "spread the wealth."

Next year the Democrats will attempt to give the District of Columbia representation in Congress and implement card check. Instead of opposing these power grabs, let's go after our own side!

Because creationism is as bad as the global warming nonsense it's somehow acceptable? Horsefeathers. It's WORSE because it is teaching a religious concept in a public school.

166 sngnsgt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:24:21pm

re: #156 Charles

Oh, that'll go over just swell.

167 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:24:41pm

re: #157 tradewind

But what they really love to do is shoot horses, don't they...

I never saw that movie.

168 Gordon Marock  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:25:44pm

re: #160 tradewind

Look, if you show me a 10 year old girl who can levitate a bed and make the earth shake, I will take you seriously. Until then, not so much.

169 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:25:52pm

If you want to win the South and lose the country, go ahead with Jindal. This isn't the '80s anymore when Reagan ran either. Lots of things have changed since then.

170 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:26:07pm

re: #167 MandyManners

Well, there's that. But I also meant that they just love to build up and then shoot down their faves.

171 kansas  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:26:12pm

re: #148 3 wood

OT:

So far it looks like the market will open slightly up tomorrow. The futures are up at this point slightly, the Nikkei is down 375 points and the Hang Seng is up 220 points.

Market kills me. Went down on the news we've been in a recession for a year...hello...a year? Most recessions have lasted about that long. Course this one is the worst since...lets hear it...THE GREAT DEPRESSION...well it was before Obama was elected. Now, not so much.

172 pingjockey  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:26:35pm

re: #151 LesLein
Teaching that creation is science is a crock. Teaching that MMGW is science is a crock. Unfortunetly, scientists(some) support MMGW. So that at least has some(bad) science, there is no science in creationism.

173 TaeJohnDo  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:26:50pm

re: #168 Gordon Marock

Look, if you show me a 10 year old girl who can levitate a bed and make the earth shake, I will take you seriously. Until then, not so much.

That was a younger Hillary in her formative years.

174 Perplexed  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:26:50pm

re: #165 MandyManners

The gorebots turned global warming into their religion. Worshiping mother gaia.

175 Paul Green  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:27:02pm

As one who traveled to a supposedly battleground state to help with the McCain campaign, I can say the strategists behind that campaign should not be listened to about anything. Instead of warning voters about Democrats who will tax them into penury, our phone-bank script promised to "rein in Wasington and Wall Street," and instead of attacking Obama on ACORN and his other radical-left associations, they put those chinks in his armor off-limits. The whole stinking bunch of them should be ridden out of the Republican Party on a rail.

176 right_on_target  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:27:07pm

re: #16 Killgore Trout

He is failing on many grounds. He almost was recalled recently for signing an exorbitant pay raise for the legislature. He's not a very good reformer.


___
He DIDN'T sign pay raise; he vetoed it, even after the legislature threatened to shut state government down.

177 ClosetConservative  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:27:40pm

re: #158 Bumr50

I don't intend to say that the voting populace can make informed decisions on its own. The GOP needs to kick the information machine into high gear. The only reason the Soviet Union survived as long as it did was because they could explain everything they did to all of their constituents- the populist rhetoric for the students, and the nuanced philosophy for the intellectuals. The difference between the Soviet Union and the GOP is that the GOP has good ideas.

178 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:27:48pm

re: #9 LoFlyer

What is the issue Charles? Jindal obviously supports educational debate of both theories. If Evolution is a strong theory, it will withstand the debate with flying colors!

Parroting the official DI "Teach the Controversy" line?

179 Zimriel  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:27:55pm

re: #151 LesLein

It was Reagan who said that evolution was "just a theory." In 1984 it hurt him a great deal, costing him Minnesota and the District of Columbia.

But seriously folks, the GOP can't possibly win without the social conservatives. This crusade against them amounts to a circular firing squad. As bad as creationism is, it's less harmful than teaching students that humans cause catastrophic global warming, or that we should "spread the wealth."

Next year the Democrats will attempt to give the District of Columbia representation in Congress and implement card check. Instead of opposing these power grabs, let's go after our own side!

First off, you haven't given a context for Reagan's quote, beyond an internet meme that I've seen elsewhere.

Second, not all social conservatives are creationists. The Pope is a so-con and he disavows creationism.

Third, I fail to see how your compulsing downdinging of posts with which you disagree, over something this debatable and which you yourself see as petty, will help Jindal. All it's done so far is make a bunch of lizards pissed at you.

180 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:27:59pm

re: #168 Gordon Marock

What is this ' take me seriously'? I haven't said a thing about my feelings pro or con, only that there is a sacrament within the Catholic church for dealing with it.
I'm not Catholic, btw.

181 pingjockey  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:28:08pm

re: #152 HoosierHoops
What, where? Get me my coffee and smokes! Can't chase rooshan subs without caffeine or nicotine!

182 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:28:32pm

Instead of looking for the candidat who could possibly win we need to put together the platform that can't lose.

183 Bumr50  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:28:33pm

re: #174 Perplexed

And out went the proper teaching of the Scientific Method as well.

184 Rancher  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:28:36pm

re: #96 NYCHardhat

From your link, "coweringly religious"? WTF does that mean, afraid of hell? Anyway, the bloom is definately off the rose but Obama apparently knows that an America smashed economically under the burden of "share the wealth" or so decimated by Jihadists will not re-elect him. Watching the LLLs deal with this, well all I can say is: This is going to be great!

185 ArmyWife  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:28:47pm

"We cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide"

" Society has always regarded marital love as a sacred expression of the bond between a man and a woman. It is the means by which families are created and society itself is extended into the future. In the Judeo-Christian tradition it is the means by which husband and wife participate with G-d in the creation of new human life. It is for these reasons, among others, that our society has always sought to protect this unique relationship. In par the erosion of these values has given way to a celebration of forms of expression most reject. We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality"

Ronald Reagan.

(Could it be that Reagan had a stand and could articulate it rather than checking the current wind direction for his "thoughts"?)

186 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:29:07pm

re: #170 tradewind

Well, there's that. But I also meant that they just love to build up and then shoot down their faves.

Hillary. McCain. I'm waiting to see what they do to CBBHO.

187 LesLein  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:29:09pm

re: #93 Zimriel

Yoo hoo! LesLein, the phantom downdingleberry! Care to defend your choice of comments to slap, this time 'round? Might you agree with Jindal on "teaching the controversy"? Step on up and make your case!

...coward

I'm sorry. I thought it was a free country. If you're reduced to name calling, try to be original.

188 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:29:25pm

re: #174 Perplexed

The gorebots turned global warming into their religion. Worshiping mother gaia.

It's not the same.

189 Opinionated  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:29:33pm

My very subjective opinion is that- notwithstanding anything else- Jindal lacks the requisite charisma.

190 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:29:34pm

The problem may be not so much the candidate, but the electorate.
It may take a drastic event or crisis to shake 'em up.

191 Gordon Marock  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:30:00pm

re: #180 tradewind

Sorry! I was assuming from the statement "which is taken sersiously. . ." that you were among the serious takers.

192 theheat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:30:12pm

As long as the GOP restricts its POTUS shopping to the Crazy aisle, they're going to be rejected by voters. At least, rejected by a majority, the enough-to-win kind of majority. The diehard far right voters will support them, no matter how far out in the stratosphere they're from, but I don't see mainstream America embracing all the craziness that comes with the package.

Yeah, and Bobby Jindal is in that category, for sure. No thanks. They have to do better than that, or have another four years after 2012 to either find someone crazier, or figure out religious crazy ain't selling.

I was hoping they would figure that out before the next election.

193 Wishing  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:30:13pm

We have to forget the entire social platform: abortion, for now, is legal. It is a no win battle. Creationism is a religious concept not a scientific one. It is a dumb battle. What will win votes is real conservatism: small government, lower taxes, personal responsibility, high expectations. This message is a winner, every time.
Jindal's baggage will compromise and diffuse the message we want to convey.

194 Bloodnok  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:30:14pm

re: #182 Thanos

Instead of looking for the candidat who could possibly win we need to put together the platform that can't lose.

Perfectly stated

195 Steffan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:30:43pm

My bet's on Bryan. Jindal in 2012 will lose big time.

Bryan was one of those perennial candidates... but his very public stance in the Scopes Monkey Trial killed him. He died six days after the trial ended, possibly of overexertion in the heat of the Tennessee summer.

The guilty verdict was overturned on a technicality.

196 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:30:55pm
197 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:30:56pm

re: #186 MandyManners

He does have one built-in shield, they're terrified of anything that could be translated into racism by some erstwhile Al Sharpton character or other, if not Big Al hisself.

198 reine.de.tout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:31:04pm

re: #95 ClosetConservative

. . .

The GOP needs to begin engaging their voters on a higher intellectual plane. Bobby Jindal is not the candidate to do that.

You are correct - he is not the candidate.

199 shiplord kirel  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:31:17pm

True story:

There is a contract worker in our building, a security guard. Unusually for people in that occupation, he is a lefty and a media conformist. He knows all the TV shows and pop-stars. He loves his gadget infested telephone. He backed Obama to the hilt and could regurgitate the talking points verbatim. He "knows" that terrorism is our fault because Bush has caused the whole world to hate us.

Incredible though it may seem, I got along pretty well with him. I respect working people and I am careful to avoid using my position to browbeat employees. Not being able to let it go entirely, though, I decided to loan him some books and get together a reading list that might open his eyes to other points of view. He seemed uncomfortable when I suggested this. After a puzzling back and forth, he blurted out the truth: He cannot read well enough to understand books or even the daily newspaper. He said that he has never read a book or an article in his life. He does his reports by careful use of a standard form, a dictionary, and a sympathetic supervisor. He was dyslexic, he went to school in California, and he was passed through all the way to graduation without learning anything. His political ideology comes from the media and his moonbat mother.

I did persuade him to get in touch with some folks who might help with his dyslexia and that is where matters stand.

200 Noam Sayin'  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:31:23pm

re: #151 LesLein

I got news for you. The Gipper didn't stand a chance at winning Minnesota.

201 NYCHardhat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:31:43pm

re: #184 Rancher

From your link, "coweringly religious"? WTF does that mean, afraid of hell? Anyway, the bloom is definately off the rose but Obama apparently knows that an America smashed economically under the burden of "share the wealth" or so decimated by Jihadists will not re-elect him. Watching the LLLs deal with this, well all I can say is: This is going to be great!

I got a lawn chair and a cooler of beers. Care to join me?

202 Bumr50  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:31:53pm

re: #184 Rancher

I've been told this feeling I have is called schadenfreude.

Whatever it is, I like it.

203 Perplexed  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:32:34pm

re: #183 Bumr50

And out went the proper teaching of the Scientific Method as well.

Throwing out scientific method had to be done. Use scientific method and you might get results you might not like. Sort of what NASA was recently caught doing by cooking the numbers on global temperatures.

204 HoosierHoops  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:32:35pm

re: #194 Bloodnok

Perfectly stated

Except.. A platform has never won a presidential election..Only the Candidate.

205 gclaghorn  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:32:41pm

re: #174 Perplexed

The gorebots turned global warming into their religion. Worshiping mother gaia.

I don't think Gore and the Gorebots really worship "mother gaia." Gore is using these pithy, nonsensical global warming scare tactics for his own self-aggrandizement. Not because he really cares about the earth or what happens to it.

206 RubyTuesday  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:33:04pm

re: #182 Thanos
Yes! Those are the words I was trying to put together! No more Rock Star...but someone rock solid. There's time - look at all the Repubs from everywhere. There's someone who will fit the times. Let's not grab up someone in desperation. Country, conservatives first.

207 goddessoftheclassroom  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:33:15pm

re: #165 MandyManners

Because creationism is as bad as the global warming nonsense it's somehow acceptable? Horsefeathers. It's WORSE because it is teaching a religious concept in a public school.

Mandy, I have to disagree. The cult of global warming has ensnared our energy and economic policy and could conceivably cripple both. Creationism added to a general science curriculum as an alternative theory would take up less than half a day's lesson on origins of the universe. Yes, I agree that it doesn't belong in a science classroom in a public school, but seriously, most basic high school science curricula include physical science, earth science, and biology, none of which spends a lot of time on the origins of the universe anyway.

208 hermit  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:33:15pm

Okay, lemme see if I got this...forgive me if someone brought this up.

Somebody thinks it would be a good idea to go from Chicago politicians to Louisiana politicians...

WTF!?!?!? No wonder some folks don't believe in forward evolution, we'd freakin REGRESS back into the political slime!

Why don't we just hire a roofing company for president...

209 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:33:24pm

re: #198 reine.de.tout

I think Palin falls into the same category. They are cut from the same cloth. Conservatives have become wary of intellectuals in favor of simple country charm.

210 Aye Pod  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:33:34pm

The GOP needs to realise that some cultural trends are not mere fads. Jindal seems to be swimming in the wrong direction.

211 The Shadow Do  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:33:37pm

re: #169 Thanos

If you want to win the South and lose the country, go ahead with Jindal. This isn't the '80s anymore when Reagan ran either. Lots of things have changed since then.

As a Southerner, I doubt he could even carry the South. He ran against a patently corrupt administration in LA and won. No vision, no magic in it. Hope he does well but he is not the future of the Party.

212 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:33:39pm

re: #205 gclaghorn

ka-Ching.
Bullseye.

213 Bumr50  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:33:44pm

re: #194 Bloodnok

Problem is, we have lines that we refuse to cross on principle.

They just move theirs whenever convenient.

It's a conundrum.

214 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:33:50pm

All meteor starts in space as a bolide, when it reaches our atmosphere, it is then a meteor, and then it finally explodes and breaks up into little pieces, meteorites.

Jindal will follow this same pattern.

215 poopeedoo  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:33:56pm

re: #93 Zimriel

Let's remember to play nice.

216 NYCHardhat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:34:07pm

re: #187 LesLein

I'm sorry. I thought it was a free country. If you're reduced to name calling, try to be original.

See, I downding comments that are obviously wrong and/or ignorant. Unfortunately, you tend to downding everything you don't agree with. Well, good for you.

217 ArmyWife  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:34:25pm

re: #156 Charles

I guess I just don't care about personal beliefs like this, so long as I am not forced to follow suit. My Granddaddy was a staunch Catholic - exorcism and all. He was also an incredible person with a life story that reads like a movie script (ran away at 14, made it 3/4s through medical school, then dropped out to join the Army, rode a horse in the 1st Cav, retired as a Colonel). He also felt the theory of evolution was most probably spot on - but understood there are things we simply don't know yet and things we must turn over to faith (outside of evolution). I don't want a litmus test. That isn't true, I want an ethical litmus test (see ya, Huckabee), not a religious (or anti-religious) litmus test.

218 Zimriel  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:34:27pm

re: #160 tradewind

Charles...
The mainstream Catholic church has a procedure... rarely used, but taken very seriously... for exorcism.

Yeah, exorcism is taken seriously because the Church is stuck with it. The Gospels feature a lot of exorcisms, and even the Jesus Seminar agrees that Jesus probably did a few. (There are a number of canonical Jewish sages, like Hanina b. Dosa, who also did exorcisms IIRC; so the rabbis at least can't laugh at us too much.)

The Church has surrounded this rite with a lot of bureaucracy so that you can't just ring up your neighbourhood Priest when your kid is acting weird. I mean, by all means try it, but he'll just refer you to counselling. Exorcism will not be high on the troubleshooting list. The Church just doesn't want this headache, especially when so many cases of "weird" behaviour are curable with a few pleasant chats and/or medication.

219 JacksonTn  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:34:30pm

re: #67 kansas

I was thinking that it might be a good idea to become a Democrat and try to move the party to the right a bit. What the hell?

I would say from they way they both were treated that's exactly what that means.

If you are serious ...you can have them ...my entire family left the democrats this year after three generations ...if you think there is a chance in hell of getting the democrats to go towards the right you are dreaming ...the whole agenda for this election via Howard Dean and Obama thugs was to purge the party of center right democrats ...we will NEVER go back ...

220 Rancher  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:34:40pm

re: #112 Perplexed

Jury is still out on the lightworker. He's picked up a nervous tic already and he hasn't assumed office.

Really? LOL!

221 Gordon Marock  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:34:40pm

Look, Global Warming is Science, the globe warms, then it cools, then it warms, then it cools, again and again and again until one day the Sun's Corona expands and engulfs the Earth as a Red Giant. Yikes! now I scared myself.

222 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:34:48pm

re: #208 hermit

Why don't we just hire a roofing company for president...


Ha!

223 BignJames  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:34:53pm

re: #202 Bumr50

Beats jockitch I guess.

224 rawmuse  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:35:04pm

Exorcism is no big deal to me.
Catholics and Episcopalians also drink little cups of grape juice and call it the "blood of Christ".
Is that any less supernatural than an exorcism?

225 The Shadow Do  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:35:07pm

re: #175 Paul Green

As one who traveled to a supposedly battleground state to help with the McCain campaign, I can say the strategists behind that campaign should not be listened to about anything. Instead of warning voters about Democrats who will tax them into penury, our phone-bank script promised to "rein in Wasington and Wall Street," and instead of attacking Obama on ACORN and his other radical-left associations, they put those chinks in his armor off-limits. The whole stinking bunch of them should be ridden out of the Republican Party on a rail.

Time to throw your hat in Paul

226 Perplexed  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:35:15pm

re: #199 shiplord kirel

You have changed his life for the better. He may resent that fact once his reading skills sharpen up and he finds his world has come undone. But you did him a favor.

Thank you.

227 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:35:15pm

re: #196 buzzsawmonkey

the global warming religion, masquerading as science, bids fair to destroy the economy if measures are enacted by the voting public to advance this belief. Creationism, though it too has a deleterious effect if taught as science, will not have the same immediate drastic effects.

I hadn't thought about the immediacy of the damages on our economy of teaching the pseudoscience of global warming. I'd forgotten it's the Communists' new tool.

228 TaeJohnDo  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:35:36pm

re: #199 shiplord kirel

True story:

There is a contract worker in our building, a security guard. Unusually for people in that occupation, he is a lefty and a media conformist. He knows all the TV shows and pop-stars. He loves his gadget infested telephone. He backed Obama to the hilt and could regurgitate the talking points verbatim. He "knows" that terrorism is our fault because Bush has caused the whole world to hate us.

Incredible though it may seem, I got along pretty well with him. I respect working people and I am careful to avoid using my position to browbeat employees. Not being able to let it go entirely, though, I decided to loan him some books and get together a reading list that might open his eyes to other points of view. He seemed uncomfortable when I suggested this. After a puzzling back and forth, he blurted out the truth: He cannot read well enough to understand books or even the daily newspaper. He said that he has never read a book or an article in his life. He does his reports by careful use of a standard form, a dictionary, and a sympathetic supervisor. He was dyslexic, he went to school in California, and he was passed through all the way to graduation without learning anything. His political ideology comes from the media and his moonbat mother.

I did persuade him to get in touch with some folks who might help with his dyslexia and that is where matters stand.

Proving the soft bigotry of low expectations and the conservative ideal of helping by facing the truth and solving the problem. One upding for you.

229 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:36:09pm

re: #224 rawmuse

I need a cookie.

230 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:36:18pm

re: #143 NYCHardhat

I misspoke. What I actually think was said was ' you will have to focus everything on the economy, and give foreign policy to the Clintons '.
You obviously got that, but I needed to clarify.

231 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:36:25pm

re: #197 tradewind

He does have one built-in shield, they're terrified of anything that could be translated into racism by some erstwhile Al Sharpton character or other, if not Big Al hisself.

Well, there is that. However, if they really believe this is a post-racial era, they might get tired of being told they're racists for raising mere questions about his actions and policies.

232 ClosetConservative  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:36:25pm
Jindal: Political Meteor or Meteorite?

Neither. Just a political crater waiting to happen.

233 Zimriel  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:36:33pm

re: #199 shiplord kirel

True story:

There is a contract worker in our building, a security guard. ...I did persuade him to get in touch with some folks who might help with his dyslexia and that is where matters stand.

Mensch

234 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:36:45pm

re: #218 Zimriel

Sounds reasonable to me.

235 Hobbes  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:37:23pm

re: #75 VegasRick

For now.

I don't think that will change. The MSM is all ready giving him outs before he's even officially President. The mantra is..."this is one of the worst national, world, you name it, situations for an incoming President "... blah, blah, blah. There is no way THEIR Man is not going to succeed. And, most of the general public get their information from the MSM. I think Obama being elected proves that. They don't do the research. They want someone else to do it for them. Thus, the MSM. Why else, besides he was black, would an inexperienced Community Organizer from Chicago win!

236 Gordon Marock  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:37:28pm

re: #224 rawmuse

Exorcism is no big deal to me.
Catholics and Episcopalians also drink little cups of grape juice and call it the "blood of Christ".
Is that any less supernatural than an exorcism?

Look, pal, I was brought up in a real Episcopal Church, and it was Cream Sherry all the way. Grape Juice, Ha!

237 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:37:33pm

If democrats continue to be allowed to look like the party of fiscal restraint, republicans are going to lose. As long as republicans want to act like drunken liberals with the money of the American people, we will lose.

238 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:37:47pm

re: #207 goddessoftheclassroom

Mandy, I have to disagree. The cult of global warming has ensnared our energy and economic policy and could conceivably cripple both. Creationism added to a general science curriculum as an alternative theory would take up less than half a day's lesson on origins of the universe. Yes, I agree that it doesn't belong in a science classroom in a public school, but seriously, most basic high school science curricula include physical science, earth science, and biology, none of which spends a lot of time on the origins of the universe anyway.

I hadn't thought about the effects of both.

239 NYCHardhat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:37:51pm

re: #230 tradewind

I misspoke. What I actually think was said was ' you will have to focus everything on the economy, and give foreign policy to the Clintons '.
You obviously got that, but I needed to clarify.

Clinton and foreign policy is an oxymoron.

240 kansas  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:37:58pm

re: #219 JacksonTn

If you are serious ...you can have them ...my entire family left the democrats this year after three generations ...if you think there is a chance in hell of getting the democrats to go towards the right you are dreaming ...the whole agenda for this election via Howard Dean and Obama thugs was to purge the party of center right democrats ...we will NEVER go back ...

Well, it was a thought. Maybe if we all converted to Dhimmicrat we could influence the primary outcome. Then again maybe not. I have noted that Dhims from my area, notably Claire McCaskill and Kathleen Sebelius tend to get nuts when they go national.

241 JHW  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:38:09pm

re: #158 Bumr50

Sadly, I believe you're right. Check out this survey, one-third of citizens and one-third of elected officials didn't even know who we fought in WW2 among other things. College graduates did disgracefully poor on these basic citizenship questions.
Civic Literacy Report

Almost unbelievable it could be this bad. This was one of the conclusions of the report;

Finding 4:
Television—Including TV News—Dumbs America Down

ISI examined whether other factors add to or subtract from civic literacy and how they compare with the impact of college. The survey revealed that in today’s technological age, all else remaining equal, a person’s test score drops in proportion to the time he or she spends using certain types of passive electronic media. Talking on the phone, watching owned or rented movies, and monitoring TV news broadcasts and documentaries diminish a respondent’s civic literacy.

In contrast to these negative influences, the civic knowledge gained from the inexpensive combination of engaging in frequent conversations about public affairs, reading about current events and history, and participating in more involved civic activities is greater than the gain from an expensive bachelor’s degree alone.

242 ArmyWife  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:38:15pm

re: #205 gclaghorn

Gore is a closet capitalist and has used Global Warming to earn a boatload of cash. Let's see how willing he is to spread it to us, now. If he sends me 1/3 of his earnings on this crap, I will personally replace every light bulb in my house with those curly ones AND drive a Prius. Ok, maybe not a Prius, but a Hybrid Escalade, maybe.

243 rawmuse  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:38:24pm

re: #237 Sharmuta

They spent like crack whores with a week to live.

244 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:38:35pm

re: #9 LoFlyer

What is the issue Charles? Jindal obviously supports educational debate of both theories. If Evolution is a strong theory, it will withstand the debate with flying colors!

There is no debate in the scientific community; evolution holds all the evidentiary cards. Do not mistake creationist whingeing for genuine debate.

245 wolfie  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:38:53pm

I'm not very interested in the 2012 presidential election. I think the GOP should work on a common sense platform to provide for a strong defense and to restore fiscal sanity, small government, and Constitutional federalism.
As far as elections go, they should concentrate on Congressional elections and on getting good young people into state offices.

246 goddessoftheclassroom  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:39:02pm

re: #224 rawmuse

Exorcism is no big deal to me.
Catholics and Episcopalians also drink little cups of grape juice and call it the "blood of Christ".
Is that any less supernatural than an exorcism?

RC and Anglicans drink wine. Methodists and Baptists drink grape juice. I'm not sure about other denominations.

Roman Catholics believe in transubstantiation; Protestants believe in symbolic consubstantiation.

Didn't someone say that Satan's greatest achievement was convincing people that he didn't exist>

247 Steffan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:39:14pm

re: #112 Perplexed

Jury is still out on the lightworker. He's picked up a nervous tic already and he hasn't assumed office.

Victor Davis Hanson calls Obama's campaign the biggest bait-and-switch in American political history.

I think we are slowly (and things of course could change) beginning in retrospect to look back at the outline of one of most profound bait-and-switch campaigns in our political history, predicated on the mass appeal of a magnetic leader rather than any principles per se. He out-Clintoned Hillary and followed Bill's 1992 formula: A young Democrat runs on youth, popular appeal and charisma, claims the incumbent Bush caused another Great Depression and blew Iraq, and then went right down the middle with a showy leftist veneer.

It gets better:

In short, given all that, Obama's victory (predicated on painting Bush as a Hoover/Nixon redux), more so even than perhaps a John McCain's, may do more for Bush's reputation that anyone ever imagined. And the Mumbai mess (over there, not here) will only empasize all this, as an array of old 9/11-era experts who used to warn us about radical Islam, then, in the subsequent respite at home, screamed that Bush fabricated a war against terror against bogeymen, and now in their third manifestation are paraded once more out to warn us about?—why, yes, radical Islam!

248 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:39:24pm

re: #231 MandyManners

Post-racial is such a red herring. We won't have a post-racial world or, alternatively, country, until intermarriage is universal and all the kiddies are basically variations of the same shade. It's just a human failing... different is... different. We obviously can get past this on a one to one basis, and form friendships and relationships that transcend race, which is it should be. But there are still the issues of Them and Us that permeate society. Don't know what the answer is.

249 gclaghorn  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:39:38pm

re: #242 ArmyWife

Gore is a closet capitalist and has used Global Warming to earn a boatload of cash. Let's see how willing he is to spread it to us, now. If he sends me 1/3 of his earnings on this crap, I will personally replace every light bulb in my house with those curly ones AND drive a Prius. Ok, maybe not a Prius, but a Hybrid Escalade, maybe.

Here's a picture of Gore's office:

Image: gore_office.jpg

I hope he recycles all of those papers! And those monitors had better be environment-friendly!

/snark

250 Bloodnok  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:39:53pm

re: #204 HoosierHoops

Except.. A platform has never won a presidential election..Only the Candidate.

I'm not sure it is possible for the Republicans can field a candidate that can please the base, please the fiscal conservatives (who are not Socons) and win Independents and moderates. No one candidate can do that anymore. In the 80's yes, now maybe not. The platform needs to be redefined and some ideas may not make the cut.

251 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:40:33pm

re: #236 Gordon Marock

You're so right... I read that and thought, Hah! I'm a cradle Episcopalian, and that grape juice is some primo grappa.

252 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:41:42pm

re: #243 rawmuse

They spent like crack whores with a week to live.

Yes- we handed our butts on a silver platter to the dems. It was easy for them to paint themselves as the party of responsibility considering the msm was more than willing to help push that meme. If people want politicians to act like democrats- they'll elect the real thing and not an imitation.

253 NYCHardhat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:41:50pm

re: #251 tradewind

You're so right... I read that and thought, Hah! I'm a cradle Episcopalian, and that grape juice is some primo grappa.

That stuff makes me hallucinate

254 rawmuse  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:41:57pm

re: #229 Killgore Trout

I need a cookie.

You need a good Baptist dunking.

255 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:42:02pm

re: #249 gclaghorn

Here's a picture of Gore's office:

[Link: www.commonplacebook.com...]

I hope he recycles all of those papers! And those monitors had better be environment-friendly!

/snark

Is that the office where he invented the Internet? It certainly looks like the mother ship.

256 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:42:09pm

re: #249 gclaghorn

You should see his farm on the Caney Fork. I have.
An environmental nightmare, or at least it was a few years ago.

257 BignJames  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:42:20pm

re: #246 goddessoftheclassroom

RC and Anglicans drink wine. Methodists and Baptists drink grape juice. I'm not sure about other denominations.

Roman Catholics believe in transubstantiation; Protestants believe in symbolic consubstantiation.

Didn't someone say that Satan's greatest achievement was convincing people that he didn't exist>

Kevin Spacey's character in "Usual Suspects"

258 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:42:41pm

re: #253 NYCHardhat

It's just a teensy, weensy sip.

259 Rancher  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:42:45pm

re: #124 MandyManners

The entire MFM were out to get her from the beginnng. Even the entertainment wing of the MFM went after her.

She has withstood an incredible onslaught and survived, unlike poor Newt, the Grinch who stole Christmas.

260 Gordon Marock  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:42:47pm

re: #251 tradewind

Yeah, as an acolyte, we got to help slug down the leftovers. That was no grape juice.

261 NYCHardhat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:42:48pm

re: #257 BignJames

Kevin Spacey's character in "Usual Suspects"

Kaiser Soze.

262 wolfie  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:43:22pm

re: #182 Thanos

Instead of looking for the candidat who could possibly win we need to put together the platform that can't lose.

I second that motion!

263 Zimriel  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:43:28pm

re: #207 goddessoftheclassroom

Mandy, I have to disagree. The cult of global warming has ensnared our energy and economic policy and could conceivably cripple both. Creationism added to a general science curriculum as an alternative theory would take up less than half a day's lesson on origins of the universe. Yes, I agree that it doesn't belong in a science classroom in a public school, but seriously, most basic high school science curricula include physical science, earth science, and biology, none of which spends a lot of time on the origins of the universe anyway.

See... I say that's a problem. Schools should teach the origins of the universe, the creation of the solar system, Kepler, Galileo, dinosaurs, evolution, ... all of it. They tiptoe around a lot of this because they don't want the headache of angry parents and then votes to cut school funding. So now most kids think "science is boring" except for the kids who (like me) read on their own.

We are now seeing the effects of inadequate science education in the previous generation.

264 BignJames  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:43:49pm

re: #261 NYCHardhat

Kaiser Soze.

aka Verbal

265 kansas  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:44:06pm

re: #259 Rancher

She has withstood an incredible onslaught and survived, unlike poor Newt, the Grinch who stole Christmas.

In my opinion she has not survived as a viable national candidate. Its still like whack a mole. Every time she surfaces Leno and Letterman whack her.

266 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:44:18pm

re: #248 tradewind

Post-racial is such a red herring. We won't have a post-racial world or, alternatively, country, until intermarriage is universal and all the kiddies are basically variations of the same shade. It's just a human failing... different is... different. We obviously can get past this on a one to one basis, and form friendships and relationships that transcend race, which is it should be. But there are still the issues of Them and Us that permeate society. Don't know what the answer is.

Maybe we're best at just muddling along, doing our best every day in every way.

267 RickJ  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:44:20pm

maybe the religious folks should readjust what they are looking for in schools. Obviously you can't teach religion at public school anymore. (although we all used to say the Lord's Prayer and go through some Bible reading in the early grades years ago)

Instead they need to teach their beliefs at home and at religious centers and keep an eye on schools so they don't overstep.

I say overstep because "evolution" can take on a religious certainty at times about things that aren't well understood and can't be or aren't yet known. If we think we know everything about how life and matter have come into existence, then we are fools and while there are without a doubt religious fools , there are no shortage of fools on the other side.

268 gclaghorn  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:44:27pm

re: #255 Walter L. Newton

Is that the office where he invented the Internet? It certainly looks like the mother ship.

Shhh! Don't make fun of him! He has been gracious enough to let us hang out here, and if you make the Overlord angry, he may cut us all off from the interweb!

/

269 lifeofthemind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:44:30pm

My candidate for Attorney General:
Cobb: We're gonna give you a fair trial, followed by a first class hanging.

270 goddessoftheclassroom  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:44:40pm

re: #257 BignJames

Kevin Spacey's character in "Usual Suspects"

They stole it from C.S. Lewis's Screwtape Letters.

271 Steffan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:44:50pm

re: #196 buzzsawmonkey

I, for one, object to the pseudoscientific sciento-religion of global warming being taught in a public school with a fervor at least equal to my objections to creationism. Why "at least equal"? Because to the extent there is any science to global warming, it should be taught as something about which there is a healthy scientific debate--for there are scientists on both sides, even though I happen to believe that one side is dead wrong.

Creationism is not science, and has no place in a science curriculum. Arguably, global warming has--but taught as a received wisdom, i.e., a religion, it does students, and science, as deep a disservice as teaching creationism does. Furthermore, the indoctrination of the young into the sciento-religion of global warming will have a far more deleterious effect, far more immediately and directly, upon this nation than the teaching of creationism, for the global warming religion, masquerading as science, bids fair to destroy the economy if measures are enacted by the voting public to advance this belief. Creationism, though it too has a deleterious effect if taught as science, will not have the same immediate drastic effects.

The Sydney Morning Herald recently called global warmenism a "fundamentalist religion."

As the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, an economist, anti-totalitarian and climate change sceptic, prepares to take up the rotating presidency of the European Union next year, climate alarmists are doing their best to traduce him.

The New York Times opened a profile of Klaus, 67, this week with a quote from a 1980s communist secret agent's report, claiming he behaves like a "rejected genius", and asserts there is "palpable fear" he will "embarrass" the EU.

But the real fear driving climate alarmists wild is that a more rational approach to the fundamentalist religion of global warming may be in the ascendancy - whether in the parliamentary offices of the world's largest trading bloc or in the living rooms of Blacktown.

272 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:45:18pm

re: #259 Rancher

She has withstood an incredible onslaught and survived, unlike poor Newt, the Grinch who stole Christmas.

Newt's divorce helped him do himself in.

273 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:45:24pm

We need to look ahead and get out of the defensive stance we had to adapt in mid '05 to defend the ongoing war effort in Iraq. Where the left used to be reactive prisoner to the 24 hour news cycle, we've switched positions with them and become the same sort -- looking for a silver bullet in the next day's papers. That's not going to happen - we need to get out of defensive mode and go offense and persist. We've already lost most everything, we have nothing left to loose by looking ahead and taking strides forward.

In 2012 Iraq will be over but for the historians. Possibly Afghanistan will be as well. There will be new threats, and they will be different. Who in the party is looking at that? Every part of the party needs to challenge themselves, what are they doing exactly for tomorrow's children?

274 BignJames  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:45:47pm

re: #270 goddessoftheclassroom

They stole it from C.S. Lewis's Screwtape Letters.


damn thieves

275 Bumr50  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:45:57pm

re: #224 rawmuse

Neither to me.
I often guess that my own personal separation of spirituality from any science in which the logic, mathematics, or limitations of this reality cause me confusion when confronted with other folks who have such a hard time with stuff like this. I like what I've seen of Jindal, and I am disappointed to learn of his voting to include creationism in public school curricula.
But if you wanna exorcise on your down time, ain't no thing here.

276 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:46:25pm

re: #242 ArmyWife

I have a hybrid Highlander, and it is a great car. I had had two of them before, the regular models, and was curious and just saw no reason not to try one. It's great in town.
Those damn lightbulbs, though... I will use them in the garage. I will use 'em in the attic. But dammit if I will put them in my good lamps in the living room, or eat by them.
No matter how they try to camo them, they just cast an ugly light.

277 pingjockey  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:47:06pm

re: #241 JHW
I missed 4.

278 Aye Pod  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:47:10pm

re: #47 Killgore Trout

Actually, so far I'm very impressed with Obama. His staffing picks have largely been practical level headed folks. If I knew he was capable of being sane and moderate I might have voted for him.

I agree. Have you seen this speech he gave earlier this year on the subject of secularism and religion? I was impressed.

279 Steffan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:47:39pm

re: #256 tradewind

You should see his farm on the Caney Fork. I have.
An environmental nightmare, or at least it was a few years ago.

What I think is funny is that Bush's ranch in Texas is far more eco-friendly than Gore's TN mansion.

280 JHW  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:48:21pm

re: #277 pingjockey

You're far ahead of the rest of the country then, I believe that puts you in the highest percentile.

281 Drained Brain  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:48:41pm

In my pre-retirement years I was a right-wing high school principal in Canada of all places (not an easy place to be right wing). Our science department head was a typical left-wing unionist type (strong NDP for any Canuck readers). He was a Darwinist (is that the term?) and the more he evangelized about it the more skeptical I became. Can't folks just be agnostic about a few things? Can't there be a little live-and-let-live on the topic to give some of us a chance to let our views evolve?

Just a thought...

282 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:48:48pm

re: #267 RickJ

I was about to ding you up, then I read this:

I say overstep because "evolution" can take on a religious certainty at times about things that aren't well understood and can't be or aren't yet known. If we think we know everything about how life and matter have come into existence, then we are fools and while there are without a doubt religious fools , there are no shortage of fools on the other side.

Who is saying such things? Most of the scientists I've read have not, nor would not say such a thing- it would be unscientific for them to do so.

283 Gordon Marock  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:49:02pm

re: #271 Steffan

The real fear stems from Al Gore thinking he might not collect the hundreds of millions from the carbon trading companies and schemes he has bought in to. That is why gore's tone will become more and more strident despite the mounting contrary evidence. In order to have cap and trade, someone must facilitate the trading.

284 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:49:09pm

re: #279 Steffan
From reading about how the Crawford ranch was built, it's night and day. It's like North and South Korea.
Sigh. ... the hypocrisy...

285 kansas  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:49:17pm

re: #279 Steffan

What I think is funny is that Bush's ranch in Texas is far more eco-friendly than Gore's TN mansion.

Did you see that on MSNBC? Just kiddin, I know it was Couric that reported it...oh wait...

286 RubyTuesday  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:49:21pm

re: #270 goddessoftheclassroom
Oh goodness, another one of those eeevil Christians!

287 Steffan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:49:25pm

re: #265 kansas

In my opinion she has not survived as a viable national candidate. Its still like whack a mole. Every time she surfaces Leno and Letterman whack her.

That may actually be proof she is a viable national candidate -- why would they bother if they didn't fear her?

288 ArmyWife  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:49:33pm

re: #272 MandyManners

Newt's ethical compass had some moments of disorientation. If he was a lib it wouldn't matter - heck, look at the parade of freaks in the Dem column what with their male protistution rings, piles of frozen cash and affairs with younger girls - some of whom found dead in parks, others on their knees in the Oval Office. The Libs circle the wagons around their freaks, we kick ours to the curb.

289 A Kiwi Infidel  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:50:04pm

If talking up the GOP's chances for the next election helps them sleep, well, good on them.

The fact of the matter is, it doesnt matter squat, you have Obama for 4 years, starting 20th Jan, (yesterday, if you talk to The Man).

290 Desert Dog  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:50:10pm

Whoever the Republicans manage to find next time around, I they run "for" something, not "against" something. We need to find our bearings, get back to basics and a viable plan to implement it. McCain was so muddled, nobody knew what he stood for. Of course, Obama was the most vaporous candidate ever...so, if you look good and speak well, you can run and win standing for nothing. I do not see anyone with those skills on out side. So, let's just use something we know is good...our core beliefs. They are what will win back the Congress and the Presidency...not bending over backwards to be like the Democrats.

291 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:50:20pm

re: #279 Steffan

What I think is funny is that Bush's ranch in Texas is far more eco-friendly than Gore's TN mansion.

Right here.

292 gringotipico  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:50:21pm

I don't dislike Gov. Jindal, but I don't see what all these pundits are having wet dreams about... Seems like they're BARELY a step up from the Palin 2012 crowd.

293 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:50:21pm

re: #275 Bumr50

... But if you wanna exorcise on your down time, ain't no thing here.

Well, I'll say it right here, I'm not interested in voting for someone who believes that people can be "possessed" by some "evil entity" and there are rituals that can remove this evil presence from that person.

That's as good as sitting in grass and mud huts in the Middle Ages and casting spells to ward off bad luck.

Don't work for me.

294 FrogMarch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:50:38pm

re: #107 Gordon Marock

Why can't we just nominate Thomas Sowell and be done with it.

Or

Shelby Steele

[Link: tv.nationalreview.com...]

295 notutopia  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:50:38pm

re: #34 ArmyWife

I read VDH's article 20 times. I agree wholeheartedly Army Wife we need to widen our tent and define who we are. I invite others to consider strongly that we need to reconsider having a forum soon to define our commonalities as Conservative Republicans and let's not allow the GOP platform to spoonfeed us to have Jindal be the only
possible candidate. I do not want a default choice as a candidate again, because we were too proud to meet as a group and do our own thinking and choosing a candidate/s as a party.
IMO Jindal is working out just fine for La. and we need to consider however, that the rest of the US is not a typical constituency set like in La.
He is able to pander to constituencies of large groups of Catholics which comprise the majority of the larger cities ( And Private Schools and Univer. in the state). Religion is very important to the people of La. Christians, Jews, Faith Healers, VooDoo, and exorcisms are really practiced there. Thus, the appeasement with the law to embed the educational system with creationism and Darwinism. Also, Napoleonic law is still practiced in La.
UGH

296 Bumr50  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:50:53pm

re: #246 goddessoftheclassroom

That was at the end of "The Usual Suspects."

297 pingjockey  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:50:56pm

re: #280 JHW
I just can't believe the education system has crapped out that bad. It is appalling.

298 kansas  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:51:02pm

re: #287 Steffan

That may actually be proof she is a viable national candidate -- why would they bother if they didn't fear her?

Maybe they are afraid, I don't know, but I think they will keep her unelectable.

299 right_on_target  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:51:26pm

re: #208 hermit

Okay, lemme see if I got this...forgive me if someone brought this up.

Somebody thinks it would be a good idea to go from Chicago politicians to Louisiana politicians...

WTF!?!?!? No wonder some folks don't believe in forward evolution, we'd freakin REGRESS back into the political slime!

Why don't we just hire a roofing company for president...


___
Actually, we here in Louisiana ARE doing something about getting rid of bad politicians by not re-electing them or getting them under indictment.
For example, Joe Cao [Republican] is running against Dollar Bill and stands a good chance of getting elected.
Louisiana is split into THREE distinct political regions, the Bible Belt North, the Cajun Catholic South and Greater New Orleans.
The Bible Belt North is what brought defeat to Bobby Jindal in his first try at governor in 2003.
So, after victory in the last election, Jindal decided to pay back favors to the Bible Belt Northerners where the Louisiana Science Education Act was actively promoted.

300 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:51:42pm

re: #288 ArmyWife

Newt's ethical compass had some moments of disorientation. If he was a lib it wouldn't matter - heck, look at the parade of freaks in the Dem column what with their male protistution rings, piles of frozen cash and affairs with younger girls - some of whom found dead in parks, others on their knees in the Oval Office. The Libs circle the wagons around their freaks, we kick ours to the curb.

At least we stand on principle.

301 NYCHardhat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:51:57pm

re: #292 gringotipico

I don't dislike Gov. Jindal, but I don't see what all these pundits are having wet dreams about... Seems like they're BARELY a step up from the Palin 2012 crowd.

They are clutching for anything. We need to first take the 2010 elections and take one of Obozo's legs out. Then we lean on him.

302 docremulac  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:52:05pm

If Jindal is actually seriously being considered as a Republican candidate I'm convinced Democrats have infiltrated the Republican party enough to have complete control of which candidates get selected. They picked McCain and Huckabee to get rid of Romney and who's the next most obvious looser? Jindal.

He's not a presidential candidate, he's the math club geek that you felt sorry for because the jocks made him eat his calculator.

Watch the Democrat media pick a flattering title for him that they'll yank when necessary. Maverick's already taken. How about "Superdork" Oh wait, I guess that's not flattering. Apt though. Then his media "friends" will whisper in his ear about how he needs to run on a presidential platform of adding an amendment to the constitution outlawing demons or putting references to exorcism in the national anthem.

303 HoosierHoops  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:52:12pm

Yoo hoo! LesLein, the phantom downdingleberry!
So you are the one...
/Top Gun

Check this out.. I have no issues if you live to downding..maybe it's fun..
But I think maybe you could just throw out a couple of explainations out here once in awhile..People post mostly in Honesty and feelings get hurt with blind downdings..For Example..
I posted something a couple of months ago about if during the Democratic Convention the grateful Dead would have played outside the city the moombats would have never shown up..just in jest..
Well it really upset some lizards and they started downdinging me...
But they had the Moxie to post on-line why they were upset with my post. I respected that..That's all we ask of you.step up to the plate..Something somebody said upset you.. Why?
BTW.. To those posters that were so pissed off about me insulting the Dead..I didn't insult them.. LOL
But I could

304 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:52:40pm

re: #254 rawmuse

Nice.
/thanks.

305 ArmyWife  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:52:42pm

re: #293 Walter L. Newton

You just insulted my Grandfather, who fought in 3 wars for you. He was a far cry from a mud hut, thank you very much.

306 kansas  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:52:52pm

re: #300 MandyManners

At least we stand on principle.

Principle, perhaps. Standing? I don't think so. It's more like we fall on principle.

307 Zimriel  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:52:57pm

re: #281 Drained Brain

In my pre-retirement years I was a right-wing high school principal in Canada of all places (not an easy place to be right wing). Our science department head was a typical left-wing unionist type (strong NDP for any Canuck readers). He was a Darwinist (is that the term?) and the more he evangelized about it the more skeptical I became. Can't folks just be agnostic about a few things? Can't there be a little live-and-let-live on the topic to give some of us a chance to let our views evolve?

Just a thought...

Here's a thought: if you don't understand the science, then YOU live-and-let-live. Let those who do understand the science, keep teaching.

308 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:53:01pm

re: #293 Walter L. Newton

/Maybe the one inhabiting you is particularly tenacious.../

309 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:53:06pm

re: #224 rawmuse

Exorcism is no big deal to me

Can't it sometimes get out of hand?

310 ziggyelman  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:53:50pm

Wish I had gotten home sooner, probably too late, people are tired about talking about this...
Gindal is it. Our only hope. Palin is wonderful in many areas, but the media knows she isn't the most articulate person in the world, doesn't use big enough words for her. Newt is very smart, but has way too much baggage.
I couldn't give to F***S about Gindal being a creationist. He is very smart, he uses them big fancy words, wind him up, and he talks, and talks, and talks. Without stuttering, or umming, like Obama does. He can't be tripped up, he knows more than the reporters that would question him.
Now, if folks want to give the other side ammo, they certainly will gladly carry the water on the Creation issue...
He's not perfect, but no one is. I really don't know who certain folks think is better...I see no one that could even begin to have a battle of wits with Obama.
But "they" sure doesn't want Gindal to be the next guy. And they must want a 2 term Obama then...

311 goddessoftheclassroom  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:54:31pm

re: #293 Walter L. Newton

Well, I'll say it right here, I'm not interested in voting for someone who believes that people can be "possessed" by some "evil entity" and there are rituals that can remove this evil presence from that person.

That's as good as sitting in grass and mud huts in the Middle Ages and casting spells to ward off bad luck.

Don't work for me.

Your ignorance is surpassed only by your bigotry.

312 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:54:40pm

re: #299 right_on_target

... So, after victory in the last election, Jindal decided to pay back favors to the Bible Belt Northerners where the Louisiana Science Education Act was actively promoted.

I don't know if your comment was designed to make us think more highly of Jindal, but your last paragraph above certainly speaks volumes to who he will "suck" up to. I don't want no part of that.

313 Drained Brain  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:54:58pm

re: #307 Zimriel

Here's a thought: if you don't understand the science, then YOU live-and-let-live. Let those who do understand the science, keep teaching.

Yes, I've always thought that about priests and rabbis as well.

314 ArmyWife  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:55:04pm

re: #295 notutopia

Understand I am not saying Jindal is our hope (and change agent!). What I am saying is we need Fiscal and social conservatives in our tent - we need to stand FOR this, and articulate why. We don't need to be insistent that everyone be a religious zealout, or a religious moderate or not religious at all. We need to fight for the right to be any of those things, if we so chose. To say we need to be more "liberal" socially is wrong and gets us no where.

315 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:55:15pm

re: #151 LesLein

It was Reagan who said that evolution was "just a theory." In 1984 it hurt him a great deal, costing him Minnesota and the District of Columbia.

But seriously folks, the GOP can't possibly win without the social conservatives. This crusade against them amounts to a circular firing squad. As bad as creationism is, it's less harmful than teaching students that humans cause catastrophic global warming, or that we should "spread the wealth."

Next year the Democrats will attempt to give the District of Columbia representation in Congress and implement card check. Instead of opposing these power grabs, let's go after our own side!

The GOP cannot win without appealing to moderates and independents. The religious right agenda is like electoral kryptonite to those voters; they won't even approach any party that embraces it.

316 pingjockey  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:55:21pm

re: #310 ziggyelman
Ummm...NO! Jindal is not our only hope. Sheesh. It is a long time till 2012. A lot can happen.

317 Rancher  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:55:26pm

re: #207 goddessoftheclassroomF

The cult of global warming has ensnared our energy and economic policy and could conceivably cripple both.


When Newt drank the cool aid I could have thrown up. When Thompson was the only one who didn't raise his hand when asked "Raise Your Hand If Global Warming Is a Serious Threat" I cheered.

318 ornery elephant  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:55:34pm

re: #11 Killgore Trout

I certainly won't vote for Jindal. Go ahead and nominate him. He won't win.

Boy, that's a shocker.

319 mich-again  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:55:45pm

re: #273 Thanos

Republicans need to go back and read what Thomas Jefferson had to say. There is a lot of sound advice for good governance that still applies today. More than ever really.

320 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:55:48pm

re: #311 goddessoftheclassroom

There's a fine line between religious belief and magical thinking. I don't want a president who believes in magical solutions to real world problems.

321 JHW  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:55:50pm

re: #297 pingjockey

It almost convinces me that there should be a basic literacy test to vote, which of course would never fly for a variety of reasons. I'll bet most immigrants taking the citizenship test would ace this test easily. Appalling is the right word, and there should be widespread outrage over the failure of a large part of our education system. I couldn't believe what I was reading on the very high percentage of respondents couldn't answer correctly the simplest civics and history questions.

322 ziggyelman  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:56:37pm

re: #316 pingjockey

Who then? And I need to type Jindal...good grief!

323 Racer X  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:56:37pm

*burp*

/blame it on this:

Very Bad Elf Ale

Quite tasty!

324 rawmuse  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:56:46pm

re: #304 Killgore Trout

Nice.
/thanks.

This one is better.

325 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:57:04pm

re: #288 ArmyWife

Newt's ethical compass had some moments of disorientation. If he was a lib it wouldn't matter - heck, look at the parade of freaks in the Dem column what with their male protistution rings, piles of frozen cash and affairs with younger girls - some of whom found dead in parks, others on their knees in the Oval Office. The Libs circle the wagons around their freaks, we kick ours to the curb.

It's always struck me as oddly humorous and depressing that the left is more forgiving of their moral sinners than the Christian right. Of course they look the other way for their crooks too...

326 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:57:09pm

re: #315 Salamantis

The GOP cannot win without appealing to moderates and independents. The religious right agenda is like electoral kryptonite to those voters; they won't even approach any party that embraces it.

The GOP can't win without fiscal conservatives. Since 1992.

327 Last Mohican  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:57:15pm

re: #281 Drained Brain

He was a Darwinist (is that the term?)

No, that's not the term.

328 NYCHardhat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:57:18pm

re: #314 ArmyWife

Understand I am not saying Jindal is our hope (and change agent!). What I am saying is we need Fiscal and social conservatives in our tent - we need to stand FOR this, and articulate why. We don't need to be insistent that everyone be a religious zealout, or a religious moderate or not religious at all. We need to fight for the right to be any of those things, if we so chose. To say we need to be more "liberal" socially is wrong and gets us no where.

Although I agree with you, there is an easier way. When you screw with people's money they will NOT vote for you. Fiscal responsibility first.

329 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:57:32pm

re: #324 rawmuse

Oooh, that's nice.

330 goddessoftheclassroom  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:57:33pm

re: #320 Killgore Trout

There's a fine line between religious belief and magical thinking. I don't want a president who believes in magical solutions to real world problems.

Isn't he entitled to bis private, personal beliefs and forms of worship?

331 Perplexed  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:57:34pm

re: #317 Rancher

F


When Newt drank the cool aid I could have thrown up. When Thompson was the only one who didn't raise his hand when asked "Raise Your Hand If Global Warming Is a Serious Threat" I cheered.

Thompson's campaign was so incredibly lackluster that I often wondered if he was on drugs. A good guy, but his advisors were pretty much useless.

332 Rancher  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:57:45pm

re: #265 kansas

In my opinion she has not survived as a viable national candidate. Its still like whack a mole. Every time she surfaces Leno and Letterman whack her.


Yes she has and the fact that the left keeps attacking her proves it.

333 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:57:55pm

re: #320 Killgore Trout

Well, we've got one in the WH, starting January 20th.
Hope=Change.
/right/

334 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:57:59pm

re: #160 tradewind

Charles...
The mainstream Catholic church has a procedure... rarely used, but taken very seriously... for exorcism.

Yeah, but in the exorcism in which Jiondal participated, no Catholic clergy were present. It was perpetrated by a college campus Christian club.

335 Racer X  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:58:07pm

re: #320 Killgore Trout

There's a fine line between religious belief and magical thinking. I don't want a president who believes in magical solutions to real world problems.

b,b,b,but, Hope! Change!

You're ruining it!

336 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:58:38pm

re: #318 ornery elephant

I'm still on the fence with Palin but I probably won't vote for her either.

337 ClosetConservative  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:58:40pm

re: #303 HoosierHoops

When it comes to downdings and the like, I'd like to reaffirm my belief that Little Green Footballs is not an echo chamber. There are more dissenting in any one thread here than you could find in a day at the Daily Kos, and that's a good thing because it keeps our critical thinking skills sharp. Downdings should be reserved not so much for ideas you find unfavorable, but the manner in which someone states their feelings. You can disagree with something, but I wouldn't advise downdinging it unless the way that something is said is highly inflammatory.

Alright, off the soap box...

338 TheMatrix31  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:58:43pm

re: #315 Salamantis

The GOP cannot win without appealing to moderates and independents. The religious right agenda is like electoral kryptonite to those voters; they won't even approach any party that embraces it.

And the GOP can't win without appealing to the other end of their base, either. Not going one way or another with my opinion, I don't know yet. Just stating that you have to look out for your people first, then worry about moderates and independents.

339 sngnsgt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:58:49pm

re: #291 MandyManners

Right here.

LOL, Al 'Do as I say, not as I do' Gore!

340 A Kiwi Infidel  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:58:50pm

re: #318 ornery elephant

Boy, that's a shocker.


Zackly! How many votes did KT have? One. I am sure he had the same attitude about Obama's chances. Trouble is, at the end of the day, its all the other votes that count, and they did.

341 NYCHardhat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:58:55pm

re: #331 Perplexed

He didn't want the job.

342 goddessoftheclassroom  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:58:57pm

Good night, Lizards.

343 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:59:32pm

re: #305 ArmyWife

You just insulted my Grandfather, who fought in 3 wars for you. He was a far cry from a mud hut, thank you very much.

First off, I wasn't responding to a comment by you. Second, I wasn't addressing my comment to anyone in particular. Thirdly, I suspect that I "insulted" hundreds of people who don't agree with me.

But, how the hell can ANYONE have an opinion without probably upsetting someone else's opinions or beliefs.

I don't believe in exorcism, I don't believe in posession and I don't believe in any of the supernatural trapping that go along with it.

So what?

344 caliredst8r  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:59:38pm

re: #249 gclaghorn

Hey, isn't that Arafish's little red folder?

345 Steffan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:59:42pm

re: #273 Thanos

We need to look ahead and get out of the defensive stance we had to adapt in mid '05 to defend the ongoing war effort in Iraq. Where the left used to be reactive prisoner to the 24 hour news cycle, we've switched positions with them and become the same sort -- looking for a silver bullet in the next day's papers. That's not going to happen - we need to get out of defensive mode and go offense and persist. We've already lost most everything, we have nothing left to loose by looking ahead and taking strides forward.

In 2012 Iraq will be over but for the historians. Possibly Afghanistan will be as well. There will be new threats, and they will be different. Who in the party is looking at that? Every part of the party needs to challenge themselves, what are they doing exactly for tomorrow's children?

Iraq, for all intents, is over now. This is why you don't see any stories about it in the MSM -- it's over, and we won. Combat deaths in Iraq are below the level of homicides in Chicago. Fallujah is pacified to the point where most of the US presence has been withdrawn.

We will likely be in Afghanistan for a while... the country can't pretend to be civilized (in the Western sense) in its history -- it's a collection of tribes who are often hostile to each other.

The Bush Administration's main failing is their inability to tell us precisely what we're doing over there and why. Bush needed to explain what he was doing and why he was doing it -- and why he deserved our support. In this, he failed.

I think history will be much kinder to him than current public opinion.

346 Racer X  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:59:42pm

re: #340 A Kiwi Infidel

Zackly! How many votes did KT have? One. I am sure he had the same attitude about Obama's chances. Trouble is, at the end of the day, its all the other votes that count, and they did.

KT had ZERO votes.

He don't get to bitch.

347 mich-again  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:59:45pm

re: #290 Desert Dog

McCain was so muddled, nobody knew what he stood for.

I never once got the impression from listening to John McCain speak that he really wanted the job.

348 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 6:59:55pm

Rancher or Rustler?

349 jaunte  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:00:10pm

I think it would be smart to carefully examine a candidate if the Washington Post was elevating them on the list of Republican leaders.
Especially when they're already winking at the word "evolving" in the story.

"Here, drink from this wine glass. This one right here."

350 Zimriel  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:00:18pm

re: #305 ArmyWife

You just insulted my Grandfather, who fought in 3 wars for you. He was a far cry from a mud hut, thank you very much.

It is possible for your Grandfather to be a hero, and yet still deluded over certain points. I can't say I agreed with my grandfather (WW2 vet) over every little issue either. Some of his issues were "out there". I still love him and wish he was still around.

A few dozen or hundred generations beforehand, I had ancestors who believed in torturing prisoners for the glory of Odin. I'm sure their Christian grandkids thought they were pretty nice too, apart from the "blood eagle" thing.

351 Drained Brain  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:00:21pm

re: #327 Last Mohican

No, that's not the term.

See, I don't really give a damn what the term is as long as the government basically leaves me alone to practice my own beliefs or non-beliefs. I can think of far worse effects of the public education system than a fairly piddling controversy about science education. Of course, I'm sufficiently older than many of you to realize how much one actually remembers about what was learned in elementary-school science classes.

352 pingjockey  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:00:26pm

re: #321 JHW
I wish we could have a test like that. Can you imagine the howling from the left? Mwahaha!They say having a picture ID is onerous. Everyone over the age of 18 by law must have positive proof of who they are on their person. All states issues IDs to nondrivers. You have to have ID to cash a check etc... I'd settle for a positive ID check and paper ballots to vote.

353 ziggyelman  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:00:28pm

re: #315 Salamantis

The GOP cannot win without appealing to moderates and independents. The religious right agenda is like electoral kryptonite to those voters; they won't even approach any party that embraces it.

But, why didn't McCain win then? He WAS mr. Moderate, Mr Independent...and lost by what, 6 % points?

354 sngnsgt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:00:35pm

re: #342 goddessoftheclassroom

Nite Goddess.

355 gringotipico  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:00:36pm

re: #301 NYCHardhat

Exactly what I was thinking... We need to be patient, we need to do it from the ground-up just like they did (only with class and true patriotism). We have a few things to get straight as a party (I use the term loosely) before we go off picking our next media victim.

356 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:00:45pm

re: #320 Killgore Trout

There's a fine line between religious belief and magical thinking. I don't want a president who believes in magical solutions to real world problems.

YOU CAN'T SAY THAT. You may insult someone grandfather!

357 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:01:06pm

re: #330 goddessoftheclassroom

Isn't he entitled to bis private, personal beliefs and forms of worship?


He certainly is. However he claims that exorcisms can cure cancer. Will he apply this same magical thinking to economics or military operations? It's a sign of bad decision making and flawed logic.

358 RubyTuesday  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:01:27pm

The Dems win because they tell people what they want to hear - the realization that they're liars comes too late. If the Lizard Nation is representative of Republicans in general, we're in big trouble. Finding a common platform that pleases everyone will be impossible, always has been. Accepting voters from many interests will go much further than exclusion. Most folks' personal beliefs don't even need to be discussed; it's the big issues that warrant our attention.

359 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:01:46pm

re: #346 Racer X


KT had ZERO votes.

He don't get to bitch.


Yet here I am bitching away.

360 HoosierHoops  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:01:56pm

re: #337 ClosetConservative

When it comes to downdings and the like, I'd like to reaffirm my belief that Little Green Footballs is not an echo chamber. There are more dissenting in any one thread here than you could find in a day at the Daily Kos, and that's a good thing because it keeps our critical thinking skills sharp. Downdings should be reserved not so much for ideas you find unfavorable, but the manner in which someone states their feelings. You can disagree with something, but I wouldn't advise downdinging it unless the way that something is said is highly inflammatory.

Alright, off the soap box...

Oh I agree! But..I think if you are always down dinging lizards..At least step up once in awhile and say why..
Hey..I thing your idea sucks and here is why...But play nice..
But to always be invisible is kind of creepy to me..
/There goes the Karma dang it!

361 Perplexed  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:02:02pm

re: #341 NYCHardhat

He didn't want the job.

Why did he run then?

362 pingjockey  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:02:09pm

re: #322 ziggyelman
I don't know. It is 4 years away. Obambi could make Jimmah Carter look like a fucking genius and anyone with a pulse could beat the empty suit.

363 Racer X  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:02:16pm

re: #353 ziggyelman

But, why didn't McCain win then? He WAS mr. Moderate, Mr Independent...and lost by what, 6 % points?

Do not distract us with the facts!

It don't get any more middle of the road than McCain.

3/4 Democrat.

364 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:02:17pm

re: #358 RubyTuesday

The Dems win because they tell people what they want to hear - the realization that they're liars comes too late. If the Lizard Nation is representative of Republicans in general, we're in big trouble. Finding a common platform that pleases everyone will be impossible, always has been. Accepting voters from many interests will go much further than exclusion. Most folks' personal beliefs don't even need to be discussed; it's the big issues that warrant our attention.

That painting with a broad brush, isn't it?

365 rawmuse  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:02:22pm

Most religions, and Christianity in particular, are highly supernatural.

366 Wishing  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:02:23pm

re: #357 Killgore Trout

He certainly is. However he claims that exorcisms can cure cancer. Will he apply this same magical thinking to economics or military operations? It's a sign of bad decision making and flawed logic.

His *personal* beliefs allowed to push creationism in the classroom BY LAW. This is a serious issue.

367 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:02:23pm

re: #349 jaunte

I think it would be smart to carefully examine a candidate if the Washington Post was elevating them on the list of Republican leaders.
Especially when they're already winking at the word "evolving" in the story.

"Here, drink from this wine glass. This one right here."

Absolutely! It's like we didn't learn a damn thing.

368 OldLineTexan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:02:34pm

re: #356 Walter L. Newton

YOU CAN'T SAY THAT. You may insult someone grandfather!

Both my grandfathers are dead. Asshole it up; it (was) a free country.

369 ornery elephant  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:02:43pm

Wre: #315 Salamantis

The GOP cannot win without appealing to moderates and independents. The religious right agenda is like electoral kryptonite to those voters; they won't even approach any party that embraces it.

If you mean the GOP has to appeal to them by choosing pro-abortion, anti-religious stances, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage rights and immigration amnesty...then I guess I don't want to win that bad in 2012.

370 Occasional Reader  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:02:43pm

re: #310 ziggyelman


Gindal is it.

If you think he's "it", you should probably try to spell his name correctly. Just sayin'.

371 RubyTuesday  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:02:57pm

re: #320 Killgore Trout
Religious belief IS supernatural thinking. In God, not in voodoo.

372 NYCHardhat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:03:09pm

re: #361 Perplexed

Why did he run then?

You got me.

373 theheat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:03:14pm

re: #338 TheMatrix31

If the GOP did not pander to the religious supporters, then who, exactly, would the religious voters vote for? If given no choice, my guess is they would still vote GOP if it represented a more fiscally responsible government.

Take religion out of the equation, the religious voters have to vote on mainstream issues, same as everyone else.

374 Racer X  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:03:20pm

re: #359 Killgore Trout

Yet here I am bitching away.

What was that?

Did anyone hear something?

375 wolfie  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:03:22pm

There's too much emphasis on presidential politics. I'd like to see a bunch of people like Palin, Jindal, Giuliani, etc. run for the Senate on a fiscal sanity/reform/small govt platform and then try to shake things up when they get to Washington.
We need people in Congress who can articulate Reaganite values.

376 Wishing  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:03:24pm

re: #370 Occasional Reader

If you think he's "it", you should probably try to spell his name correctly. Just sayin'.

ROFL

377 FrogMarch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:03:26pm

re: #237 Sharmuta

If democrats continue to be allowed to look like the party of fiscal restraint, republicans are going to lose. As long as republicans want to act like drunken liberals with the money of the American people, we will lose.

Indeed. But democrats are often far more corrupt and insane with money than Republicans could ever hope to be.

Jamie Gorelick, Franklin Raines.. Chris Dodd...

the list goes on and on

378 gclaghorn  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:03:29pm

OT: Is anyone else having problems with "Remember Me" checkboxes on all sites in Firefox 3?

379 jaunte  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:03:40pm

re: #367 Sharmuta

I'm picturing the media as Lucy in Peanuts, setting the football up for us yutzes to try another kick.

380 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:03:42pm
381 maximoso  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:04:09pm

zzz

More Jindahl bashing. How delightful.

Seriously guys - The POTUS election isn't coming for 4 years. Can we focus on issues that are relevant TODAY - rather than pre-emptively trying to smear a guy to take him out. I don't like or dislike the guy - he's interesting - but hardly worthy of thrashing or promoting to the level this site advocates.

Jindahl is governing Louisiana. The only thing important today is whether or not his constituency likes him. In 4 years - we can peel apart his record for evaluation. So far - I've seen the education bill which I read and found nothing worthy of the amount of attention this site gives to smearing the guy.

I think analysis of Obama's cabinet appointments would be alot more fruitful than Taking out Jindahl 4 years before it's relevant.

Awh heck - maybe we should take out all the Republican CANDIDATESs. Then we can vote for McCain again in 2012 by default. Losing the POTUS General Election 2 yeas in a row would be a pretty cool achievement for McCain.

382 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:04:23pm

re: #366 Wishing

His *personal* beliefs allowed to push creationism in the classroom BY LAW. This is a serious issue.


Agreed. That's my concern with Palin as well. I don't give a shit if she hates gays, most Christian do. But she crosses the line when she wants to amend the Constitution. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs but I don't want them forced on me.

383 Elcid  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:04:25pm

If one starts with the premise that the Left and their media propagandists are going to be running a gotcha' campaign against anyone on the Right side of the aisle, for the next four years, your answer is clear...Obama for Four More.

The hope is, that the Constitution still stands as whole and that it is STILL the written guiding document, that it ends the Obama years.

384 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:04:31pm

re: #377 FrogMarch

Indeed. But democrats are often far more corrupt and insane with money than Republicans could ever hope to be.

Jamie Gorelick, Franklin Raines.. Chris Dodd...

the list goes on and on

True- but the media don't play like dat, Homes.

385 jamie  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:04:33pm

So, to sum up...

1. Creationist.
2. Keeping with the anti-science theme, is opposed to embryonic stem-cell research.
3. An ally of Grover Norquist, who while not anti-Israel, isn't exactly Jerusalem's best friend.
4. Abortion nut.
5. Exorcisms.

What a dream candidate!

/

386 Wishing  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:04:34pm

re: #378 gclaghorn

OT: Is anyone else having problems with "Remember Me" checkboxes on all sites in Firefox 3?

Ok, I'll bite: What is a remember me check box?

387 Occasional Reader  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:04:40pm

re: #348 Sharmuta

Rancher or Rustler?

Oh, the Rancher and the Rustler can be friends...

(something like that)

388 OldLineTexan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:05:04pm

re: #379 jaunte

I'm picturing the media as Lucy in Peanuts, setting the football up for us yutzes to try another kick.

THAT'S IT!

/picture Linus shouting as Snoopy rolls away startled

389 Steffan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:05:07pm

re: #283 Gordon Marock

The real fear stems from Al Gore thinking he might not collect the hundreds of millions from the carbon trading companies and schemes he has bought in to. That is why gore's tone will become more and more strident despite the mounting contrary evidence. In order to have cap and trade, someone must facilitate the trading.

I've noticed two things: He will not debate the concept, and he will not allow the MSM to even be present during his speeches.

Makes ya wonder what he has to hide, hmmm? :)

390 Gordon Marock  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:05:09pm

The bottom line is that the social conservatives have nowhere to go, despite their threats to boycott certain candidates. We need to force a rational, principled candidate on them who focuses on fiscal and national security issues in order to save the GOP. Let them threaten their boycott.

391 Last Mohican  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:05:10pm

re: #351 Drained Brain

I can think of far worse effects of the public education system than a fairly piddling controversy about science education.

I would not characterize the right of children to learn the most basic principle that underlies the entire scientific study of life as a "fairly piddling controversy about science education."

392 ziggyelman  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:05:13pm

re: #362 pingjockey

I don't know. It is 4 years away. Obambi could make Jimmah Carter look like a fucking genius and anyone with a pulse could beat the empty suit.

But, it's not 4 years away anymore. It's more than likely less than 24 months away.
Name a Republican that is going to appeal across the board. Take off Palin and Jindal's names...
Go ahead, I double dog dare ya! ;)

393 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:05:20pm

re: #371 RubyTuesday

Religious belief IS supernatural thinking. In God, not in voodoo.


I really don't see them as that separate.

394 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:05:27pm

re: #368 OldLineTexan

Both my grandfathers are dead. Asshole it up; it (was) a free country.

I was being sarcastic with Killgore. It's was in reference to ArmyWife who siad to me...

re: #305 ArmyWife

You just insulted my Grandfather, who fought in 3 wars for you. He was a far cry from a mud hut, thank you very much.

I wasn't dumping on anyones grandfather.

395 RubyTuesday  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:05:29pm

re: #364 Walter L. Newton
Just the opposite, Chaaahles.

396 Wishing  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:05:42pm

re: #382 Killgore Trout

Agreed. That's my concern with Palin as well. I don't give a shit if she hates gays, most Christian do. But she crosses the line when she wants to amend the Constitution. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs but I don't want them forced on me.

She said she wanted to amend the constitution? I must have missed that!

397 gclaghorn  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:05:54pm

re: #386 Wishing

Ok, I'll bite: What is a remember me check box?

In the login box, the checkbox which you check off to keep your password saved as a cookie so you don't have to log in every time you open a site.

398 Desert Dog  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:05:56pm

re: #358 RubyTuesday

The Dems win because they tell people what they want to hear - the realization that they're liars comes too late. If the Lizard Nation is representative of Republicans in general, we're in big trouble. Finding a common platform that pleases everyone will be impossible, always has been. Accepting voters from many interests will go much further than exclusion. Most folks' personal beliefs don't even need to be discussed; it's the big issues that warrant our attention.

Ain't that the truth. If you run as something you are not, it's easy to lie out of both sides of your mouth.

I can almost hear the KOS Kiddies and MoveOn.org seething from here when they are looking at Obama's appointments. They are hardly the left wing crazies they wanted in there. It's more like Clinton Lite. That is one reason I have always been against the Dems...the think intentions are what matters...not results.

399 Rancher  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:06:08pm

re: #315 Salamantis

The GOP cannot win without appealing to moderates and independents. The religious right agenda is like electoral kryptonite to those voters; they won't even approach any party that embraces it.

Again, had McCain gotten as many Republican votes as Bush did he would have won. Despite a horrendous economy and a bright new shining young Kennedyesque historic candidate. We don't need to abandon our base to appeal to this or that group, conservatism will win.

400 FrogMarch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:06:19pm

re: #384 Sharmuta

True- but the media don't play like dat, Homes.

no - they do not. State run DNC media don't want to show us any truth.

401 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:06:20pm

re: #185 ArmyWife

"We cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide"

" Society has always regarded marital love as a sacred expression of the bond between a man and a woman. It is the means by which families are created and society itself is extended into the future. In the Judeo-Christian tradition it is the means by which husband and wife participate with G-d in the creation of new human life. It is for these reasons, among others, that our society has always sought to protect this unique relationship. In par the erosion of these values has given way to a celebration of forms of expression most reject. We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality"

Ronald Reagan.

(Could it be that Reagan had a stand and could articulate it rather than checking the current wind direction for his "thoughts"?)

You DO know, of course, that while he was California governor, Reagan signed one of the most liberal abortion bills in the nation into law, right? I'm sure that as a one-time head of the Screen Actors Guild, he also knew his share of homosexuals. My guess is that he took those religious right positions for electoral convenience. But they're not so convenient any more.

Reagan was not perfect. After all, he did ignominiously withdraw from Lebanon after the Hez blew away a barracks full of our Marines there and an embassy full of US personnel. That "hurt them and they'll run" message has not been lost on jihadis.

402 NYCHardhat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:06:21pm

re: #392 ziggyelman

But, it's not 4 years away anymore. It's more than likely less than 24 months away.
Name a Republican that is going to appeal across the board. Take off Palin and Jindal's names...
Go ahead, I double dog dare ya! ;)

Michael Steele

403 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:06:27pm

re: #336 Killgore Trout

I'm still on the fence with Palin but I probably won't vote for her either.

KT, she comes from a state where MJ is legal and did nothing to change that. She comes from a state where you keep your damned nose out of other people's business, and so far has governed that way, as you can tell by her approval rating. On average the AK electorate is younger, more highly educated, and better read than the average person in the lower forty eight, you have to do something during those long winter nights. There's strong support for science in the state, and I don't see that flagging under her.

404 Occasional Reader  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:06:30pm

re: #380 buzzsawmonkey

Okay okay okay, IS HE AN ASTEROID, sheesh, tough room...

405 AceR  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:06:38pm

For so many years (since 1972-1998) I voted for anyone who had a (D) after their name. Didn't matter to me who they were or what they stood for. I was against the Republican party because they were not the party of the little man---they didn't care enough for ordinary people like me, but instead were the party of the rich.

Then one day I began to examine what the Democrats stood for: welfare, abortion and Planned Parenthood, higher taxes---including mine, but especially on the rich---to fund their social programs, education systems that didn't educate our children, unions (like the NEA), the ACLU, the secularization of society, weaker defense, and judges that frankly made rulings that made my head spin. I got fed up with all of the embarrassments and scandals of the likes of Bill Clinton, Edward Kennedy, Barney Frank, Tip O'Neil, Gary Hart. Hollywood stars made me sick as they were a bizarre bunch, supporting the Democrats with their traitorous (Jane Fonda), and often vile anti-American rantings and I finally decided to change my party affiliation.

Now to be totally honest with you all, I also became a Christian in 1998. And for me, the pivitol issue was abortion. My reasoning was this: If the person I wanted to support for any office didn't want to protect the most innocent of those among us, then how could I be assured that they would protect me or my loved ones if we became vulnerable and innocent, maybe like my father who was suffering from Alzheimers, or my mother who suffered from a stroke?

If a candidate wouldn't stand up for the weakest among us, then what assurances did I have that they would protect me and defend me and those that I love from those who wish to do us harm? How could they say they will protect little children in schools, if they were willing to allow the NEA to install sub-standard teachers to oversee the sub-standard curriculum in the education of our children? Where were the assurances that they would protect our children from pornography, especially child pornography, if they supported the efforts of the ACLU and organizations like NAMBLA? How could they instill in younger generations the value of a good work ethic if they allowed welfare to continue almost unchecked?

I am now a Republican, but I can no more set aside my religious views when considering a candidate for my vote in favor of only deciding whether a candidate should receive my vote based on fiscal or security issues. For me, I will look at the whole package. But I will tell you this: how a candidate views abortion, whether it be partial-birth, 1st trimester, or in the case of infants who survive botched abortions, I feel as though the candidate reveals him/herself to me by how they view the rights of the unborn or newly born.

Republicans can shove people like me to the sidelines and try to marginalize me in the party, and I will leave and find another candidate to vote for.

For me it is simple. If a candidate goes the way of actively supporting a woman's "right" to choose vs. the baby's "right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed in our Constitution, then they will lose my vote.

406 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:07:06pm

re: #396 Wishing

Yup.

407 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:07:21pm

re: #371 RubyTuesday

Religious belief IS supernatural thinking. In God, not in voodoo.

So, what kind of "thinking" is related to voodoo?

408 Wishing  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:07:49pm

re: #397 gclaghorn

In the login box, the checkbox which you check off to keep your password saved as a cookie so you don't have to log in every time you open a site.

Oh ok...sometimes it remembers, sometimes not. It depends on how you have the cookies set. I think I have mine to cancel the cookie when I close the page.

409 OldLineTexan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:07:49pm

re: #394 Walter L. Newton

I wasn't dumping on anyones grandfather.

Hell, I know. I was trying to help you out. I may not agree with what you say, but I will get drunk and argue about your right to say it.

/

410 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:07:57pm

re: #379 jaunte

I'm picturing the media as Lucy in Peanuts, setting the football up for us yutzes to try another kick.

Absolutely! It should be triggering red flags and warning bells. Hellooo?!

Maybe a poll is in order. The MSM likes Bobby Jindal. We should:

A) Think twice
B) Think it's our lucky day!
C) Run away!
D) Ron Paul

411 RubyTuesday  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:08:07pm

re: #382 Killgore Trout
Whoa, KT, I agree about the not amending the constitution. But it's not correct or fair to say that most Christians hate gays.

412 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:08:37pm

re: #400 FrogMarch

no - they do not. State run DNC media don't want to show us any truth.

Word.

413 Steffan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:08:47pm

re: #347 mich-again

I never once got the impression from listening to John McCain speak that he really wanted the job.

His campaign was almost a repeat of Bob Dole's campaign.

414 NYCHardhat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:08:47pm

re: #410 Sharmuta

Absolutely! It should be triggering red flags and warning bells. Hellooo?!

Maybe a poll is in order. The MSM likes Bobby Jindal. We should:

A) Think twice
B) Think it's our lucky day!
C) Run away!
D) Ron Paul

72 acorn votes for D

415 OldLineTexan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:08:49pm

re: #396 Wishing

She said she wanted to amend the constitution? I must have missed that!

Lord knows I did. Take a couple days off and the world goes to hell in a handbasket, I tells ya.

416 gclaghorn  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:08:52pm

re: #408 Wishing

Oh ok...sometimes it remembers, sometimes not. It depends on how you have the cookies set. I think I have mine to cancel the cookie when I close the page.

The cookies are staying, but I still have to re-login. Let me check my cookie prefs.

417 Rancher  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:08:56pm

re: #348 Sharmuta

Rancher or Rustler?

Real Rancher here, Rustler you will hear from all night tonight after 11:00 pm, I'll be in bed.

418 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:09:15pm

re: #409 OldLineTexan

Hell, I know. I was trying to help you out. I may not agree with what you say, but I will get drunk and argue about your right to say it.

/

Sorry, in the heat of all this, I misunderstood your comment.

419 OldLineTexan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:09:39pm

re: #404 Occasional Reader

Okay okay okay, IS HE AN ASTEROID, sheesh, tough room...

They got creams for that now...

420 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:09:41pm
421 Wishing  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:09:51pm

re: #406 Killgore Trout

Yup.

Well it is a state, not federal issue, imo.

422 ziggyelman  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:09:52pm

re: #402 NYCHardhat

Michael Steele

Ok, a good name, like him a lot...but, he lost that senate race, right? Who's going to vote for a guy who's never been a senator, or Governor?

423 pingjockey  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:09:56pm

re: #392 ziggyelman
Can't. Then again, where was obambi in 2006? I do believe that if obambi was a white chicago hack pol he wouldn't have even sniffed the US Senate, let alone a run at the White House.

424 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:10:01pm

re: #411 RubyTuesday

But it's not correct or fair to say that most Christians hate gays.


My experience tells me otherwise. I know there's the "love the sinner hate the sin" disclaimer but it doesn't really match with the reality I've experienced.

425 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:10:28pm

re: #417 Rancher

Just checking, Pop.

426 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:10:59pm

re: #421 Wishing

I don't see it as a state issue. It's a human rights issue.

427 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:11:02pm
428 A Kiwi Infidel  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:11:03pm

re: #404 Occasional Reader

Okay okay okay, IS HE AN ASTEROID, sheesh, tough room...

He could prove to be a HAEMORRHOID, a real pain in the ass.

429 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:11:07pm

re: #381 maximoso

This could be paraphrased from the same posts that Stinky autodeletes from creationism threads.

/it's boring, nothing here to see, there are better things to talk about, why don't you post what I want Charles?

430 right_on_target  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:11:19pm

re: #312 Walter L. Newton

I don't know if your comment was designed to make us think more highly of Jindal, but your last paragraph above certainly speaks volumes to who he will "suck" up to. I don't want no part of that.


___
Really, it doesn't matter as Jindal is not running for POTUS. One of his main tenets is to get all three political areas of Louisiana on the same page. Up until his administration the three political areas were constantly at odds with each other.

431 Drained Brain  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:11:23pm

re: #391 Last Mohican

I would not characterize the right of children to learn the most basic principle that underlies the entire scientific study of life as a "fairly piddling controversy about science education."

It didn't affect me one way or the other. Read what you've written. Substitute a word here and there and it would fit the rant of any religious zealot, which is of course my point.

One of my brothers-in-law is one of those devout proselytyzing athiests so I know the type.

432 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:11:40pm

re: #427 buzzsawmonkey

Ha!
/ you said it, I didn't

433 Desert Dog  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:11:44pm

re: #393 Killgore Trout

I really don't see them as that separate.

Ah yes, thank goodness for all the Voodoo the Founding Fathers brought with them from England! Yep, that Voodoo forged our cultural and social beliefs. I am very pleased that Voodoo ethics and morays are the norm here in the western world. I am not very religious, but I do give credit where credit is due, and our Judeo-Christian heritage is one of the main reasons the west came to dominate the globe. It was not Voodoo or Hindism or Wiccan that brought together the perfect union of personal responsibility and freewill that has made the western world thrive.

434 mich-again  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:11:47pm

re: #413 Steffan

His campaign was almost a repeat of Bob Dole's campaign.

Yep. Who cares if I can actually get elected? Its my turn to be the nominee!

435 ornery elephant  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:11:51pm

re: #403 Thanos

I'm thinking it's more the fact that she owns a King James Bible.

436 ziggyelman  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:11:52pm

re: #405 AceR

Well put!

437 lostlakehiker  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:12:01pm
his and his wife Supriya’s decision in 1997 to enter into a Louisiana covenant marriage that prohibits no-fault divorce in the state;


The Washington Post seems to think that this, too, is a black mark against him.

How does that go? Would it be another mark against his character, if he paid a debt? Kept an inconvenient promise?

At the level of state governor, he can't make science education in Louisiana much worse than it already is, but he can make state government more effective and honest across the board. He's doing that. Louisiana has come a long way in the past few years under his intelligently designed program of reform.

By choosing to stand in the camp of the anti-science crowd he's disqualified himself from the presidency (not legally, but practically.) So be it. But this doesn't make him a bad state governor. Compared to the succession of crooks and very dim bulbs who have gone before, he's Louisiana's Great NotWhite Hope.

A sense of proportion is needed here. A man may have faults, even serious faults, yet be a positive force when weighed in the balance.

438 RubyTuesday  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:12:16pm

re: #407 Walter L. Newton
Amendment: Religious belief IS supernatural. I'm a Christian, so my belief is in Jesus Christ as Lord. All religious belief is not the same, as in voodoo, Islam, etc.
I suspect you knew what I meant, but I'll play your game this time. I type slower than I think, so my posts come out abbreviated. Next time, I'll type even more slowly so you can understand.

439 NYCHardhat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:12:17pm

re: #422 ziggyelman

Ok, a good name, like him a lot...but, he lost that senate race, right? Who's going to vote for a guy who's never been a senator, or Governor?

Good point.

440 Wishing  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:12:45pm

re: #426 Killgore Trout

I don't see it as a state issue. It's a human rights issue.

What I mean is this: if an individual STATE decides to make some ruling, fine. If they dont choose to, fine as well. It doesn't belong in a federal court.

441 ozymandias  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:12:47pm

before there were the lizaroids there was a single lizard, created by the almighty force.

442 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:12:59pm

re: #420 buzzsawmonkey

There is a difference between worshipping forces of nature, or gods that represent them, and worshipping the Creator of nature. There is a difference between importuning the Creator, and trying to jigger the divine will with potions and paraphernalia.

So, in voodoo we have...

Potions
Dolls
Chants
Curses
Orgasmic Dancing
Ritual

In the Roman Catholic Church we have...

Holy Water
Icons
Repetitive prayer
Evil Eye (in some cultures)
Charismatic services
Ritual

Hmmm... hard to tell the difference. One mans religion is another mans cult.

443 Gordon Marock  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:13:08pm

re: #394 Walter L. Newton

I wasn't dumping on anyones grandfather.

Walter, no need to explain yourself. It is not your comments that anger people, it's that f'ing hat!

444 Steffan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:13:18pm

re: #378 gclaghorn

OT: Is anyone else having problems with "Remember Me" checkboxes on all sites in Firefox 3?

Not offhand. Might be your particular download. Try reinstalling it.

445 gclaghorn  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:13:22pm

re: #381 maximoso

zzz

More Jindahl bashing. How delightful.

Seriously guys - The POTUS election isn't coming for 4 years. Can we focus on issues that are relevant TODAY - rather than pre-emptively trying to smear a guy to take him out. I don't like or dislike the guy - he's interesting - but hardly worthy of thrashing or promoting to the level this site advocates.

Jindahl is governing Louisiana. The only thing important today is whether or not his constituency likes him. In 4 years - we can peel apart his record for evaluation. So far - I've seen the education bill which I read and found nothing worthy of the amount of attention this site gives to smearing the guy.

I think analysis of Obama's cabinet appointments would be alot more fruitful than Taking out Jindahl 4 years before it's relevant.

Awh heck - maybe we should take out all the Republican CANDIDATESs. Then we can vote for McCain again in 2012 by default. Losing the POTUS General Election 2 yeas in a row would be a pretty cool achievement for McCain.

If you don't like it, you don't have to read it. This is Charles's blog, and he can post what he wants, even if some users disagree with it.

446 Occasional Reader  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:13:31pm

re: #409 OldLineTexan

Hell, I know. I was trying to help you out. I may not agree with what you say, but I will get drunk and argue about your right to say it.

/

Hear, hear!

I mean... you and what army?!

447 A Kiwi Infidel  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:13:43pm

re: #433 Desert Dog

Ah yes, thank goodness for all the Voodoo the Founding Fathers brought with them from England! Yep, that Voodoo forged our cultural and social beliefs. I am very pleased that Voodoo ethics and morays are the norm here in the western world. I am not very religious, but I do give credit where credit is due, and our Judeo-Christian heritage is one of the main reasons the west came to dominate the globe. It was not Voodoo or Hindism or Wiccan that brought together the perfect union of personal responsibility and freewill that has made the western world thrive.


Well said, it just tragic that it is all being kicked to touch in the name of separation of Church and State.

448 Rancher  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:13:51pm

Just throwing this out, but have you guys ever heard of Gary Johnson?

449 ArmyWife  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:13:58pm

re: #343 Walter L. Newton

Simply stating its "your opinion" doesn't make it acceptable as if "my opinion" is a magic wand used to erase being a biggot. As for your "so what", I don't care if you believe in exorcism - I personally don't. I also don't care to insult Catholics who do believe in this by referring to them as idiotic hut dwellers. Would you be tolerant of someone referring to a Yarmulke in a derogatory manner? What about the lovely comments on Jews being greedy or cheap, would that be OK? I would suggest it isn't, and neither was your comment.

450 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:14:04pm

re: #433 Desert Dog

It was not Voodoo or Hindism or Wiccan that brought together the perfect union of personal responsibility and freewill that has made the western world thrive.


Of course not. It was secular humanism and Enlightenment philosophy that is responsible for our country and our constitution. In fact, those are the principles responsible for freedom wherever it is found.

451 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:14:04pm
452 Bumr50  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:14:10pm

re: #365 rawmuse

I think that they are almost by definition supernatural.
There seems that there are two divides among this sampling of people. One between theists and atheists, and one between both of those and ANTItheist.

By antitheist I am attempting to describe those who believe that anyone who has strong religious convictions is somehow less capable of serving in the capacity of the POTUS.

There is no difference in my mind between exorcisms and believing in Hindu gods, or between satan worship and the Presbyterian Church. I think I read somewhere that a majority of educated Icelanders believe in Faeries.

Whatever.

I don't think eliminating everyone but atheists and (even worse in my mind) hypocrites who choose a church on the basis of political expediency(read BHO at Trinity whatever) is going to result in finding a competitive and worthy candidate to champion conservatism.

453 RubyTuesday  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:14:28pm

re: #424 Killgore Trout
I'm sorry, then. I have friends who are gay. Without exception, every one of them has told me their lives are hard because of it. My "remedy" for it comes from my Christian beliefs but would not be embraced by them, so I shut up and love them.

454 Hobbes  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:14:49pm

re: #382 Killgore Trout

Agreed. That's my concern with Palin as well. I don't give a shit if she hates gays, most Christian do. But she crosses the line when she wants to amend the Constitution. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs but I don't want them forced on me.


Did she say she wanted to amend the Constitution?

455 Steffan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:15:08pm

re: #410 Sharmuta

Absolutely! It should be triggering red flags and warning bells. Hellooo?!

Maybe a poll is in order. The MSM likes Bobby Jindal. We should:

A) Think twice
B) Think it's our lucky day!
C) Run away!
D) Ron Paul

D.

:p

456 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:15:10pm

re: #381 maximoso

but hardly worthy of thrashing or promoting to the level this site advocates.

What a load of crap! He's the one getting the press right now, so if you have a problem with his promotion as much as any criticisms, perhaps you should take it up with the media who can't seem to get enough of this guy.

They are already starting again- trying to shape the field of play. The media just foisted one candidate on the electorate- are we really going to let them get away with another one? This one to our detriment as it will guarantee 4 more years of 0bama.

457 RubyTuesday  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:15:18pm

re: #442 Walter L. Newton
And you are so above it all. It sucks to be everyone but you.

458 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:15:22pm
459 OldLineTexan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:15:40pm

re: #446 Occasional Reader

Hear, hear!

I mean... you and what army?!

I have used voodoo to animate my large GI Joe collection. Watch your ankles and calves, unbeliever and infidels. Fear the dull edges and slightly point tips of their plastic bayonets.

/

460 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:15:48pm

re: #440 Wishing

What I mean is this: if an individual STATE decides to make some ruling, fine. If they dont choose to, fine as well. It doesn't belong in a federal court.

The problem is that it violates the constitution of the united states. States can not discriminate against blacks, jews, or gays.

461 Jamie  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:15:52pm

re: #405 AceR

For me it is simple. If a candidate goes the way of actively supporting a woman's "right" to choose vs. the baby's "right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed in our Constitution, then they will lose my vote.

And while I respect your right to this opinion, it is this very line of thought that has always made me allergic to the GOP base. I have little-to-nothing in common with those who would elevate the rights of a fetus to an equal or higher point than that of an actual human being.

On one hand, the Kos crowd that has, post-election, gone into "Ayers was misunderstood" or "Israel is responsible for the violence in the M.E." is a turn-off to me, to say the least. Equally noxious to me is social conservatism--abortion, creationism, gay rights, stem cells. On all these issues, the right is simply dead wrong, which makes most Republicans on my ballot (being in the South) very difficult, if not impossible for me to vote for.

462 gclaghorn  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:16:14pm

re: #444 Steffan

Not offhand. Might be your particular download. Try reinstalling it.

Thanks! Trying it now. Fingers crossed!

463 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:16:22pm

re: #454 Hobbes

Yes.

464 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:16:24pm

re: #370 Occasional Reader
Okay... you should run for office... because while all of us were thinking it, you gave it a voice. Kudos.
:)

465 Occasional Reader  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:16:31pm

re: #442 Walter L. Newton

Ha! Big difference, bucko, there's no orgasmic dancing in Catholicism!

466 wolfie  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:16:35pm

re: #349 jaunte

The MSM will fricassee any GOP candidate. And if the candidate were perfect, they'd make something up and repeat it over and over and over.
The question is not whether Giuliani cross-dressed, or Palin shot Bambi, or Bush had a drinking problem years ago, or Newt was a lousy husband, or Jindal was at an exorcism when he was in college, or whether Reagan believed in astrology.
The question is how the candidate will deal with the negative press and what he offers in a positive sense.
And the WHAT at this point is more important than the WHO.

467 MPH  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:16:39pm

This is who the press wants us to get behind -- a sure loser.

468 ArmyWife  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:16:46pm

re: #401 Salamantis

I don't believe he was perfect - no one is perfect. I DO believe people learn and grow from their mistakes. At the age of 17-20ish, I was very conservative, but felt abortion was a woman's "right". I know better now. That said, I still don't believe in absolutes - but I am a Socon. I am not a overly religious, though. I believe Reagan's message, including his imperfections, is what our party needs. We've been running on the fumes of Reagan's message, those fumes have run out. Someone needs to relight the fire, baby!

469 Racer X  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:17:09pm

Wingsuit insane

Angels!

470 Perplexed  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:17:11pm

'Night all. Long day of driving.

471 Bumr50  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:17:11pm

re: #396 Wishing

I don't think I saw that either. Was that in reference to gay marriage? That's a shame.

I personally think that we need to do away with separate tax brackets for married and singles.

472 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:17:12pm

re: #443 Gordon Marock

Walter, no need to explain yourself. It is not your comments that anger people, it's that f'ing hat!

Ok, now you've overstepped the line. I am going to give you the Evil Eye, as soon as I'm through poking the pins in my Gordon Marock voodoo doll and then I will send Oral Roberts Junior 100 dollars to pray for your soul. That'll teach ya.

473 razorbacker  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:17:43pm

It would be nice to have a conservative President of the United States, but the real problem is not the POTUS.

The problem is our elected represenatives and senators. And a cadre of lefty government employees.

Murtha? Re-elected.

Schumer? Safe seat.

Pelosi? Safe seat.

Franks? Safe seat.

Dodd? Safe seat.

McCain? Safe seat? We shall see.

Reid? Safe seat.

Kennedy? Only God has proven able to stop Teddy. Well, that and the fact that Oldsmobliles don't float.

MN came within a hair of electing a fourth rate comedian. He may still steal his seat.

Get elected to the Senate and you have a job for life. Almost the same for Represenatives.

What about our favorite Klansman? Safely re-elected even though he has to be led by his hand and instructed which way to vote.

We all complain about the rotten state of Congress, then go right on re-electing the very people responsible for the mess we find ourselves in.

We never learn.

474 RickJ  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:17:49pm

re: #282 Sharmuta

I was about to ding you up, then I read this:

Who is saying such things? Most of the scientists I've read have not, nor would not say such a thing- it would be unscientific for them to do so.

scientists? - I would hope they deal in what they know for the most part and don't venture too much into what they don't or can't know, but there are plenty of other opinion givers to be found. Often enough they make reaching assumptions beyond the limits of current knowledge.

Heres something else -

Evolution is a tough thing and I just see no upside to it. Essentially it means that there can be no hope for any individual beyond the current life. So when you stop breathing - thats it - you're done.

Human beings for the most part hate that whole idea. Thats why they hope for life extension developements and such ridiculous things as transferring their minds into futuristic computers at death.

Some even express "faith" that this will occur in current lifetimes. Crazy religion that one - but it does demonstrate to me that man is essentially a religious being.

475 Occasional Reader  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:17:59pm

re: #448 Rancher

Just throwing this out, but have you guys ever heard of Gary Johnson?

He opposes the War on Drugs, he opposed the Iraq War from the start, and was the only Republican Governor in 2000 to not endorse George W. Bush for President.

Lost me already. Sorry.

476 mich-again  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:18:01pm

re: #442 Walter L. Newton

I bet you cringe in disgust when you hear some superstitious fool tell an actor "Break a leg" for good luck.

477 NYCHardhat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:18:16pm

When in doubt, kill your tv.

478 Dr. Shalit  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:18:31pm

re: #5 Charles

Charles -

Look at it in another way. IF Gov. Jindal can get Louisiana straightened out - I wouldn't care if he were a "Reform Druid" - bowing to bushes rather than trees! If he, like JFK, could separate his personal beliefs from affairs of state - he can compete for my vote. He may NOT get it - AND - that is fine. My beliefs may seem quaint to some - AND - they are my beliefs.
Must they be the beliefs of others? No! - AND - I wish they were the Aspirations of those folks - AND - I am not Ha-Shem, AND can therefore Not Judge. That is all.

-S-

479 ziggyelman  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:18:36pm

re: #423 pingjockey

Can't. Then again, where was obambi in 2006? I do believe that if obambi was a white chicago hack pol he wouldn't have even sniffed the US Senate, let alone a run at the White House.

But recall how Obama was a guest speaker at the 2004 Dem convention...got a lot of press(big shock) who was the Republican like that this summer? Did Jindal even speak there?

Republican party is really weak right now. I'm hoping 2010 will give us some smart, fed up folks(Like many here-smart folks here, run dammit!) but, that is too late for 2012...someone HAS to be ready to start running in 2 years.

I like Palin a lot, and if she would be up against Hillary, I'd like her chances...against the Chosen one? No way in hell will she have a chance...

I forgot about Rudy, someone mentioned him above...but, he will be older, and further out of office...can he still run a serious campaign?

480 maximoso  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:18:49pm

" re:382

Agreed. That's my concern with Palin as well. I don't give a shit if she hates gays, most Christian do. But she crosses the line when she wants to amend the Constitution. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs but I don't want them forced on me. "

Never mind the fact that Palin actually has a " RECORD " to evaluate how she governs - and nothing in her " RECORD " shows any policy of her pushing her Personal beliefs of abortion forced on anyone. The Library Book censorship story was proven to be a " spin job " by the left to smear her as some Religious nutjob. Ranks right up there with Sarah Palin adopting her pregnant daughter's baby story in the ENQUIRER.

She's very strong Christian - believes in her faith - and unashamedly pro-life. She would love it if everybody agreed with her ( wouldn't we all wish everybody agreed with us on all issues ) but doesn't assume they do and doesn't use her office to push her personal religious beliefs on Alaskans. She's just not afraid to tell people who she is as a person.

Personally, I find that refreshing of a politician. Sure beats the heck out of pandering different messages to each group of voters - and revealing yourself to the public once ya win an election.

481 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:18:55pm

re: #457 RubyTuesday

And you are so above it all. It sucks to be everyone but you.

I am far from above anyone here. But, I do have my opinions. And it seems, at least tonight (and maybe lately) that you an I don't see quite the same on some issues.

But, it appears that your problem is you can't accept that simple fact, so you resort to snide comments, like above.

So what.

482 Desert Dog  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:19:05pm

re: #450 Killgore Trout

I think Gov. Jindal needs to come over your house...with a young priest and an old priest...

Secular humanists that all believed in god, no? The Enlightenment was not a rejection of religion either, it has just played out that way in the modern world.

I am not religious, btw. I have studied religions and find them fascinating, but I am a distant relative of Thomas, I need to see it to believe it. So far, I am a dyslexic agnostic, I just do not know if there is a dog.

483 Rancher  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:19:08pm

Exorcism, like prayer, can work if you believe. If faith can't produce miracles what the hell is the placebo effect that is figured into every clinical test of a drug?

484 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:19:20pm

re: #458 buzzsawmonkey

You seem to take that as proving something about "hating gays." Which, of course, it doesn't.


No, that's not what I'm going for at all. However, no matter how much churches preach against gays and homosexuality there's about a 10% chance that the person sitting next to you in church is gay. There's about a 10% chance that the preacher is gay and there's about a 10% chance that the politician who passes anti-gay laws is gay. There's no way around it.

485 jaunte  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:19:29pm

re: #466 wolfie

You make an important point there. Has Jindal yet dealt with a hostile press in regard to his religious beliefs and how they might affect his job performance?
I'm curious to know how he would respond to some ambush questions.

486 HoosierHoops  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:19:29pm

re: #472 Walter L. Newton

Ok, now you've overstepped the line. I am going to give you the Evil Eye, as soon as I'm through poking the pins in my Gordon Marock voodoo doll and then I will send Oral Roberts Junior 100 dollars to pray for your soul. That'll teach ya.

The Rev. Hoopster has a better deal for you at 50 bucks..Plus I'll sent you an autographed China Plate..
/

487 Dr. Shalit  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:19:51pm

re: #375 wolfie

There's too much emphasis on presidential politics. I'd like to see a bunch of people like Palin, Jindal, Giuliani, etc. run for the Senate on a fiscal sanity/reform/small govt platform and then try to shake things up when they get to Washington.
We need people in Congress who can articulate Reaganite values.

wolfie -

Good thought, let's see what things look like in late 2009/early 2010.

-S-

488 mich-again  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:19:53pm

re: #473 razorbacker

We all complain about the rotten state of Congress, then go right on re-electing the very people responsible for the mess we find ourselves in.

Americans hate everyone in Congress except for the incumbents they get to vote for.

489 AceR  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:19:59pm

re: #422 ziggyelman

I live in Maryland, and Michael Steele's race against Ben Cardin was a loser from the git. Maryland is a very blue state, thanks to Baltimore, Montgomery and P.G. counties. That was where the race for Steele was lost, but not in the more rural areas of Maryland, where there was a lot of support for him.

Michael Steele was the Lt. Gov. of Maryland under Bob Erhlich and he did a good job for Maryland. It's not as good as being a Governor or Senator, but it is something.

490 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:20:03pm

re: #473 razorbacker

Franks, safe seat?
That is, umm, up in the air.

491 Occasional Reader  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:20:06pm

re: #459 OldLineTexan

I have used voodoo to animate my large GI Joe collection. Watch your ankles and calves, unbeliever and infidels. Fear the dull edges and slightly point tips of their plastic bayonets.

/

Psssht. I've got Big Jim, with his patented Karate Chop.

492 legalpad  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:20:18pm

re: #353 ziggyelman

But, why didn't McCain win then? He WAS mr. Moderate, Mr Independent...and lost by what, 6 % points?

Exactly. Democrat lite = lose. That's why the media selects these people for us. Of course, that doesn't mean that any conservative platform will win.

493 Gordon Marock  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:20:39pm

Due to a sudden sharp pain in my back, I am signing off. goodnight all.

494 ArmyWife  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:20:47pm

re: #422 ziggyelman

He lost in a state that voted for Martin O'Malley as Governor. He was Lt. Governor under Ehrlich, and they did amazing things in their short tenure. Not that you could tell now.

495 Steffan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:20:55pm

re: #442 Walter L. Newton

And in Matthew Chapter 6 in the King James Version, repetitive prayer is a no-no.

496 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:21:19pm

re: #474 RickJ

You hold to the false dichotomy that evolution is atheistic. It's not.

497 JacksonTn  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:21:19pm

It does not matter who republicans put up in 2012 ...if the matter of voter fraud is not addressed and democrats continue to pit hispanics and blacks against all republicans ...you might as well pack it in ...they continue to try to define the republicans as the party of the "evil white man" ...if ACORN and other "organizing" groups are not investigated the outcome will continue to be the same ... and it will get worse if illegals are given amnesty ...they will be the next big voting block and if that happens you can kiss your republican chances goodbye ...Do you think the democrats will not run a hispanic ... they would just to get all the hispanic vote just like they did with a black this time ...and they will ask all blacks to vote for the hispanic candidate ...to keep the "evil white republican" out of office ...

If this sounds prejudice ...I don't mean it that way ...it is just that I believe the thirst for republican blood by the democrats (especially these radical left party heads) is beyond scary ...and I believe they will go to any lengths to keep their party (my old party) in office ...at any cost ...

498 Occasional Reader  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:21:35pm

re: #483 Rancher

Exorcism, like prayer, can work if you believe

That's a very different thing from fostering a belief in demonic possession.

No thanks.

499 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:21:40pm

re: #482 Desert Dog

Secular humanists that all believed in god, no? The Enlightenment was not a rejection of religion either, it has just played out that way in the modern world.


Yes, there is a strong tradition of religious humanism and Enlightenment was not a rejection of religion. We are in agreement.

500 OldLineTexan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:21:43pm

re: #491 Occasional Reader

Psssht. I've got Big Jim, with his patented Karate Chop.

8" squirt. I will just shove a couple pins in this Stretch Armstrong and

/BLAMMO

Uh, want some corn syrup?

501 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:21:51pm

re: #476 mich-again

I bet you cringe in disgust when you hear some superstitious fool tell an actor "Break a leg" for good luck.

And I bet you are grateful when you sneeze and someone say "God bless you." Of course, you know that no one has died from a sneeze, and that it's based on an old tradition, no more or less than the "break a leg" tradition. It's doesn't mean anything to me.

502 pingjockey  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:21:52pm

re: #479 ziggyelman
Good point. At the moment the right needs to get its house in order. Fiscal restraint, strong defense, personal resposibility. Get out and educate the electorate. Bush and McCain both get Fs for their education of the electorate of who they are, why we're doing this, etc...Abysmal performances.

503 ziggyelman  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:21:54pm

re: #478 Dr. Shalit

Charles -

Look at it in another way. IF Gov. Jindal can get Louisiana straightened out - I wouldn't care if he were a "Reform Druid" - bowing to bushes rather than trees! If he, like JFK, could separate his personal beliefs from affairs of state - he can compete for my vote. He may NOT get it - AND - that is fine. My beliefs may seem quaint to some - AND - they are my beliefs.
Must they be the beliefs of others? No! - AND - I wish they were the Aspirations of those folks - AND - I am not Ha-Shem, AND can therefore Not Judge. That is all.

-S-

Well said! I would have voted for Rudy in a new your second, in spite of him being pro choice...but, it sounds like a lot of people hear would rather see 8 years of Obama than Jindal or Palin, and that I just flat out don't get...

504 razorbacker  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:22:12pm

re: #490 tradewind

Franks, safe seat?
That is, umm, up in the air.

I hear that's the way he likes it. No skin off my behind.

505 FrogMarch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:22:21pm

re: #473 razorbacker

It would be nice to have a conservative President of the United States, but the real problem is not the POTUS.

The problem is our elected represenatives and senators. And a cadre of lefty government employees.

Murtha? Re-elected.

Schumer? Safe seat.

Pelosi? Safe seat.

Franks? Safe seat.

Dodd? Safe seat.

McCain? Safe seat? We shall see.

Reid? Safe seat.

Kennedy? Only God has proven able to stop Teddy. Well, that and the fact that Oldsmobliles don't float.

MN came within a hair of electing a fourth rate comedian. He may still steal his seat.

Get elected to the Senate and you have a job for life. Almost the same for Represenatives.

What about our favorite Klansman? Safely re-elected even though he has to be led by his hand and instructed which way to vote.

We all complain about the rotten state of Congress, then go right on re-electing the very people responsible for the mess we find ourselves in.

We never learn.

or - vote fraud.

506 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:22:47pm

re: #485 jaunte

Hey- this is just the set-up- we haven't even gotten to the wind-up yet. This pitch could be a doosey.

507 Dr. Shalit  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:23:02pm

re: #479 ziggyelman

But recall how Obama was a guest speaker at the 2004 Dem convention...got a lot of press(big shock) who was the Republican like that this summer? Did Jindal even speak there?

Republican party is really weak right now. I'm hoping 2010 will give us some smart, fed up folks(Like many here-smart folks here, run dammit!) but, that is too late for 2012...someone HAS to be ready to start running in 2 years.

I like Palin a lot, and if she would be up against Hillary, I'd like her chances...against the Chosen one? No way in hell will she have a chance...

I forgot about Rudy, someone mentioned him above...but, he will be older, and further out of office...can he still run a serious campaign?

"zig" -

I have - in the old (innocent) days. Today, I am too old with too many clanking bones in my closet to take a potential pay cut.

-S-

508 Occasional Reader  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:23:03pm

re: #484 Killgore Trout

IIRC that 10% figure is regarded as being, well, propaganda, and unrealistically high.

509 Desert Dog  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:23:05pm

re: #473 razorbacker

It would be nice to have a conservative President of the United States, but the real problem is not the POTUS.

The problem is our elected represenatives and senators. And a cadre of lefty government employees.

Murtha? Re-elected.

Schumer? Safe seat.

Pelosi? Safe seat.

Franks? Safe seat.

Dodd? Safe seat.

McCain? Safe seat? We shall see.

Reid? Safe seat.

Kennedy? Only God has proven able to stop Teddy. Well, that and the fact that Oldsmobliles don't float.

MN came within a hair of electing a fourth rate comedian. He may still steal his seat.

Get elected to the Senate and you have a job for life. Almost the same for Represenatives.

What about our favorite Klansman? Safely re-elected even though he has to be led by his hand and instructed which way to vote.

We all complain about the rotten state of Congress, then go right on re-electing the very people responsible for the mess we find ourselves in.

We never learn.

And, guess who decides the next congressional Apportionment in 2010? Would that be the Democrat controlled Legislature? UGH! I think the the lead guy in the House will be a guy named Gerry Mander.

510 Hobbes  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:23:21pm

re: #463 Killgore Trout

Yes.

I didn't know that. When was that?

511 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:23:33pm

re: #495 Steffan

And in Matthew Chapter 6 in the King James Version, repetitive prayer is a no-no.

I don't care. The Roman church does it. Memorized and by rote praying. You have a problem with the Catholic Church?

512 leslein  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:24:22pm

re: #179 Zimriel

Here's the context of Reagan's quote:

Place: Dallas, Texas
Date: August 22, 1980
Audience: 14,000 Protestant ministers
Question (paraphrased by Evans and Novak): What did he think of the theory of evolution?

Reagan's answer (direct quote):

"I have a great many questions about it. I think that recent discoveries down through the years have pointed up great flaws ... It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science and it is not yet believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was believed."

Source: Evans and Novak, The Reagan Revolution, page 213

Evans and Novak's summary of the MSM's reaction:

"The sixty-nine year old candidate was coming over like a buffoon from the past, insistent on fighting William Jennings Bryan's lost crusade." [Emphasis added]

Evans and Novak's opinion: "... a political masterstroke ... made clear he was one of them .. there was neither a militant opposition group nor a postelection demand for action." [Emphasis in original]

My vote: For Reagan in spite of his statement.

The situation in 2012 will be much different than in 1980, but I doubt if evolution will decide the election. It will be an up or down vote on Obama. But Reagan criticized evolution and proved to be no William Jennings Bryan. Jindal probably won't be a Ronald Reagan.

For those I dinged: I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.

513 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:24:41pm

re: #506 Sharmuta

Hey- this is just the set-up- we haven't even gotten to the wind-up yet. This pitch could be a doosey.

And you know what the pitch is going to be. It is evident from some of the questions present on this thread tonight.

514 BignJames  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:24:56pm

re: #508 Occasional Reader


I've read 2-3% is a more realistic figure.

515 RubyTuesday  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:25:01pm

re: #481 Walter L. Newton
Snide doesn't equal "so what"?
There are as many opinions here as there are subscribers. However, you are condescending, rude, and, for lack of a better word, broadbrushing. Most of us here are respectful of each other's views, and, in listening to each other, we become educated. This is a wonderful place to learn, who wants to be ridiculed in trying to learn?

516 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:25:04pm
517 TheMatrix31  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:25:44pm

re: #390 Gordon Marock

The bottom line is that the social conservatives have nowhere to go, despite their threats to boycott certain candidates. We need to force a rational, principled candidate on them who focuses on fiscal and national security issues in order to save the GOP. Let them threaten their boycott.

They have nowhere to go, but they could also stay home. Republicans lost this time even though we had the "moderate" candidate, "independent" candidate. While there were other factors at play of course, the Republicans didn't come out enough to vote for their guy and Obama got his people out.

518 Talon  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:26:06pm

So that's it then?

Any candidate that believes in a creator is unfit to be POTUS?

Any candidate that believes in offering BOTH sides of an issue is to be cast aside?

"Scientists" say that man is causing global warming. SCIENCE!

Following that logic...

Any candidate that is open to debate the man made global warming THEORY is the same as a candidate that is open to debate evolution THEORY?

Teaching BOTH sides (Evolution/Intelligent design) = stuffing creationism down our throats?

Here's a better idea. How about the "origin of life" issue be left OUT of school curriculum until one side can PROVE they are RIGHT?

Evolution has NOT been proven as a FACT. It is a THEORY. A theory being pushed as fact because there is a "consensus". Sound familiar?

WRT the R party...the repubs decided that they needed to run to the middle this last election. Now I hear "experts" crying that they need to be even MORE middle. EXCELLENT! You get your ass handed to you when you run "sorta" middle (John McCain should switch parties IMO) so...you try to go even further to the middle? When do you walk past "middle" and end up left of center? Where does "middle" stop?

And just because I want to end this post on a positive note, Ann Coulter and I ARE going to invade your town and convert ALL of you to Christianity. Resistance is futile...or something.

Carry on.

519 HoosierHoops  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:26:13pm

re: #512 leslein

Nice to see your post..Did you read mine towards you?

520 pingjockey  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:26:19pm

Night folks.

521 ziggyelman  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:26:31pm

re: #502 pingjockey

Good point. At the moment the right needs to get its house in order. Fiscal restraint, strong defense, personal resposibility. Get out and educate the electorate. Bush and McCain both get Fs for their education of the electorate of who they are, why we're doing this, etc...Abysmal performances.

Sounds like you get it, re: #507 Dr. Shalit

"zig" -

I have - in the old (innocent) days. Today, I am too old with too many clanking bones in my closet to take a potential pay cut.

-S-

Just run as a Dem then! Closets are not an issue for them! Run as the most liberal guy in the world, then do a 180 when in office! I have all sorts of good ideas! ;)

522 RickJ  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:26:48pm

re: #496 Sharmuta

You hold to the false dichotomy that evolution is atheistic. It's not.

interesting - well some feel that God created via evolution, but you are correct that I assume evolutionists to be atheists.

it's a lot easier for me if everybody just stays in their pigeon hole

523 The Shadow Do  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:27:00pm

re: #405 AceR

You said a lot there and quite passionately, however when you get down to it you can select any random Dem vs any random Repub and your choice is really pretty easy. This issue, while there, will not be the dividing line you believe it to be in a general election. Other issues and personalities will determine future results.

524 HoosierHoops  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:27:36pm

re: #520 pingjockey

Night folks.

Night Ping! Tired of the football game?
Kind regards

525 3 wood  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:27:47pm

In market news, the futures are point up slightly tonight, and the Nikkei and Hang Seng are getting hammered, probably as a response to the the DOW plummeting today.

The TED spread (measure of risk to lend to banks) is at 2.18 (normal range .50 to 1.00)

The VIX (volatility index) is at 68.51 (normal range is at 10 to 20).

Look for continued volatility in the market for at least another 6 weeks or so until Obama takes office. Then the MSM will be talking about how the market is turning around already.

I saw over the weekend where George Stefanopolous gave credit for last weeks market rise to Obama. But you watch, the drop today is due to Bush.

526 Racer X  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:27:55pm

re: #518 Talon

By your logic - is it OK to teach BOTH sides of sexuality (homo / hetro)?

527 ziggyelman  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:28:09pm

re: #502 pingjockey

Good point. At the moment the right needs to get its house in order. Fiscal restraint, strong defense, personal resposibility. Get out and educate the electorate. Bush and McCain both get Fs for their education of the electorate of who they are, why we're doing this, etc...Abysmal performances.

Sounds good to me. Just need to find the folks to do it...

528 lawhawk  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:28:14pm

re: #473 razorbacker

That's because "we" hate Congress, but love "our" Congressman. We like the guy who brings home the bacon, even as we decry porkbarrel spending for everyone else. It's not our guy who stinks, but the system and everyone else involved.

It's a problem as old as Congress (and parliamentary systems in general).

Of course, the we and our is generic but when you look at the fact that most politicians are elected to Congress time and time again in noncompetitive races and that perhaps 10% of seats are considered up for grabs at any one election, it's a sign that the majority in those districts like their guy, but love to hate Congress nonetheless.

529 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:28:22pm

re: #325 Thanos

It's always struck me as oddly humorous and depressing that the left is more forgiving of their moral sinners than the Christian right. Of course they look the other way for their crooks too...

Newt first married his teacher, who was more than a decade older than him. Then he divorced her in order to marry a student of his, who was more than a decade younger than him. He delivered the divorce papers to his wife in the hospital where she was undergoing treatment for breast cancer.

Some things I simply can't forgive.

530 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:28:30pm

re: #522 RickJ

Sticking me in a pigeon hole is a bad idea.

531 pingjockey  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:28:46pm

re: #524 HoosierHoops
Nah, not quite gone yet. Still haven't thawed out from being outside all day!

532 Steffan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:28:52pm

re: #459 OldLineTexan

I have used voodoo to animate my large GI Joe collection. Watch your ankles and calves, unbeliever and infidels. Fear the dull edges and slightly point tips of their plastic bayonets.

/

There was a news item on the radio today. It seems there is a large market in France for voodoo dolls of French president Nickolas Sarkozy.

A recent court ruling awarded Mr. Sarkozy one Euro and required a warning on the dolls: "Sticking pins in this doll will injure the dignity of Mr. Sarkozy."

Ummm... wasn't that the idea in the first place?

533 Aye Pod  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:29:16pm

re: #427 buzzsawmonkey

Given the number of preachers who have been later found to have a boy on the side, I'd say "love the sinner but hate the sin" gets a pretty good play.

the CATHOLIC BOAT!

534 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:29:29pm

re: #508 Occasional Reader

I'm not sure what the real figures are. All the polls are tainted o politically charged topics but I find the 5-10% figures very reasonable.

535 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:29:40pm

re: #484 Killgore Trout

Got a link for the 10%? I've always read 1-2%?

536 jaunte  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:29:42pm

re: #530 Sharmuta

Wouldn't be prudent.

537 HoosierHoops  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:29:44pm

re: #525 3 wood

You know 3wood..The market could drop to 1 tomorrow and it wouldn't surprise me.. The next day climbing to 12000 might freak me out..
:)

538 Desert Dog  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:30:08pm

re: #516 buzzsawmonkey

Allow me to remind you that the Bible--I am speaking of the Jewish Bible, usually called the "Old Testament"--nowhere condemns anything called "homosexuality." It condemns homosexual acts. Big difference; the former is a status, the latter is behavior. The Bible also condemns all heterosexual sex outside of marriage, though it records instances of people who have transgressed these prohibitions.

Some religious people have allowed themselves to become obsessed about homosexual behavior, even though homosexual acts are pretty small potatoes as far as Biblical condemnations go. On the other hand, a hell of a lot of non-religious people have also allowed themselves to become obsessed with homosexual behavior, making the unquestioning acceptance of it a litmus test which--to mix a metaphor--they want to cram down the throat of any religious person they come across.

Both positions are pretty silly.

Unless you happened to live in Sodom and Gomorrah...the Folsom Streets of the Bible, eh? What did the Gomorrahites do that was so bad, anyway? I think we can all figure out what made Sodom such a nice place.

539 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:30:11pm

re: #536 jaunte

Wouldn't be prudent.

Not at this juncture.

540 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:30:23pm

re: #533 Jimmah

Lol!

541 Occasional Reader  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:30:30pm

re: #516 buzzsawmonkey

It condemns homosexual acts.

You mean like "Anita Martini And Her Tribute to Judy Garland" at the TS Lounge?

542 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:30:33pm

re: #517 TheMatrix31

Out, and back from, and multiplied. The Dem fraud factor in my county is a given. There are so many dead voters that it's amazing they don't have a lobbyist in DC.

543 mich-again  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:30:54pm

re: #501 Walter L. Newton

It's doesn't mean anything to me.

I'll bet you have silently stood by while someone around you dropped that line. C'mon. "Break a leg" is practically a prayer to actors. Or the energy circle, or the gypsy robe. All silly superstitions/traditions.

544 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:30:54pm

re: #515 RubyTuesday

Snide doesn't equal "so what"?
There are as many opinions here as there are subscribers. However, you are condescending, rude, and, for lack of a better word, broadbrushing. Most of us here are respectful of each other's views, and, in listening to each other, we become educated. This is a wonderful place to learn, who wants to be ridiculed in trying to learn?

You are confusing ridiculed with my lack of belief of your god or religious views. You call it ridicule because I refuse to back down and try to paint a pretty picture of religion in general.

No, sorry. I don't believe in anything supernatural. And I have no problem with anyone who does have a belief.

But you do, that's why you call it ridicule, instead of just accepting my position.

545 Racer X  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:30:55pm

OK, this guy is just nuts!

No parachute!

546 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:31:58pm

re: #338 TheMatrix31

And the GOP can't win without appealing to the other end of their base, either. Not going one way or another with my opinion, I don't know yet. Just stating that you have to look out for your people first, then worry about moderates and independents.

1.8 million more socons voted for McCain in 08 than voted for Bush in 04. But 6.4 million LESS moderates voted for McCain in 08 than for Bush in 04. That's an electoral kiss of death, any way you slice it.

547 tradewind  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:32:03pm

re: #534 Killgore Trout

Way high. Unless you're going by geographic location, of course. You could get to the 50% point easily in a few coastal cities.

548 ornery elephant  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:32:25pm

re: #529 Salamantis

Newt first married his teacher, who was more than a decade older than him. Then he divorced her in order to marry a student of his, who was more than a decade younger than him. He delivered the divorce papers to his wife in the hospital where she was undergoing treatment for breast cancer.

Some things I simply can't forgive.

Sal, you outta cross-post this comment and the one earlier where you rip Reagan, over at Daily Kos - You might just set a record for updings in one day over there.

549 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:32:44pm
550 ArmyWife  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:32:55pm

re: #356 Walter L. Newton

How very mature of you. I expected better of you, somehow. Your posts have been fun and enlightening, even when I disagreed with you. I don't expect everyone to agree with me on all topics. In fact, I've disagreed with you on many things - but I've never resorted to being mean to you. It's unfortunate you find it not only OK, but humorous to be this way to me.

551 Last Mohican  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:33:04pm

re: #431 Drained Brain

Read what you've written. Substitute a word here and there and it would fit the rant of any religious zealot, which is of course my point.

No, while zealotry can be a feature of both religious proselytizing and scientific argument, there is a difference between religion and science. Religion is faith in that which cannot be proven. Science is understanding that results from empirical observation. Calling someone who understands evolution a "Darwinist zealot" is like calling someone who understands that atoms exist a "Bohrist zealot," or someone who knows that things fall because of gravity a "Newtonian zealot." And no matter what you call these people, things fall, atoms exist, and organisms evolve.

Bohr didn't know why atoms are built the way they are. Newton didn't know why gravity exists. Similarly, one can ascribe the evolution of life to an act of divine creation, if one so chooses. Indeed, to me the fact that the staggering beauty and complexity of all the world's life forms is driven by one simple governing principle embodies a mind-boggling elegance that suggests the work of a Divine Being. But I cannot prove that statement, so it lives in the realm of religion.

552 Occasional Reader  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:33:27pm

re: #530 Sharmuta

Sticking me in a pigeon hole is a bad idea.

"Nobody puts Baby in a pigeonhole!"

/Patrick Swayze voice

553 razorbacker  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:33:33pm

Gone to bed.

Tomorrow will be another day. Maybe better, maybe worse, but probably just the same old same old.

We've had the greatest nation ever devised in the history of the world handed to us on a silver platter.

Are we using it to best advantage? Are we trying to make it better?

Are those truths really still self evident?

Franklin was right. They gave us a represenative republic, if we can keep it.

554 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:33:54pm

re: #535 Thanos

No, I was just guessing.
Here's Gallup: What Percentage of the Population Is Gay?

While most expert estimates place America's homosexual population at 10% or less, Americans tend to guess that the number is higher, around 20%.

My point remains that a certain amount of the population is gay. The numbers are probably more or less the same in Saudi Arabia as Louisiana.

555 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:34:17pm

re: #511 Walter L. Newton

I don't care. The Roman church does it. Memorized and by rote praying. You have a problem with the Catholic Church?

It's not the only Chritian faith.

556 Desert Dog  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:34:25pm

re: #549 buzzsawmonkey

I do not have time to correct you in detail--I was going to sign off ages ago--but the Cities of the Plain were destroyed for their inhospitability to strangers, not because of homosexual behavior. The famous "bring them out that we may know them" is in the nature of a prison rape, i.e., dominance assertion, not "homosexuality."

Sorry.

Not as sorry as the Sodomites, they should have been more friendly, not that there's anything wrong with that.

557 FrogMarch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:34:47pm

re: #525 3 wood

In market news, the futures are point up slightly tonight, and the Nikkei and Hang Seng are getting hammered, probably as a response to the the DOW plummeting today.

The TED spread (measure of risk to lend to banks) is at 2.18 (normal range .50 to 1.00)

The VIX (volatility index) is at 68.51 (normal range is at 10 to 20).

Look for continued volatility in the market for at least another 6 weeks or so until Obama takes office. Then the MSM will be talking about how the market is turning around already.

I saw over the weekend where George Stefanopolous gave credit for last weeks market rise to Obama. But you watch, the drop today is due to Bush.

Interesting info.
The media won't report that right after Obama won the election, the market tanked. We don't need the media to tell us why.

558 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:34:59pm

re: #552 Occasional Reader

You got it, Big Guy.

559 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:35:06pm

re: #543 mich-again

I'll bet you have silently stood by while someone around you dropped that line. C'mon. "Break a leg" is practically a prayer to actors. Or the energy circle, or the gypsy robe. All silly superstitions/traditions.

Well of course I've silently stood by when someone drops that line. But if someone asked me "do you believe that saying that helps" or something to that matter, I would tell them just what I think.

This was an open discussion on Jindal and some of his beliefs, social conservatism versus fiscal conservatism and so on, so in this case, here tonight, I stated my views on religion in general, and some practices in particular.

That's all.

560 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:35:43pm

re: #529 Salamantis

Newt first married his teacher, who was more than a decade older than him. Then he divorced her in order to marry a student of his, who was more than a decade younger than him. He delivered the divorce papers to his wife in the hospital where she was undergoing treatment for breast cancer.

Some things I simply can't forgive.

One of the crudest, most bullying thing I've seen in my life.

561 Rancher  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:36:03pm

re: #475 Occasional Reader
The war on drugs is a failure and a huge waste of resources IMHO. Manage it as a problem but prohibition doesn't work, has destroyed countries like Mexico, and is funding gangs and other criminal organizations to our society's detriment. He has a libertarian approach to the war on drugs but I will admit it doesn't play well with most Americans. That said I was just throwing his name out there, not endorsing him, LOL. He as a matter of fact endorsed Ron Paul! :(
However he wasn't the only conservative to be against the war in Iraq early on, and many more like O'reilly came out against it later when the going got tough. What I loved about our former Governor was this:

Under Johnson's administration, New Mexico experienced the longest period without a tax-increase in the state’s entire history (8 years).

He cut the rate of government growth in half, left the New Mexico state government with a budget surplus and 1000 fewer employees (without firing anyone),

562 Hobbes  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:36:42pm

re: #560 MandyManners

One of the crudest, most bullying thing I've seen in my life.

My sentiments too.

563 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:36:46pm

re: #358 RubyTuesday

The Dems win because they tell people what they want to hear - the realization that they're liars comes too late. If the Lizard Nation is representative of Republicans in general, we're in big trouble. Finding a common platform that pleases everyone will be impossible, always has been. Accepting voters from many interests will go much further than exclusion. Most folks' personal beliefs don't even need to be discussed; it's the big issues that warrant our attention.

When some folks wanna dictate that their personal religious beliefs are taught as fact in public high school science class, it becomes a big issue - for me, and for a lot of other people.

564 notutopia  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:37:09pm

re: #314 ArmyWife

If we get anymore "liberal" socially, we might as well change our party to Democrat. My core concerns are government fiscal responsibility, reduced spending and taxation, maintaining our military strength to endure the obvious future wars, less governmental management of our democracy, and enforcement of the laws we currently have on the books regarding immigration.

565 Steffan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:37:59pm

re: #511 Walter L. Newton

I don't care. The Roman church does it. Memorized and by rote praying. You have a problem with the Catholic Church?

Nope. My aunt was Catholic... not that she was all that religious until she found out she had terminal cancer. She found her religion very fervently after hearing the diagnosis.

I don't happen to be Catholic, but I will not begrudge them their beliefs. Catholic funerals (I've been to more than one) can be very moving.

566 Occasional Reader  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:38:18pm

re: #529 Salamantis

... in order to marry a student of his, who was more than a decade younger than him

[cough] yes, ah, I utterly deplore that. [cough]

567 Desert Dog  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:38:24pm

re: #564 notutopia

If we get anymore "liberal" socially, we might as well change our party to Democrat. My core concerns are government fiscal responsibility, reduced spending and taxation, maintaining our military strength to endure the obvious future wars, less governmental management of our democracy, and enforcement of the laws we currently have on the books regarding immigration.

That is the message we have to hammer home. Not abortion or evolution or stem cells...

568 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:38:26pm

re: #555 MandyManners

It's not the only Chritian faith.

Mandy, I know that. I was addressing the other comment, not bring up a new issue. Many sects use rote prayers, and I have no problems with what. I have no problem or personal dislike of any religion (including Islam).

I have a differing opinion when those beliefs start to invade my space, my beliefs and my non beliefs.

569 RubyTuesday  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:38:31pm

re: #544 Walter L. Newton
Not just Christian beliefs. No matter what the topic, you look down your nose at those who don't meet your standards, as if that makes you somehow better. It's a general attitude of pomposity in all your posts.
If you don't believe in the God that I do, fine. But the belittlement of those with whom you don't agree is very unattractive.

570 Last Mohican  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:38:35pm

re: #347 mich-again

I never once got the impression from listening to John McCain speak that he really wanted the job.

Me too. Indeed I think it would be fair to say he refused to campaign for the job.

571 AceR  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:38:48pm

re: #461 Jamie

Thank you for your comments. I won't try to sway you to my side, you have obviously made up your mind. But I would like to tell you that I had an abortion in 1974 and it is a horrific practice that is dumbed down by liberals in general and Planned Parenthood specifically.

I had a choice back then. The choice was to have unprotected sex. The baby I carried at that time didn't get a choice. He had to live with the really bad choice that I made so that I wouldn't be inconvienced in my career. I can't undo what I did back then, but I can surely use my voice today to speak for those who cannot speak.

572 Aye Pod  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:39:34pm

re: #538 Desert Dog

Unless you happened to live in Sodom and Gomorrah...the Folsom Streets of the Bible, eh? What did the Gomorrahites do that was so bad, anyway? I think we can all figure out what made Sodom such a nice place.

I read that in the bible recently. Absolutely bizarre - if I remember right, it seems that two angels stayed overnight, and the entire town - every man woman and child - for that was God's justification for destroying the whole place - gathered outside and demanded to have sex with them. Seems just a tad far fetched!

573 ArmyWife  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:40:40pm

Night all. Enjoy the rest of your discussion.

574 NYCHardhat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:40:55pm

re: #529 Salamantis

Newt first married his teacher, who was more than a decade older than him. Then he divorced her in order to marry a student of his, who was more than a decade younger than him. He delivered the divorce papers to his wife in the hospital where she was undergoing treatment for breast cancer.

Some things I simply can't forgive.

Jesus. Its like he had ties to domestic terrorists, racists, and otherwise undesirables.

575 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:41:22pm

re: #562 Hobbes

My sentiments too.

I hope she took him to the cleaners.

576 Desert Dog  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:41:33pm

re: #574 NYCHardhat

He was not a community organizer

577 Dr. Shalit  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:42:09pm

re: #521 ziggyelman

"zig"-

Back in "the day" I ran as a "Progressive" - a/k/a - a Liberal that wanted to get elected. My major plank was expansion of the NJ Mortgage Authority to let every creditworthy family have a chance to buy a house. My platform was enacted under the "Republican" Administration of Christine Whitman, for which I will ever be grateful.

-S-

578 Last Mohican  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:42:14pm

re: #532 Steffan

A recent court ruling...required a warning on the dolls: "Sticking pins in this doll will injure the dignity of Mr. Sarkozy."

Seriously? I hadn't heard the part requiring the warning.

If that's true, then I doff my hat to the judge for his or her sheer, unmitigated snarkiness. That's about as snarky as it gets, judgewise.

579 Occasional Reader  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:42:24pm

re: #572 Jimmah

two angels stayed overnight, and the entire town - every man woman and child... gathered outside and demanded to have sex with them. Seems just a tad far fetched!

Depends on the angels.

580 HoosierHoops  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:42:29pm

re: #573 ArmyWife

Night all. Enjoy the rest of your discussion.

Night..Thank your Husband for me...
Your Family is about American hero's

581 Wishing  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:42:40pm

re: #460 Killgore Trout

The problem is that it violates the constitution of the united states. States can not discriminate against blacks, jews, or gays.


I think if the states choose to say that marriage is between a man and a woman, that is their right, not the feds. If gays want a similar deal, let them pick a different word and get the same thing. If however, a state does not choose to go that route, then that is kewl too. In ANY case, it is not a federal issue.

582 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:43:36pm

re: #554 Killgore Trout

No, I was just guessing.
Here's Gallup: What Percentage of the Population Is Gay?My point remains that a certain amount of the population is gay. The numbers are probably more or less the same in Saudi Arabia as Louisiana.

I'm not talking about the studies of "have you ever had a gay encounter", since a lot of heteros do experiment. I'm talking about people who are gay through and through for life. The studies are hard to determine here, but in European studies in countries where there is little to zero stigma the avowedly homosexual population comes in at the 1 to 4 percent range.

583 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:44:52pm

re: #369 ornery elephant

W


If you mean the GOP has to appeal to them by choosing pro-abortion, anti-religious stances, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage rights and immigration amnesty...then I guess I don't want to win that bad in 2012.

Pro-abortion applies to countries like China, which mandate it; pro-choice up until fetal viability is the sensible center stand, and the one that the majority of voters support. It is not an anti-religious stance to demand that religious dogmas not be taught in public high school science classes; it's pro-1st Amendment. Is it any more ethical to simply discard the embryos without using their stem cells to save other peoples' lives? Gay civil unions are a sensible center position; give equal treatment on spousal medical decisions, spousal inheritance rights, spousal employee benefits, and tax breaks, without relinquising the word. And on illegal immigration, the principled stand - to build the fence and deport illegals - was taken by candidates on neither side. Someone should try it.

584 RubyTuesday  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:45:04pm

re: #563 Salamantis
I wish I could give credit to the proper person who said above that it would only take half a day to explain the creation as part of origin, along with other theories, not proseletyzing. Mandating any religious stance puts us in the same class as the England that caused us to flee for a new land. Leave it up to the states, or to the school district to decide. I want to see fiscal conservatism, respect for life, and small government get our attention.

585 Racer X  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:45:30pm

First Man in Space - Skydiving From The Edge Of The World

Captain Joe Kittenger.

Dude has balls.

586 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:45:47pm

re: #581 Wishing

I think if the states choose to say that marriage is between a man and a woman, that is their right, not the feds.


How about if the states choose that marriage is only for Christians? Or whites? It's not going to hold up with the supremes.

587 Rancher  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:45:50pm

re: #572 Jimmah

Lot, respecting the practice of sheltering and protecting one's guests, offered up his virgin daughters instead. The crowd was having none of it. (Maybe because they weren't all that virginal?)

588 RickJ  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:46:24pm

re: #570 Last Mohican

Me too. Indeed I think it would be fair to say he refused to campaign for the job.

every US Presidential election I end up wondering - how can it be that these are the 2 best choices for this job - How is it possible in a nation of 300 million that the 2 final choices are so apparently flawed and average and boring and without much of a plan?

589 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:47:08pm

re: #582 Thanos

The numbers aren't really that important to me and I don't think it affects my point. Jews are only 1-2 percent of the population but that shouldn't affect their civil rights.

590 mich-again  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:47:21pm

re: #495 Steffan

And in Matthew Chapter 6 in the King James Version, repetitive prayer is a no-no.

But in Luke 18: 1-8, the same Bible says pretty much the opposite thing.

591 Steffan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:47:34pm

re: #518 Talon

So that's it then?

Any candidate that believes in a creator is unfit to be POTUS?

Any candidate that believes in offering BOTH sides of an issue is to be cast aside?

"Scientists" say that man is causing global warming. SCIENCE!

Following that logic...

Any candidate that is open to debate the man made global warming THEORY is the same as a candidate that is open to debate evolution THEORY?

Teaching BOTH sides (Evolution/Intelligent design) = stuffing creationism down our throats?

Here's a better idea. How about the "origin of life" issue be left OUT of school curriculum until one side can PROVE they are RIGHT?

Evolution has NOT been proven as a FACT. It is a THEORY. A theory being pushed as fact because there is a "consensus". Sound familiar?

WRT the R party...the repubs decided that they needed to run to the middle this last election. Now I hear "experts" crying that they need to be even MORE middle. EXCELLENT! You get your ass handed to you when you run "sorta" middle (John McCain should switch parties IMO) so...you try to go even further to the middle? When do you walk past "middle" and end up left of center? Where does "middle" stop?

And just because I want to end this post on a positive note, Ann Coulter and I ARE going to invade your town and convert ALL of you to Christianity. Resistance is futile...or something.

Carry on.

No.

The problem is teaching creationism in public schools.

That question was publicly aired in 1925, and creationism, eventually, lost.

Google "Scopes Monkey Trial."

Creationism is religion. Evolution, OTOH, has a growing base of knowledge.

It is not the place of public schools to teach religion -- that has been found to violate the First Amendment. Creationism is religion.

If parents want to teach this at home, or if they want to teach it in a religious setting (vacation Bible school, religious school, Sunday school, whatever), it's up to them. It is not for a publicly-funded school to teach religious beliefs.

592 Hobbes  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:47:45pm

re: #575 MandyManners

I hope she took him to the cleaners.

I don't know the follow up on his first wife. Is she ok now?

593 leslein  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:47:57pm

re: #519 HoosierHoops

Not until after I posted 512. It took me awhile to find the book with the exact quote.

I really wasn't expecting much hostility to down dings. When I'm not planning to spend a lot of time on a thread (ha!) I use the voting button to express my opinion. I'll be more careful. I don't do anything just to antagonize people (well ,hardly ever). My concern is that conservatives of all stripes have to be careful about attacking each other. There's a lot of nonsense on the left that more harmful (and more likely to get passed). Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Some more background on Reagan's speech. According to Evans and Novak, religious conservatives put Carter into office in 1976 and were a swing group in 1980. They were suspicious of Reagan because he signed legislation in California that had an unintended consequence of making abortion much more available. He was also suspected of being secretly sympathetic to homosexuals. That was one of the motivations for his Dallas speech.

594 Rancher  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:48:19pm

re: #588 RickJ

Because in the end they are chosen by a committee, a very large committee.

595 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:49:12pm

re: #592 Hobbes

I don't know the follow up on his first wife. Is she ok now?

I have no idea.

596 notutopia  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:49:12pm

re: #375 wolfie

Gee Wolfie, what a novel idea...you mean they'll actually work for us on the platform that got them elected into the offices of the senate to begin with?
Novel... but I like it!
heh
/

597 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:49:25pm

re: #594 Rancher

Because in the end they are chosen by a committee, a very large committee.

That committee is now under an msm propaganda attack.

598 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:50:22pm

re: #589 Killgore Trout

The numbers aren't really that important to me and I don't think it affects my point. Jews are only 1-2 percent of the population but that shouldn't affect their civil rights.

I'm not disagreeing, it's just that when I've been making arguments pro gay marriage I've been using the 1-3 percent of any population figure, want to make sure I"m staying factual when I speak.

599 avanti  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:50:30pm

Any chance we could get a fiscally conservative/socially liberal candidate ? I can't vote for the party that has to cater to the religious right and that faction scares the crap out of me. I don't begrudge their beliefs, just their need to try and force me to share them.
It started for me many years ago when they wanted my Playboy stored up high to protect the kiddies. That was reasonable, then they pushed it behind the counter where I had to ask for it, then got them tossed out of the store.
The same with TV, they want every show to be acceptable to a 8 year old. I would think a true conservative would want to stay out out of my bedroom and private life. If I chose as a adult to watch the Soprano's for example, I don't want the government to tell me it's too naughty.
I have to attend school meetings to keep the "God made little green apples " gang from screwing with my son's science class. If the party does not change direction, it will retain the over 50 vote and few others.
I guess I lean toward libertarian views, but that party has major issues too.

600 reine.de.tout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:50:36pm

re: #571 AceR

Thank you for your comments. I won't try to sway you to my side, you have obviously made up your mind. But I would like to tell you that I had an abortion in 1974 and it is a horrific practice that is dumbed down by liberals in general and Planned Parenthood specifically.

I had a choice back then. The choice was to have unprotected sex. The baby I carried at that time didn't get a choice. He had to live with the really bad choice that I made so that I wouldn't be inconvienced in my career. I can't undo what I did back then, but I can surely use my voice today to speak for those who cannot speak.

Wish I could give you 100 updings.

601 TheMatrix31  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:50:53pm

re: #591 Steffan

No.

The problem is teaching creationism in public schools.

That question was publicly aired in 1925, and creationism, eventually, lost.

Google "Scopes Monkey Trial."

Creationism is religion. Evolution, OTOH, has a growing base of knowledge.

It is not the place of public schools to teach religion -- that has been found to violate the First Amendment. Creationism is religion.

If parents want to teach this at home, or if they want to teach it in a religious setting (vacation Bible school, religious school, Sunday school, whatever), it's up to them. It is not for a publicly-funded school to teach religious beliefs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I have a crude understanding of all of this, but if it's been found to violate the First Amendment, then what exactly is there to be in an uproar about?

602 Hobbes  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:50:54pm

re: #595 MandyManners

I have no idea.

Let's hope she is and enjoying a wonderful life on his money!

603 mich-again  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:51:06pm

re: #495 Steffan

Where in Matthew 6 does it say anything resembling your point? I can't find that anywhere at all. You are making shit up.

604 Steffan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:51:15pm

re: #525 3 wood

In market news, the futures are point up slightly tonight, and the Nikkei and Hang Seng are getting hammered, probably as a response to the the DOW plummeting today.

The TED spread (measure of risk to lend to banks) is at 2.18 (normal range .50 to 1.00)

The VIX (volatility index) is at 68.51 (normal range is at 10 to 20).

Look for continued volatility in the market for at least another 6 weeks or so until Obama takes office. Then the MSM will be talking about how the market is turning around already.

I saw over the weekend where George Stefanopolous gave credit for last weeks market rise to Obama. But you watch, the drop today is due to Bush.

I saw a story (don't recall where, sorry) that the Dow drop today was because of the Chinese market tanking.

Apparently the Chinese market is tanking big time, and the Dow and Nikkei are reacting to that. There's some speculation that the yuan will also depreciate.

These are not good times to be playing the markets.

605 Desert Dog  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:51:18pm

OT

I will leave you all with an interesting page I "stumbled on":

Cost comparison of the Great Bailout of 2008

nite all

606 RickJ  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:51:22pm

re: #587 Rancher

Lot, respecting the practice of sheltering and protecting one's guests, offered up his virgin daughters instead. The crowd was having none of it. (Maybe because they weren't all that virginal?)

it could be that Lot said that in sarcasm because of their homosexuality. My guess is that he was trying to shock or simply condemn them by alluding indirectly to his view of their lifestyle. throwing it in their face if that were possible under the circumstance. just guessing

607 Aye Pod  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:51:47pm

re: #587 Rancher

Lot, respecting the practice of sheltering and protecting one's guests, offered up his virgin daughters instead. The crowd was having none of it. (Maybe because they weren't all that virginal?)

That too. There's just so much...er...sound moral teaching, I guess, in that story.

608 OldLineTexan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:52:03pm

re: #599 avanti

That's funny, because I have had to attend school board meetings to lessen the religious fervor of the "Sally Has Two Mommies" crowd.

609 TheMatrix31  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:52:38pm

re: #601 TheMatrix31

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I have a crude understanding of all of this, but if it's been found to violate the First Amendment, then what exactly is there to be in an uproar about?

By this I mean if it violates the First Amendment then its obviously ruled as Unconstitutional which means it's impossible to be put into practice or law.

610 HoosierHoops  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:53:40pm

re: #593 leslein

Ok Ok..I don't agree with the thing about Carter being elected..
But I really appreciate you stepping up to the plate and explaining yourself.
You are good people..best regards

611 sngnsgt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:53:40pm

re: #477 NYCHardhat

The s**w already did mine.

612 lawhawk  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:53:51pm

re: #588 RickJ

It's not the lesser of two evils, but the evil of two lessers.

613 mich-again  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:55:27pm

You want to read some really crazy nonsense, peruse through the Abiogenesis topic at Wikipedia.

614 Hobbes  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:55:40pm

re: #608 OldLineTexan

That's funny, because I have had to attend school board meetings to lessen the religious fervor of the "Sally Has Two Mommies" crowd.

Good grief!

615 legalpad  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:55:50pm

re: #585 Racer X

First Man in Space - Skydiving From The Edge Of The World

Captain Joe Kittenger.

Dude has balls.

Wow - This guy was living -

616 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:55:56pm

The "problem" with democracy and freedom is that freedom comes responsibilities. We don't teach that anymore. And we wonder why we're getting a Nanny State in it's place.

617 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:56:32pm

re: #433 Desert Dog

Ah yes, thank goodness for all the Voodoo the Founding Fathers brought with them from England! Yep, that Voodoo forged our cultural and social beliefs. I am very pleased that Voodoo ethics and morays are the norm here in the western world. I am not very religious, but I do give credit where credit is due, and our Judeo-Christian heritage is one of the main reasons the west came to dominate the globe. It was not Voodoo or Hindism or Wiccan that brought together the perfect union of personal responsibility and freewill that has made the western world thrive.

Don't give short shrift to the Greco-Roman values. And they were Pagans, too.

618 Steffan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:56:33pm

re: #601 TheMatrix31

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I have a crude understanding of all of this, but if it's been found to violate the First Amendment, then what exactly is there to be in an uproar about?

Google "Intelligent Design."

Charles has been pushing this point rather seriously in recent months. Rightly, IMNSHO.

Jindal signed it into law.

Intelligent Design = creationism.

619 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:56:38pm

re: #609 TheMatrix31

By this I mean if it violates the First Amendment then its obviously ruled as Unconstitutional which means it's impossible to be put into practice or law.

They keep trying to find ways to get around the law.

620 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:57:08pm

re: #603 mich-again

Where in Matthew 6 does it say anything resembling your point? I can't find that anywhere at all. You are making shit up.

He is not making this up...

"5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."

This passage is in reference to ritual praying and "babbling" like pagans with many words. It was typical of the Romans and the Greeks to have repetitive chants given to the gods, even having proxies praying for them in the temples.

This passage also speaks against the overtly public displays of piety, which was a Roman concept, a public display of how "religious" you were.

621 OldLineTexan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:57:42pm

re: #614 Hobbes

Good grief!

It could be worse...it could be "Appreciating Islamist Culture By Making Your Sister Wear a Burka and Walk Behind You Week" like I have seen reported here in the past. But that topic has never come up.

BTW, I am all for Sally and both her mommies at an appropriate age WITH parental buy-in. But not shoved down my throat by activists.

622 mich-again  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:58:10pm

re: #616 Sharmuta

The "problem" with democracy and freedom is that freedom comes responsibilities. We don't teach that anymore. And we wonder why we're getting a Nanny State in it's place.

Yep. It seems people want to live like wild boars but still be able to feed at the trough. But you can't have it both ways.

623 hermit  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:58:12pm

re: #616 Sharmuta

The "problem" with democracy and freedom is that freedom comes responsibilities. We don't teach that anymore. And we wonder why we're getting a Nanny State in it's place.

*ding*ding*ding* [+100 invisible Karma]

624 Rancher  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:58:34pm

re: #606 RickJ
Interesting take, puts Lot in a better light. Later his daughters get him drunk so he will have sex with them. And it works. :(

625 JacksonTn  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:58:46pm

re: #620 Walter L. Newton

He is not making this up...

"5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."

This passage is in reference to ritual praying and "babbling" like pagans with many words. It was typical of the Romans and the Greeks to have repetitive chants given to the gods, even having proxies praying for them in the temples.

This passage also speaks against the overtly public displays of piety, which was a Roman concept, a public display of how "religious" you were.

Walter ...just wondering ...are you saying that praying the rosary is babbling?

626 Steffan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:59:24pm

re: #599 avanti

Any chance we could get a fiscally conservative/socially liberal candidate ? I can't vote for the party that has to cater to the religious right and that faction scares the crap out of me. I don't begrudge their beliefs, just their need to try and force me to share them.
It started for me many years ago when they wanted my Playboy stored up high to protect the kiddies. That was reasonable, then they pushed it behind the counter where I had to ask for it, then got them tossed out of the store.
The same with TV, they want every show to be acceptable to a 8 year old. I would think a true conservative would want to stay out out of my bedroom and private life. If I chose as a adult to watch the Soprano's for example, I don't want the government to tell me it's too naughty.
I have to attend school meetings to keep the "God made little green apples " gang from screwing with my son's science class. If the party does not change direction, it will retain the over 50 vote and few others.
I guess I lean toward libertarian views, but that party has major issues too.

I think you're thinking of Rudy Giuliani. We know what happened to him.

627 TheMatrix31  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:59:34pm

re: #619 Sharmuta

They keep trying to find ways to get around the law.

Hmm, interesting. I obviously don't keep up with the religious/evolution/etc debates on LGF. Too much to handle. Religion is a deeply personal thing for me.

628 Bumr50  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 7:59:47pm

re: #599 avanti

I think that the "religious right" takes WAY too much heat, and while in some regions it's very real and holds political sway, just blaming the "religious right" allows you to paint with too broad of a brush.
I'm not saying you in particular, but I think that a lot of people use the term to slander Christianity in general without having be held accountable to anyone in particular.
There are zealots in every philosophy.
I also consider myself to hold libertarian principles.

629 wolfie  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:00:44pm

re: #596 notutopia

Hey, a girl can DREAM, can't she? :)

630 mich-again  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:01:35pm

re: #620 Walter L. Newton

Funny that you left out the part in that Chapter in which Jesus introduced the Lord's prayer as an example of prayer.

631 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:01:36pm

re: #627 TheMatrix31

Hmm, interesting. I obviously don't keep up with the religious/evolution/etc debates on LGF. Too much to handle. Religion is a deeply personal thing for me.

It's deeply personal for most people, which is why some of us don't appreciate it being foisted on our kids via public school science classrooms.

632 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:02:17pm

re: #625 JacksonTn

Walter ...just wondering ...are you saying that praying the rosary is babbling?

Yes, but I was trying to make a point, which as typical of long threads, the original thought that started something is long gone.

If I remember correctly, I was comparing voodoo chanting to repetitive prayer (as in the Roman church, the rosary). When I mentioned that, I was comparing on supernatural practice to another one, and my claim was that it's no different.

Of course, to some, it is different because saying the rosary is a "christian" practice and voodoo chanting is "pagan" praying.

I think it's all bunk, so I don't see any difference.

633 goodin510  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:02:18pm

unfortunately, exorcism (& transubstantiation) are official doctrine of the Catholic church. I'd put these on par with Creationism.

There's a reason why only one Catholic has won the presidency and none since.

634 Hobbes  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:02:32pm

re: #621 OldLineTexan

It could be worse...it could be "Appreciating Islamist Culture By Making Your Sister Wear a Burka and Walk Behind You Week" like I have seen reported here in the past. But that topic has never come up.

BTW, I am all for Sally and both her mommies at an appropriate age WITH parental buy-in. But not shoved down my throat by activists.

I guess I'm just a dinosaur, but I'd rather have that discussion at home.

635 rawmuse  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:02:56pm

re: #628 Bumr50

"Naming" a group allows you to dismiss them without bothering to counter their arguments. Thus the "Religious Right" becomes marginalized and not fit for polite company. That is the strategy.

636 OldLineTexan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:04:11pm

re: #634 Hobbes

I guess I'm just a dinosaur, but I'd rather have that discussion at home.

The South Park episode on teaching sex education at school perfectly sums up my attitude towards theat topic.

637 hermit  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:04:24pm

Hey Lizards - I'm down sick and have to go to bed. Fascinating read tonight.

Now, remember, nobody should go to bed angry...so use this if you need it

...otherwise, use this...

peace/shalom

638 mich-again  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:04:25pm

re: #633 goodin510

The Catholic Church does not teach creationism. The story in Genesis is not a substitute for scientific discovery.

639 Wishing  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:04:38pm

I am a bitter clinger, but creationism is a belief and shouldn't be taught as science, period. It is not.

640 Racer X  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:04:40pm

Para sailer get grabbed by a Boeing (unbeleivable accident))

Note to self: do not para sail near an airport.

641 Bumr50  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:04:47pm

re: #635 rawmuse

Group politics? Aaargh.

642 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:04:53pm

Do you even know what the bill states? It's NOT making the teaching of ID absolute, What it does, and I quote,

an open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the
origins of life, global warming, and human cloning
.re: #618 Steffan

Some may say this lets the camels nose under the tent, but thats a different argument. In this thread, people are trying to decide weather or not Jindal is a strict IDer. Singage of that bill does not make him one, IMHO

643 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:04:55pm

re: #468 ArmyWife

I don't believe he was perfect - no one is perfect. I DO believe people learn and grow from their mistakes. At the age of 17-20ish, I was very conservative, but felt abortion was a woman's "right". I know better now. That said, I still don't believe in absolutes - but I am a Socon. I am not a overly religious, though. I believe Reagan's message, including his imperfections, is what our party needs. We've been running on the fumes of Reagan's message, those fumes have run out. Someone needs to relight the fire, baby!

You may believe differently, but you can not 'know better' for anyone else. That intensely personal decision is for each individual woman to make for herself.

644 Hobbes  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:05:27pm

re: #636 OldLineTexan

The South Park episode on teaching sex education at school perfectly sums up my attitude towards theat topic.

Don't watch South Park.

645 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:05:28pm

re: #616 Sharmuta

The "problem" with democracy and freedom is that freedom comes responsibilities. We don't teach that anymore. And we wonder why we're getting a Nanny State in it's place.

Well said.

646 Wishing  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:05:39pm

re: #637 hermit

Hey Lizards - I'm down sick and have to go to bed. Fascinating read tonight.

Now, remember, nobody should go to bed angry...so use this if you need it

...otherwise, use this...

peace/shalom

Rofl! Great! Thanks for making me smile! Hope you feel better soon!

647 notutopia  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:05:48pm

re: #629 wolfie

Yes WE can. Unfortunately, unfavorable ratings alone haven't earned us very much toward holding them to their accountability to us. Voting for them is not enough it appears. Throwing money at them gets better outcomes.

648 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:06:11pm

re: #630 mich-again

Funny that you left out the part in that Chapter in which Jesus introduced the Lord's prayer as an example of prayer.

Well, that's because the Lords Prayer is an EXAMPLE of how to pray, not an actual prayer itself. Although it has been co-opted by most Christian sects as an actual, word for word, verbatim chant.

But Matthew 6 is not in any way suggesting that you pray in some sort of repetitive chant.

Matthew 6:9 says ""This, then, is how you should pray:" It is a step by step outline of what is proper prayer matters to bring before God.

649 Steffan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:06:23pm

re: #603 mich-again

Where in Matthew 6 does it say anything resembling your point? I can't find that anywhere at all. You are making shit up.

Matthew 6:7:

7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

11 Give us this day our daily bread.

12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
I don't make shit up.

650 OldLineTexan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:06:59pm

re: #644 Hobbes

Don't watch South Park.

Is that an order, or one of those (I) statements?

LOL.

651 maximoso  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:07:12pm

"re:390

The bottom line is that the social conservatives have nowhere to go, despite their threats to boycott certain candidates. We need to force a rational, principled candidate on them who focuses on fiscal and national security issues in order to save the GOP. Let them threaten their boycott."

That worked really well in 2006. Force voters to vote for somebody and expect them to support your guy. Last two times that was tried - we lost Congress and then the Presidency - when Republcans stayed home.

I don't vote social issues - I'm a fiscal / National Security / Capitalist / limited government onservative. But John McCain would not have gotten my vote if not for Sarah Palin on the ticket - and it had nothign to do with her position on Abortion. Do I want her to be my President in 2012 - possibly. I'll look at her in 4 years and make a choice. Meanwhile, I'll watch causally to see what she does to boast her resume and broaden her knowledge base on international issues.

I do however understand the alliance that social conservatism with the overall movement as in a party - and find it disturbing every time I see republicans trying to peel them off the party. Without social conservatives - there isn't a republican party unless you want them to be the " whigs "

652 rawmuse  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:07:14pm

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Enlightened Secular Humanists have declared a fiscal emergency.
Apparently, they are running out of OPM (other people's money).
When you are a Moral Relativist, there is no such thing as theft.

653 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:07:19pm

re: #633 goodin510

unfortunately, exorcism (& transubstantiation) are official doctrine of the Catholic church. I'd put these on par with Creationism.

There's a reason why only one Catholic has won the presidency and none since.

Yeah ,, too bad Nixon didn't bring out the EXORCISM card during his debate with Kennedy!

(feh!)

654 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:08:10pm

re: #644 Hobbes

Don't watch South Park.

I did until they started trashing Christ.

655 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:08:42pm

re: #633 goodin510

unfortunately, exorcism (& transubstantiation) are official doctrine of the Catholic church. I'd put these on par with Creationism.

There's a reason why only one Catholic has won the presidency and none since.

The Church accepts evolution.

656 FrogMarch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:09:30pm
657 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:09:33pm

re: #655 Sharmuta

The Church accepts evolution.

and VISA !

658 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:09:55pm

re: #630 mich-again

Funny that you left out the part in that Chapter in which Jesus introduced the Lord's prayer as an example of prayer.


You know, I would hope a Christian could explain this to you in a way that you would understand. It's funny that an atheist like me should be explaining very basic Christian doctrine to anyone.

659 OldLineTexan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:09:56pm

re: #654 MandyManners

I did until they started trashing Christ.

They trash most things fairly evenly. Satan's gay, etc.

660 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:10:06pm

re: #474 RickJ

scientists? - I would hope they deal in what they know for the most part and don't venture too much into what they don't or can't know, but there are plenty of other opinion givers to be found. Often enough they make reaching assumptions beyond the limits of current knowledge.

Actually, it's scientists' JOBS to reach beyond the limits of current knowledge, and by means of investigation and experiment, to expand those limits outward.

Heres something else -

Evolution is a tough thing and I just see no upside to it. Essentially it means that there can be no hope for any individual beyond the current life. So when you stop breathing - thats it - you're done.

Human beings for the most part hate that whole idea. Thats why they hope for life extension developements and such ridiculous things as transferring their minds into futuristic computers at death.

Some even express "faith" that this will occur in current lifetimes. Crazy religion that one - but it does demonstrate to me that man is essentially a religious being.

Understanding how life evolved and speciated on this planet cannot be a bad thing. Understanding is always preferable to ignorance.

661 Hobbes  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:10:25pm

re: #650 OldLineTexan

Is that an order, or one of those (I) statements?

LOL.

Pretty funny! Yep, it's one of those (I) statements. I'm sure I'll get down dinged cause I don't watch...but, what can I say, I'm just not hip.

662 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:11:33pm

re: #659 OldLineTexan

They trash most things fairly evenly. Satan's gay, etc.

Ummm...big difference when you trash Christ.

663 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:11:33pm

re: #651 maximoso

Since 1992 the GOP loses when it pisses off fiscal conservatives. I expect this trend to continue.

664 Rancher  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:11:35pm

Time to hit the hay. It's been an interesting nights discussion and I've enjoyed it. Thanks Lizards, next post will be Rustler's most likely.

665 mich-again  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:11:43pm

re: #648 Walter L. Newton

Well, that's because the Lords Prayer is an EXAMPLE of how to pray, not an actual prayer itself.


Really? It says this...

"This, then, is how you should pray:..

I can't find the part where it said it was just an EXAMPLE.

666 Bumr50  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:12:09pm

re: #657 sattv4u2

Salvation:priceless.

667 OldLineTexan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:12:17pm

re: #661 Hobbes

Pretty funny! Yep, it's one of those (I) statements. I'm sure I'll get down dinged cause I don't watch...but, what can I say, I'm just not hip.

I'm hip now?

/watch out for the Four Horsemen

668 J.D.  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:12:25pm

re: #656 FrogMarch

OT - CNN - what a worthless sack of shit for a news organization.

Now there's a news flash.
/

669 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:12:28pm

re: #478 Dr. Shalit

Charles -

Look at it in another way. IF Gov. Jindal can get Louisiana straightened out - I wouldn't care if he were a "Reform Druid" - bowing to bushes rather than trees! If he, like JFK, could separate his personal beliefs from affairs of state - he can compete for my vote. He may NOT get it - AND - that is fine. My beliefs may seem quaint to some - AND - they are my beliefs.
Must they be the beliefs of others? No! - AND - I wish they were the Aspirations of those folks - AND - I am not Ha-Shem, AND can therefore Not Judge. That is all.

-S-

Bur he HASN'T separated his personal beliefs from affairs of state. That's his problem. He DID sign the Disco-Institute-authored stealth creationism-in-public-education bill into state law.

670 FrogMarch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:12:55pm

re: #668 J.D.

I am captain obvious. ;-)

671 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:13:09pm

re: #666 Bumr50

Salvation:priceless.

and ,,, 10% rewards program (you get your angel wings with no shipping charges!)

672 OldLineTexan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:13:29pm

re: #662 MandyManners

Ummm...big difference when you trash Christ.

Well, do what people that get offended over Mohammed do...slap a fatwa on them. Frankly, and with all respect as a Christian, Christ is big enough to take it.

673 J.D.  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:13:39pm

When I was in New Orleans, even a couple of Democrat lawyers were complimenting Jindal.
I know nothing much about him...

674 mich-again  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:14:12pm

re: #649 Steffan

So the Lord's Prayer uttered by Jesus himself is a heathen vain repetition? Really.

675 J.D.  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:14:37pm

re: #670 FrogMarch

I am captain obvious. ;-)

;D

676 RememberSekhmet?  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:14:49pm

I don't give a flying frak about 2012 right now, considering 2009 hasn't even happened yet. 2012 may as well be 2112, or 2111112. We here on the right don't know yet if we will need to feed discontent among average voters who got caught up in the glitz and glamor, and weren't really looking for someone this far to the left. Maybe the big strategery will be to subtly encourage voters upset Obama didn't go far enough to the left to go kamikaze third party. Maybe some issue will crop up that we aren't even thinking about right now, that could truly realign the electorate.

Politicians can redeem themselves or step on their own metaphorical (or literal) dorks in four years. I don't see what all the all-fired hurry is to crown the nominee for 2012.

677 JacksonTn  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:14:49pm

In all my years of saying the rosary, I have never considered it "babbling" and it gives me great comfort. I understand many do not believe the way I do but I would never judge someone by the way they do or do not pray to their G-d as long as they are not harming another. I can also say that as a Catholic I have always believed in evolution and was not asked not to while attending Catholic schools. Maybe it was just my parish but my parents always believed in evolution also ...I don't see the problem with believing in G-d and evolution at the same time.

678 jaunte  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:14:54pm

re: #669 Salamantis

And this is why signing that bill calls Jindal's reputation for fiscal responsibility into question:

NCSE board member Barbara Forrest told the committee that even the amended version was too broadly written. “Anything could get into the classroom,” the AP reports her telling the committee.

That prospect worries the Baton Rouge Advocate’s editorial board, which wrote (May 21, 2008) that the bill will “provide a full-time living for dozens of lawyers in the American Civil Liberties Union. They will have a field day suing taxpayer-funded schools as groups use Nevers’ language to push Bible-based texts in the schools. That’s unconstitutional, and we can see the taxpayer paying — and paying, and paying — for this policy in the future.”

[Link: darwiniana.com...]

679 J.D.  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:15:01pm

Short night for me. Bye.

680 skywarner  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:15:27pm

OT breaking news from IBN in India...

"India demands Pakistan turn over Mumbai suspects or "face the consequences."

[Link: ibnlive.in.com...]

Ummm... This could (make that will) get real ugly, real fast.

681 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:15:55pm

re: #665 mich-again

I can't find the part where it said it was just an EXAMPLE.

Then I would ask that you look up some commentaries on that chapter in Matthew. (Chapter 9). There are scholars who will lay this out for you in much more detail than I can.

Much of what you read in scripture is not just dependent on the words you are reading. To fully understand the concepts, you need to know the social mores of the times, the cultural references being made, the anthropological insights and so on.

I was only trying to give you the basic concepts present in Matthew Chapter 9.

Unless you think that Steffan and I are just pulling this stuff out of our asses?

682 mich-again  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:15:57pm

re: #658 Walter L. Newton

It's funny that an atheist like me should be explaining very basic Christian doctrine to anyone.


You haven't explained anything. You are just dodging a stupid statement you made earlier.

683 Bulldog1967  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:16:07pm

I don't see this as a big issue. There a re FAR more pressing matters we need to address. And Jindal is right on almost all of them, imo.

684 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:16:28pm

re: #669 Salamantis

Bur he HASN'T separated his personal beliefs from affairs of state. That's his problem. He DID sign the Disco-Institute-authored stealth creationism-in-public-education bill into state law.

Name me one politician in the last 200 years that can/ has done that seperate their beleifs from the way the govern! Psycologically I would think it to be impossible

685 mich-again  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:17:27pm

re: #681 Walter L. Newton

There are scholars

Yeah. Scholars like you.

686 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:17:35pm

re: #683 Bulldog1967

I don't see this as a big issue. There a re FAR more pressing matters we need to address. And Jindal is right on almost all of them, imo.

Like "academic freedom"?

687 notutopia  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:17:57pm

t's funny that an atheist like me should be explaining very basic Christian doctrine to anyone.re: #658 Walter L. Newton

Not unusual at all. Most atheists I have known have studied both theology and life sciences thoroughly.
It is usually the combination of those that is the catalyst for the driving questions of conflict that they cannot quell in a logical mind or in their needs for belief of a God like entity.
: )

688 Bumr50  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:18:27pm

re: #677 JacksonTn

I don't either.
I often think that there is a concensus among activist atheists that sometime, somewhere there will be a young scientists who, at the apex of the most profound discovery in human history, will remember that it's the Feast of All Saints, drop everything, and get hit by a bus on the way to mass.

689 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:18:27pm

re: #672 OldLineTexan

Well, do what people that get offended over Mohammed do...slap a fatwa on them. Frankly, and with all respect as a Christian, Christ is big enough to take it.

Taking His name in vain? No. Can't go there.

690 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:18:38pm

re: #682 mich-again

You haven't explained anything. You are just dodging a stupid statement you made earlier.

Look, see my re: #681 Walter L. Newton
and spend a little time on your own reading up on Matthew Chapter 9. This is old news for anyone who has actually studied the bible in any sort of way more than a weekly reading in some church.

I'm not trying to get out of anything I said. You take it from here.

691 Wishing  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:19:13pm

re: #680 skywarner

OT breaking news from IBN in India...

"India demands Pakistan turn over Mumbai suspects or "face the consequences."

[Link: ibnlive.in.com...]

Ummm... This could (make that will) get real ugly, real fast.

I am sure the terrorist they caught coughed up a bunch of names, so India is following through. This might get very dicey.

692 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:19:15pm

re: #683 Bulldog1967

I don't see this as a big issue. There a re FAR more pressing matters we need to address. And Jindal is right on almost all of them, imo.

Where's your blog?

693 wolfie  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:19:18pm

re: #642 sattv4u2

IIRC, the bill passed with huge majorities in both houses.
It would have been politically foolish to veto it.

The bill has no statewide mandates. It just allows local districts to teach contrarian views on the subjects you listed.

The ACLU et al. in any case will be watching this like a hawk and ,if anything like ID/Creationism is inserted into the curriculum, they'll sue.
And that will end up costing the local district a pretty penny in what is bound to be a losing cause.
Lessons will be learned...at the taxpayers' expense, as usual.

694 jaunte  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:20:22pm

It's irresponsible for a Governor to invite his taxpayers at the school district level to engage in costly legal First Amendment fights that they are almost guaranteed to lose.

695 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:20:25pm

re: #685 mich-again

Yeah. Scholars like you.

1 [1-18] The sermon continues with a warning against doing good in order to be seen and gives three examples, almsgiving (Matthew 6:2-4), prayer (Matthew 6:5-15), and fasting (Matthew 6:16-18). In each, the conduct of the hypocrites (Matthew 6:2) is contrasted with that demanded of the disciples. The sayings about reward found here and elsewhere (Matthew 5:12, 46; 10:41-42) show that this is a genuine element of Christian moral exhortation. Possibly to underline the difference between the Christian idea of reward and that of the hypocrites, the evangelist uses two different Greek verbs to express the rewarding of the disciples and that of the hypocrites; in the latter case it is the verb apecho, a commercial term for giving a receipt for what has been paid in full (Matthew 6:2, 5, 16).

2 [2] The hypocrites: the scribes and Pharisees, see Matthew 23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29. The designation reflects an attitude resulting not only from the controversies at the time of Jesus' ministry but from the opposition between Pharisaic Judaism and the church of Matthew. They have received their reward: they desire praise and have received what they were looking for.

3 [7-15] Matthew inserts into his basic traditional material an expansion of the material on prayer that includes the model prayer, the "Our Father." That prayer is found in Luke 11:2-4 in a different context and in a different form.

4 [7] The example of what Christian prayer should be like contrasts it now not with the prayer of the hypocrites but with that of the pagans. Their babbling probably means their reciting a long list of divine names, hoping that one of them will force a response from the deity.

5 [9-13] Matthew's form of the "Our Father" follows the liturgical tradition of his church. Luke's less developed form also represents the liturgical tradition known to him, but it is probably closer than Matthew's to the original words of Jesus.

6 [9] Our Father in heaven: this invocation is found in many rabbinic prayers of the post-New Testament period. Hallowed be your name: though the "hallowing" of the divine name could be understood as reverence done to God by human praise and by obedience to his will, this is more probably a petition that God hallow his own name, i.e., that he manifest his glory by an act of power (cf Ezekiel 36:23), in this case, by the establishment of his kingdom in its fullness.

7 [10] Your kingdom come: this petition sets the tone of the prayer, and inclines the balance toward divine rather than human action in the petitions that immediately precede and follow it. Your will be done, on earth as in heaven: a petition that the divine purpose to establish the kingdom, a purpose present now in heaven, be executed on earth.

8 [11] Give us today our daily bread: the rare Greek word epiousios, here daily, occurs in the New Testament only here and in Luke 11:3. A single occurrence of the word outside of these texts and of literature dependent on them has been claimed, but the claim is highly doubtful. The word may mean daily or "future" (other meanings have also been proposed). The latter would conform better to the eschatological tone of the whole prayer. So understood, the petition would be for a speedy coming of the kingdom (today), which is often portrayed in both the Old Testament and the New under the image of a feast (Isaiah 25:6; Matthew 8:11; 22:1-10; Luke 13:29; 14:15-24).

The rest is here...

[Link: www.usccb.org...]

696 Bumr50  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:20:42pm

Goodnite all!

697 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:21:02pm

re: #694 jaunte

It's irresponsible for a Governor to invite his taxpayers at the school district level to engage in costly legal First Amendment fights that they are almost guaranteed to lose.

And can ill afford.

698 Hobbes  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:21:14pm

re: #654 MandyManners

I did until they started trashing Christ.

Guess I'm not missing much by not watching.

699 HelloDare  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:21:34pm

Jindal = Tanguska?

700 reine.de.tout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:21:59pm

re: #677 JacksonTn

In all my years of saying the rosary, I have never considered it "babbling" and it gives me great comfort. I understand many do not believe the way I do but I would never judge someone by the way they do or do not pray to their G-d as long as they are not harming another. I can also say that as a Catholic I have always believed in evolution and was not asked not to while attending Catholic schools. Maybe it was just my parish but my parents always believed in evolution also ...I don't see the problem with believing in G-d and evolution at the same time.

There is no problem with believing in God and also believing in evolution at the same time.

The theory of evolution (and in fact, all of science, and math, and all the rest of it) came about because people were using their God-given gifts of intelligence and curiosity to look at the world around them and try to figure it out.

My Catholic upbringing has led me to the conclusion that a failure for us to fully use God's gifts to us, including the gift of intelligence, the ability to think logically, is a sin against Him. People of faith who deny that which our God-given gift of intelligence tells us is true are turning their backs on God.

701 freetoken  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:22:01pm

re: #683 Bulldog1967

I don't see this as a big issue. There a re FAR more pressing matters we need to address. And Jindal is right on almost all of them, imo.

You are stating of course that Jindal's support for ID (directly or indirectly) is irrelevant to his future.

However, as evidenced by Charles' devotion to this topic, which is just one example of the storm brewing in the sea of discontent amongst Republicans and GOP sympathizers, candidates who try to pursue to pure of a conservative-religious agenda will get blow-back from the more independent (and liberty minded) electorate.

You cannot ignore that fundamentally, at the heart of the matter, Jindal's acquiescence to the ID crowd means that he ignored constitutional principals for either religious or political motivation. In my book that makes him suspect as a leader.

702 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:22:42pm

re: #693 wolfie

You are correct. It states that
The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon
request
of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators

703 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:22:45pm

re: #694 jaunte

It's irresponsible for a Governor to invite his taxpayers at the school district level to engage in costly legal First Amendment fights that they are almost guaranteed to lose.

And, just wait until CAIR tries to get Islam's version taught. You know it's gonna' happen.

704 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:22:56pm

re: #685 mich-again

Yeah. Scholars like you.

Christ saw it needful to show his disciples what must commonly be the matter and method of their prayer. Not that we are tied up to the use of this only, or of this always; yet, without doubt, it is very good to use it. It has much in a little; and it is used acceptably no further than it is used with understanding, and without being needlessly repeated. The petitions are six; the first three relate more expressly to God and his honour, the last three to our own concerns, both temporal and spiritual. This prayer teaches us to seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and that all other things shall be added. After the things of God's glory, kingdom, and will, we pray for the needful supports and comforts of this present life. Every word here has a lesson in it. We ask for bread; that teaches us sobriety and temperance: and we ask only for bread; not for what we do not need. We ask for our bread; that teaches us honesty and industry: we do not ask for the bread of others, nor the bread of deceit, Proverbs 20:17; nor the bread of idleness, Proverbs 31:27, but the bread honestly gotten. We ask for our daily bread; which teaches us constantly to depend upon Divine Providence. We beg of God to give it us; not sell it us, nor lend it us, but give it. The greatest of men must be beholden to the mercy of God for their daily bread. We pray, Give it to us. This teaches us a compassion for the poor. Also that we ought to pray with our families. We pray that God would give it us this day; which teaches us to renew the desires of our souls toward God, as the wants of our bodies are renewed. As the day comes we must pray to our heavenly Father, and reckon we could as well go a day without food, as without prayer. We are taught to hate and dread sin while we hope for mercy, to distrust ourselves, to rely on the providence and grace of God to keep us from it, to be prepared to resist the tempter, and not to become tempters of others. Here is a promise, If you forgive, your heavenly Father will also forgive. We must forgive, as we hope to be forgiven. Those who desire to find mercy with God, must show mercy to their brethren. Christ came into the world as the great Peace-maker, not only to reconcile us to God, but one to another.

See...

[Link: www.christnotes.org...]

705 maximoso  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:22:57pm

"1.8 million more socons voted for McCain in 08 than voted for Bush in 04. But 6.4 million LESS moderates voted for McCain in 08 than for Bush in 04. That's an electoral kiss of death, any way you slice it."

I dare you to restate what McCain's policies are. He had no platform - it was incoherent. McCain's policy may have been ok as he governed - but Obama was seen as a Tax cutter and McCain was jumping all over the place with his message. Until he found " Joe the Plumber ".

McCain was a terrible candidate any way you slice it. If moderate Democrat was elected - they would have cleaned McCain's clock. The only reason he didn't get clobbered was Palin rallied the conservative base to support him as much as they could support McCain. Without her - McCain had limited fund raising - no excitement - and no Base to get the ground game out. All that adds up to a LOSER as a candidate.

Right now - the REpublican party is VOID of leadership. Obama's term represents an opportunity for the Republicans to find tha tleadership and get back to their conservative roots or limited government, private property rights, strong national security, and promoting Liberty for the individual.

Bush's lead from the bunker mentality allowed the Left to define him - and the growth of the government added to that - and the American public wanted change. After a few years of Obama leadership - they'll be yearning for a Republican to save them. Voter Fraud / Amnesty / gov't subsidies / and a few other issues need to be overcome - and it's a difficult task - but i't's doable with the right stratgy.

706 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:23:17pm

re: #698 Hobbes

Guess I'm not missing much by not watching.

It's funny when they don't do it.

707 mich-again  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:23:19pm

re: #695 Walter L. Newton

Linking and pasting text dost not thou make thee a scholar.

708 jaunte  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:23:28pm

re: #697 Sharmuta

This is a direct waste of Louisiana public money, to make some people feel good.

709 HoosierHoops  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:23:42pm

re: #695 Walter L. Newton

Walter. You don't believe in God yet you quote the Bible?
I'm I on target? Or I'm still watching the game...
But you are quoting the Bible?

710 Sleepyone  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:23:45pm

re: #349 jaunte

I think it would be smart to carefully examine a candidate if the Washington Post was elevating them on the list of Republican leaders.
Especially when they're already winking at the word "evolving" in the story.

"Here, drink from this wine glass. This one right here."

"The chalice from the palace holds the brew that is true."

711 Steffan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:24:02pm

re: #640 Racer X

Para sailer get grabbed by a Boeing (unbeleivable accident))

Note to self: do not para sail near an airport.

He was a [censored] idiot to do that anywhere near an airport.

One trusts that he earned his Darwin Award.

712 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:24:42pm

re: #685 mich-again

Yeah. Scholars like you.

I'm not a scholar. Although I am probably more read in the Hebrew and Greek writings than most people. Now, go ye and look at thee commentaries that I spoke of and guided you to, my little one.

713 jaunte  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:25:00pm

re: #703 MandyManners

And, just wait until CAIR tries to get Islam's version taught. You know it's gonna' happen.

That's for sure. The teachers won't be able to just teach the creation story the majority of the kids are familiar with.

714 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:25:26pm

re: #711 Steffan

He was a [censored] idiot to do that anywhere near an airport.

One trusts that he earned his Darwin Award.

He would earn that award if he survived and parasailed there again.

715 avanti  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:25:40pm

A Thomas Jefferson quote sums it up for me:

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. "

The government should be just as neutral when it come to faith. Many kids in public schools say a silent prayer to their maker before a test,and that's just fine with me. What little I know about religion tells me God hears those prayers just fine. Now, make my kid join in a prayer or even sit through one in a public school and I have a problem. If you want to believe the sun rotates around the earth as the Bible teaches, fine and dandy, just don't make that part of a science class.
Desperate Housewives too racy for you, change the channel and so on. Live and let live. I'll go to hell for the company, you may choose heaven for the climate.

716 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:25:43pm

re: #709 HoosierHoops

Walter. You don't believe in God yet you quote the bible?
I'm I on target? Or I'm still watching the game...
But you are quoting the Bible?

And your point is?

717 jaunte  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:25:59pm

re: #710 Sleepyone

See, nowthat's why you're Sleepy.

718 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:26:14pm

re: #711 Steffan

He was a [censored] idiot to do that anywhere near an airport.

One trusts that he earned his Darwin Award.

AND ,,, he complained that the airline didn't get him there 'on time" !

719 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:26:15pm

re: #713 jaunte

That's for sure. The teachers won't be able to just teach the creation story the majority of the kids are familiar with.

Next thing they know, CAIR will demand the teaching of any other belief they have which challenges science.

720 mich-again  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:26:42pm

re: #708 jaunte

This is a direct waste of Louisiana public money, to make some people feel good.

Agreed. Creationist theories don't belong anywhere near a public school science classroom. Maybe in social studies, just to provide context, but never posing as science.

721 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:27:12pm

re: #709 HoosierHoops

Walter. You don't believe in God yet you quote the Bible?
I'm I on target? Or I'm still watching the game...
But you are quoting the Bible?

Consider it like a attorney. He argues a point of law for his clients benefit, even though he may have personal problems with his defense.

722 Hobbes  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:27:51pm

Good Night all!

723 Wishing  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:28:04pm

I think Jindal and Palin both bring MUCH to the republican party: they prove that you can be a minority and have a HUGE voice in the party. My hope is that other young people will catch their vision and 2010 gives us a few seats back, before the push for the WH in '12.
I must admit that I am just sick that Palin was pushing for a constitutional amendment re: marriage, though.

724 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:28:15pm

re: #707 mich-again

Linking and pasting text dost not thou make thee a scholar.

Please link me to any comment where I claimed to be a "scholar."

725 Steffan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:28:38pm

re: #674 mich-again

So the Lord's Prayer uttered by Jesus himself is a heathen vain repetition? Really.

Ummm... no.

Read the whole chapter, AKA "The Sermon On The Mount."

726 notutopia  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:28:49pm

re: #708 jaunte

Jaunte, It was their money that financially supported him into the office of Governor...
Louisianians don't view it as a waste of their money...
We outside of La. do though.

727 Sleepyone  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:28:51pm

re: #717 jaunte

See, nowthat's why you're Sleepy.

"The vessel with the pestle holds the pellet with the poison."

728 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:30:11pm

re: #727 Sleepyone

"The vessel with the pestle holds the pellet with the poison."

Sally Slit The Sheets With The Sharp Sheet Slitters

729 reine.de.tout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:30:39pm

re: #726 notutopia

Jaunte, It was their money that financially supported him into the office of Governor...
Louisianians don't view it as a waste of their money...
We outside of La. do though.

Well, and many of us inside of Louisiana do, too.

730 rawmuse  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:30:50pm

re: #728 sattv4u2

Sally Slit The Sheets With The Sharp Sheet Slitters

Dang, your drunk tests are hard!

731 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:31:16pm

re: #518 Talon

So that's it then?

Any candidate that believes in a creator is unfit to be POTUS?

Any candidate that believes in offering BOTH sides of an issue is to be cast aside?

Nope; just any candidate who wants to legislate the shoehorning of religious dogma into public high school science class.

"Scientists" say that man is causing global warming. SCIENCE!

Scientists are currently following the empirical evidence away from that conclusion.

Following that logic...

Any candidate that is open to debate the man made global warming THEORY is the same as a candidate that is open to debate evolution THEORY?

The two are not comparable. Global warming theory is bad science. Better science is now refuting it. Evolutionary theory is good science. Creationism isn't science at all.

Teaching BOTH sides (Evolution/Intelligent design) = stuffing creationism down our throats?

Empirically speaking there AREN'T two sides. Only evolutionary theory enjoys evidentian support, and it enjoys a century and a half of it.

Here's a better idea. How about the "origin of life" issue be left OUT of school curriculum until one side can PROVE they are RIGHT?

Evolution has NOT been proven as a FACT. It is a THEORY. A theory being pushed as fact because there is a "consensus". Sound familiar?

A theory in science is much stronger than the word implies in common parlance. And evolution is one of the strongest theories in science. Since science is empirical, it works within a statistical probability framework, using experimental data. 100% certainty that a theory is true is unobtainable in principle, besides which such a happening would foreclose the future for any further data being able to improve a theory. But some contentions, for instance the contention that the universe, the earth, and all species on it were created separately and as is within the span of 6 days a few thousand years ago, can be absolutely proven to be false.

WRT the R party...the repubs decided that they needed to run to the middle this last election. Now I hear "experts" crying that they need to be even MORE middle. EXCELLENT! You get your ass handed to you when you run "sorta" middle (John McCain should switch parties IMO) so...you try to go even further to the middle? When do you walk past "middle" and end up left of center? Where does "middle" stop?

Had McCain been a hard religious right rock ribbed socon, he would've done worse than McGovern.

And just because I want to end this post on a positive note, Ann Coulter and I ARE going to invade your town and convert ALL of you to Christianity. Resistance is futile...or something.

Carry on.

I'll struggle on somehow.

732 notutopia  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:31:30pm

re: #719 MandyManners

That's my major objection to this law he passed in La.
It's just an open door for more religious/ideology challenges.
We need to be vigilant that this is how Islam will enter into our school system...

733 jaunte  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:32:12pm

re: #726 notutopia

When the inevitable happens, they'll probably blame the ACLU for bringing the constitutional issues to everyone's attention.
It's a badly written, ill-conceived law, and Jindal is responsible for supporting it. The rest of the conservatives in the country who are being encouraged to see him as a future standard-bearer need to bear this in mind.

734 HoosierHoops  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:32:21pm

re: #716 Walter L. Newton

And your point is?

Oh..Walter.. I don't want to hurt you..But you don't believe in God?
Everybody I know believes in God.. In thier own way,,Heck I was raised a Catholic, My wife is a Jewish..my friends are everything..But I have never met anyone that deep inside doesn't think there is a God Somewhere..
I shouldn't post this..But..It's the 4th quarter Walter...getting sleepy friend

735 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:32:27pm

re: #727 Sleepyone

"The vessel with the pestle holds the pellet with the poison."

Rubber baby-buggy bumpers.

736 notutopia  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:32:39pm

re: #729 reine.de.tout

Thanxs. Amend ...Some Louisianians...
: )

737 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:33:04pm

re: #728 sattv4u2

Sally Slit The Sheets With The Sharp Sheet Slitters

I'm a fud-pucker. I fud pucks. I'm the fastest fud-pucker that ever fudded pucks.

738 Sleepyone  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:33:30pm

re: #727 Sleepyone

"The vessel with the pestle holds the pellet with the poison."

I couldn't resist quoting the great Danny Kaye from The Court Jester. His scene with the poisoned drink seemed appropriate for the post I was originally commenting on in #710. I'm sure Walter can recall many more lines from this movie than I can though.

739 swamprat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:34:05pm

re: #727 Sleepyone

"The vessel with the pestle holds the pellet with the poison."

But the flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true

740 mich-again  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:34:06pm

re: #724 Walter L. Newton

Please link me to any comment where I claimed to be a "scholar."

Ha. Post after post you brag about how enlightened and well read you are and then you top it off by playing Mickey the Dope. Bravo!

741 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:34:11pm

re: #732 notutopia

That's my major objection to this law he passed in La.
It's just an open door for more religious/ideology challenges.
We need to be vigilant that this is how Islam will enter into our school system...

What's to prevent them from demanding that Islamic history be taught alonside American history once this camel's nose gets far under the tent?

742 reesmatt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:34:48pm

re: #683 Bulldog1967

I don't see this as a big issue. There a re FAR more pressing matters we need to address. And Jindal is right on almost all of them, imo.

I agree with Bulldog1967. This is not a huge issue, and I fear that turning minor and solitary issues like this into litmus tests is the kind of misguided party orthodoxy that will narrow the tent and give birth to our own versions of the Kos Kids and Moveon, and allow them to thrive. If we're a strong enough party to accommodate pro-choice Libertarians alongside pro-life Republicans, and anti-tax foreign policy doves alongside anti-tax foreign policy hawks, then we can certainly accommodate those that support allowing creationism to be taught in schools alongside those that are opposed to it. And in the interest of intellectual consistency, if we oppose its teaching on the grounds that it's false and non-science based, there are a whole host of other topics taught in just about every public school that we ought to be, but aren't presently, opposing just as vigorously.

743 jaunte  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:35:05pm

re: #738 Sleepyone

Here's the scene:

744 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:35:08pm

re: #731 Salamantis

Nope; just any candidate who wants to legislate the shoehorning of religious dogma into public high school science class.

Read the bill. It doesn;t say that. [Link: www.legis.state.la.us...]

Scientists are currently following the empirical evidence away from that conclusion.

And that's what the bill does, actually. It states "to create and foster
an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

745 Silvergirl  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:35:11pm

re: #735 MandyManners

Rubber baby-buggy bumpers.

I know New York, I need New York. I know I need unique New York.

746 notutopia  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:35:14pm

re: #733 jaunte

I'm bearing...gnashing my teeth. He won't get support from me.
We have to keep searching.

747 wolfie  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:35:19pm

re: #729 reine.de.tout

Well, as a silver lining, it might make some people pay closer attention to what their local school boards are doing. Because it's going to be up to you local taxpayers to avoid cruising into lawsuit territory.

748 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:35:51pm

re: #734 HoosierHoops

Oh..Walter.. I don't want to hurt you..But you don't believe in God?
Everybody I know believes in God.. In thier own way,,Heck I was raised a Catholic, My wife is a Jewish..my friends are everything..But I have never met anyone that deep inside doesn't think there is a God Somewhere..
I shouldn't post this..But..It's the 4th quarter Walter...getting sleepy friend

You're not hurting me, and I have no bone to pick with you on this subject. And I don't have any argument with any religion, believers or detractors.

I do have some lines drawn in the sand when it comes to religion and politics, religion and science and religion and medicine, but those are my lines. I have my opinions, but I have no reason to force my opinions on anyone.

But, I will state my beliefs (or lack of beliefs) when asked, or when the topic lends to a discussion.

749 reine.de.tout  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:35:56pm

re: #747 wolfie

Well, as a silver lining, it might make some people pay closer attention to what their local school boards are doing. Because it's going to be up to you local taxpayers to avoid cruising into lawsuit territory.

You are absolutely correct.

750 Sleepyone  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:36:04pm

re: #738 Sleepyone

I couldn't resist quoting the great Danny Kaye from The Court Jester. His scene with the poisoned drink seemed appropriate for the post I was originally commenting on in #710. I'm sure Walter can recall many more lines from this movie than I can though.

I seem to have had too much brew myself. I got the quotes wrong. Here are the lines from the movie that I was trying to remember:

Hawkins: I've got it! I've got it! The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle; the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true! Right?
Griselda: Right. But there's been a change: they broke the chalice from the palace!
Hawkins: They *broke* the chalice from the palace?
Griselda: And replaced it with a flagon.
Hawkins: A flagon...?
Griselda: With the figure of a dragon.
Hawkins: Flagon with a dragon.
Griselda: Right.
Hawkins: But did you put the pellet with the poison in the vessel with the pestle?
Griselda: No! The pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon! The vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true!
Hawkins: The pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon; the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true.
Griselda: Just remember that.

751 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:36:17pm

re: #548 ornery elephant

Sal, you outta cross-post this comment and the one earlier where you rip Reagan, over at Daily Kos - You might just set a record for updings in one day over there.

Some people just have a hard time with uncomfortable truths. But facts are stubborn things - for everybody.

752 Sleepyone  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:36:30pm

re: #739 swamprat

But the flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true

Ha! Beat me to it.

753 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:36:33pm

re: #742 reesmatt

Where's your blog?

BTW, how will you like CAIR forcing their version of creation to be taught in public schools?

754 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:37:15pm

re: #745 Silvergirl

I know New York, I need New York. I know I need unique New York.

I've never heard of that one.

755 Sleepyone  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:37:15pm

re: #743 jaunte

Here's the scene:
[Link: www.youtube.com...]

Awesome! Thanks.

756 Steffan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:38:18pm

re: #715 avanti

That is the essence of the First Amendment.

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. "

"Congress shall make no law."

What your neighbor believes is between him and whatever deity he pays homage to.

It's not your business, and it's certainly not the business of the government.

In that, I agree with you 100%.

757 HoosierHoops  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:38:44pm

re: #748 Walter L. Newton

You're not hurting me, and I have no bone to pick with you on this subject. And I don't have any argument with any religion, believers or detractors.

I do have some lines drawn in the sand when it comes to religion and politics, religion and science and religion and medicine, but those are my lines. I have my opinions, but I have no reason to force my opinions on anyone.

But, I will state my beliefs (or lack of beliefs) when asked, or when the topic lends to a discussion.

See? you were talking politics and religion and I was was checking out Stats..
I agree with you about that... End of Game..Good Night Walter and all you awesome Lizards!

758 notutopia  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:38:48pm

re: #741 MandyManners

Right now this is limited to science. I would think it would have to be put to a legal test to allow it into history curriculum.

759 Aye Pod  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:39:07pm

Cartman sings The Body of Christ

Night all :D

760 wolfie  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:39:33pm

Now this is a sentence that from time to time actually has to be said...and I think it's a damned good reason never to be a sportcaster:

He threw three free throws.

761 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:39:56pm

re: #742 reesmatt

And in the interest of intellectual consistency, if we oppose its teaching on the grounds that it's false and non-science based, there are a whole host of other topics taught in just about every public school that we ought to be, but aren't presently, opposing just as vigorously.

Well, then it's only fair that we allow any and all bullshit into our classrooms, because if we don't stop all of it, we must allow all of it. I can't wait for revisionist history class- all the LGF posts on radical islam have given me a leg up on Holocaust denial. Hope I get an "A".

762 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:40:19pm

re: #758 notutopia

Right now this is limited to science. I would think it would have to be put to a legal test to allow it into history curriculum.

All I'm saying is that this is just the first test, and CAIR is watching it closely.

763 HoosierHoops  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:40:40pm

re: #760 wolfie

Now this is a sentence that from time to time actually has to be said...and I think it's a damned good reason never to be a sportcaster:

He threw three free throws.

Here Comes the Doctor!
excuse me? :)

764 Steffan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:40:55pm

re: #735 MandyManners

Rubber baby-buggy bumpers.

Captain who?

765 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:41:40pm

re: #764 Steffan

Captain who?

Captain Underpants!

766 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:42:50pm

re: #571 AceR

Thank you for your comments. I won't try to sway you to my side, you have obviously made up your mind. But I would like to tell you that I had an abortion in 1974 and it is a horrific practice that is dumbed down by liberals in general and Planned Parenthood specifically.

I had a choice back then. The choice was to have unprotected sex. The baby I carried at that time didn't get a choice. He had to live with the really bad choice that I made so that I wouldn't be inconvienced in my career. I can't undo what I did back then, but I can surely use my voice today to speak for those who cannot speak.

That is your retrospective opinion. Other women who have had abortions have their own retrospective opinions, and furthermore, whether their opinions agree with yours or not, theirs are no less valid for them than yours are for you.

767 lostlakehiker  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:43:05pm

re: #450 Killgore Trout

Of course not. It was secular humanism and Enlightenment philosophy that is responsible for our country and our constitution. In fact, those are the principles responsible for freedom wherever it is found.

As a more or less secular humanist raised Protestant, I'd have to say that actually the Catholic church was for a long time a leading factor in the runup to the "enlightenment". Rodney Stark's book "the victory of reason: how Christianity led to freedom, capitalism, and western success" makes a good case for the thesis of the title and subtitle.

As with a parent who raises a daring child, the parent may at some point insist on more control than is bearable to the child or warranted by the situation. The child-no-longer may chafe. Secular humanism has big achievements of its own, from the day when it split with the church and went its own way.

The ways of secular humanism and of christian philosophy are not opposites. Not at war. Different, and opposed on some points and some issues, granted. Pace all that, the commonalities are more important.

768 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:43:20pm

Hello Night Lizards! It snowed and produced a wind chill of 17 degrees in near Iowa today. It was almost Officially Cold.

I didn't pay attention to anything today. It was kinda nice.

How are you-all this evening and what are we talking about?

769 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:43:24pm

Hey y'all - sorry to be so late, but this computer is dying a very slow death and NO Best Buy did not call today to talk about (or from my perspective) negotiate a new computer - so I'm gonna get on their case tomorrow morning and stay on it until I either get satisfaction or the name of the in house legal counsel for Best Buy!
What have I missed so far?!

770 maximoso  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:44:11pm

"re: 723

I must admit that I am just sick that Palin was pushing for a constitutional amendment re: marriage, though. "

---

The constitutional ammendment issue for Marriage was created by activist liberal judges going against the will of the public's support. When Couple X was married in State X - they moved to state Y - and asked state Y to recognize them as legally married. It's a sticky topic forced upon American public by Activist liberal judges. IMHO - The gay community could get equal rights if they wanted to - and have the support of majority of Americans. But the gay activists want " Marriage " which runs counter to the majority of American citizenry.

If there is ever a constitutional Ammendment for " Gay Marriage " it requires 2/3 of both the house and senate. So if it's keeping you up at night - you might as well sleep peacefully. It won't happen unless the great majority of Americans support the ammendment.

771 mich-again  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:45:56pm

Had GWB not questioned the notion that science required embryonic stem cells many subsequent advances in medical science would not have been made. Low and behold it turns out that research doesn't require embryonic stem cells. I kind of wonder if the big push to use embryonic stem cells specifically wasn't just a political trick to control access to the valuable raw materials.

772 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:46:01pm

re: #768 ggt Hey ggt! "Hello Night Lizards! It snowed and produced a wind chill of 17 degrees in near Iowa today. It was almost Officially Cold." ?!?
Shoot, it's going down to 26 here tonight, not including wind chill and that is by damn COLD!

773 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:46:09pm

re: #770 maximoso

If there is ever a constitutional Ammendment for " Gay Marriage " it requires 2/3 of both the house and senate. So if it's keeping you up at night - you might as well sleep peacefully. It won't happen unless the great majority of Americans support the ammendment.

That's in addition to the 3/4 of the states needed to pass an amendment after the Congressional vote.

774 FrogMarch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:46:15pm

Oh so good. The take down of sock puppets and chalk sniffers at Law R us.

775 lostlakehiker  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:46:39pm

re: #484 Killgore Trout

No, that's not what I'm going for at all. However, no matter how much churches preach against gays and homosexuality there's about a 10% chance that the person sitting next to you in church is gay. There's about a 10% chance that the preacher is gay and there's about a 10% chance that the politician who passes anti-gay laws is gay. There's no way around it.

Those are phony numbers. The fraction of homosexuals in the general population is under 5%, and it hardly figures that gays are concentrated in the pews, and underrepresented among the non-churchgoers.

776 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:46:56pm

re: #584 RubyTuesday

I wish I could give credit to the proper person who said above that it would only take half a day to explain the creation as part of origin, along with other theories, not proseletyzing. Mandating any religious stance puts us in the same class as the England that caused us to flee for a new land. Leave it up to the states, or to the school district to decide. I want to see fiscal conservatism, respect for life, and small government get our attention.

Religious dogma does not belong in public high school science class. Period.

777 notutopia  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:47:32pm

re: #762 MandyManners

Mandy, I know. That is why I urged everyone to write an email letter to every county School Board of Education in the State of Texas. If we do not stay active and verbalize our dissent and stay on top of these attempts before they become enacted into the school systems, we will lose and so will our future generations.
CAIR is watching to see if we care enough to act.

778 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:48:31pm

re: #776 Salamantis
Ding, Ding, Ding - we have a winnah here folks.

779 legalpad  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:48:40pm

Well, I was going to say something about the futility of debating religion, much less The Bible. But I think I am too tired right now. I would just say that there are levels of belief, say maybe, emotional and intellectual, and often, they seem to function separately. Issac Newton for example, etc.

To talk about people's religious beliefs as if they are fools is not really an accurate picture. We are talking about emotions here. If you daydream, ever, if you are/were in love, if you have ever mourned - this is where religion is. It is not Calculus.

Yes, religious people are drawn into discussions in which they sometimes try to defend their feelings/views logically, with evidence, etc. But if their defense is lacking, it does not mean that religion does not have a rightful place in the world of emotions. And those emotions represent something. Just because we don't know, as in Physics, exactly what is represented, does not mean that we have proven that there it nothing to it. Meaning is self-defined within those possessing the property of mind. To say there isn't any meaning is logically ridiculous.

It is important to remember, most of the world has some religion, and those without it have not exactly impressed us with their intelligence or honesty, especially when they get in control.

I am not a Christian, but I love many Christians. I have been, and am, in love with a few of them, and I would do anything for them. I hate to see these profitless arguments between people that want too close to the same thing to be this divided.

Disclaimer: These statements are addressing ideas in general, not attempting to refute anyone's specific statements. Any resemblance to anyones statements is purely coincidental. Cut me some slack here. I'm really tired.

780 mich-again  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:50:31pm

re: #776 Salamantis

Religious dogma does not belong in public high school science class. Period.

I hope you are as passionate in that regard when your local high school shows Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" in science class. Or is pushing politics in science class less egregious an offense?

781 Steffan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:51:01pm

re: #765 MandyManners

Captain Underpants!

Captain Everything.

782 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:52:04pm

re: #777 notutopia
Hi there, um why is CAIR watching this closely? Do they have an interpretation of Creationism/ID that THEY want to push in the public schools too?

I'm against teaching religion - except maybe for a comparative religion or philospopy course - in Public Schools or for that matter in Publically Funded or partially funded colleges and Universities as any part of the science curriculum - but I didn't know that CAIR had an ID theory of their own that they want to push for.

783 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:52:04pm

re: #776 Salamantis

Religious dogma does not belong in public high school science class. Period.

re: #778 realwest

Here's the bill. Please cut and paste the part where it promotes "Religious Dogma"
[Link: www.legis.state.la.us...]

784 pottymouth1  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:53:31pm

Well maybe not Jindal in '12, but if the GOP needs to rally the NRA maybe Plaxico will do in a pinch.

785 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:54:46pm

re: #601 TheMatrix31

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I have a crude understanding of all of this, but if it's been found to violate the First Amendment, then what exactly is there to be in an uproar about?

They keep trying to circumvent it, bankrupting school districts through losing court battles in the process. That's not good for the kids.

786 Steffan  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:55:00pm

re: #768 ggt

Hello Night Lizards! It snowed and produced a wind chill of 17 degrees in near Iowa today. It was almost Officially Cold.

I didn't pay attention to anything today. It was kinda nice.

How are you-all this evening and what are we talking about?

According to the Weather Channel (www.weather.com), in Sunny Inland SoCal it's 55 degrees with 3 mph wind from the east and 69% humidity. A nice night, IOW. :p

787 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:55:21pm

re: #784 pottymouth1

Well maybe not Jindal in '12, but if the GOP needs to rally the NRA maybe Plaxico will do in a pinch.

I know you meant that as sarc and humor, but the NRA must be pissed at Plaxico on many fronts

bad publicity'
the fact that the NRA preaches gun safety
the fact that the NRA preaches proper registration

788 reesmatt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:55:25pm

re: #753 MandyManners

Well, they're already teaching their version of history, and we don't seem to be breaking down any doors to stop it. Is teaching "creation science" in the classroom wrongheaded? Yes. Is it silly? Yes. Is creationism something which, even if one believes it, can be taught in schools as science? I seriously doubt it. But is it dangerous? I'm sorry, but I just don't see any devious ulterior motives behind allowing creationism to be taught. I see it instead as a reflexive action against a government that for too long has protected and actively promoted an evangelical secularism as the state religion to the exclusion of all other religions. Although I am a Christian, I don't pretend to speak for those who support allowing creationism in school, as I'm personally not terribly jazzed about the idea of delegating to the public school system the task of teaching of religious concepts. However, I can certainly identify with the expression of frustration at a school system that nine times out of ten insists on teaching what most parents don't want taught (Columbus was evil, the Indians lived in a utopian paradise before the white man ruined everything, global warming is beyond debate) and then refuses to teach (in at least a few school districts, apparently) what they do want taught.

789 Clemente  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:55:26pm

re: #737 MandyManners

I'm a fud-pucker. I fud pucks. I'm the fastest fud-pucker that ever fudded pucks.

"He's not the fig-plucker nor the fig-plucker's son, but he can pluck figs til the fig-pluckin's done!"

790 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:56:40pm

re: #788 reesmatt

I'm sorry, but I just don't see any devious ulterior motives behind allowing creationism to be taught.

Gee- how about undermining the Constitution? Not "devious" enough for you?

791 Last Mohican  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:56:53pm

re: #680 skywarner

OT breaking news from IBN in India...

"India demands Pakistan turn over Mumbai suspects or "face the consequences."

[Link: ibnlive.in.com...]

Ummm... This could (make that will) get real ugly, real fast.

I almost skimmed right by your comment.

Is this a reliable source? If it's true that India is officially making demands of Pakistan, demands that Pakistan is not about to meet, then the situation really has hit the fan. This is a very big deal.

792 Fierce Guppy  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:57:05pm

re: #107 Gordon Marock

Why can't we just nominate Thomas Sowell and be done with it.

If only Thomas Sowell were a younger man. He will be 82 in 2012.

793 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:57:10pm

re: #782 realwest

Hi there, um why is CAIR watching this closely? Do they have an interpretation of Creationism/ID that THEY want to push in the public schools too?

I'm against teaching religion - except maybe for a comparative religion or philospopy course - in Public Schools or for that matter in Publically Funded or partially funded colleges and Universities as any part of the science curriculum - but I didn't know that CAIR had an ID theory of their own that they want to push for.

Islam has its own version of creationism, and the ID movement here is in cahoots with a Muslim from Turkey.

794 mcmeador  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:57:54pm

I remember in high school, I used to laugh at and be annoyed at students who complained about having to learn about evolution. In my ninth grade biology class, we had a choice in whether we studied the theory of evolution or intelligent design. But there was one student who even had to complain about that because they didn't believe in evolution and didn't think it should be taught. I thought it was so ignorant that someone would be offended by a theory, and I considered myself a Christian at the time as well.

As I have gotten older, I have become a bit indecisive about what I believe. It's just kind of up in the air. I don't identify myself as a Christian any longer, and find that I lean towards a view of life as something that naturally occurs when the conditions are right and that can evolve over time to become more complex. But I still find myself annoyed by the close-mindedness of others, and now it is applying to those railing against intelligent design. This site has seemed to take up a crusade against intelligent design, and this newest post seems to highlight the extremities to which it goes.

It's one thing to oppose teaching solely intelligent design as the theory of the origin of life. But to suggest that it is something horrible for it to be simply permitted to discuss it as an alternative to the theory of evolution is absurd. Even more ridiculous is to oppose the discussion of criticisms of the theory of evolution. After all, it is just a theory, much like the theory of global warming. And I'm sure most of the people on this site, including Charles, would not have a problem discussing the criticisms of that theory.

The fact of the matter is that we don't know how life began. Evolution is a theory. Intelligent design is a theory. Maybe intelligent design doesn't have scientific evidence to support it, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it. After all, the big bang theory states that the universe exploded into being out of practically nothing. The singularity from which our universe originated represented the breakdown of the theory of general relativity, meaning the theory couldn't apply to it. Could it not be possible that life exploded into being similarly, the "singularity" from which it exploded representing the breakdown of the theory of evolution? In both the theories of the origin of the universe and the origin of life, is it not possible that both were initiated by a supernatural force and that natural laws took over from there?

Anyway, I'm not trying to prove the validity of intelligent design nor the theory of evolution. All I'm saying is that we don't know what happened, so why not discuss both? They are the two prevailing views of life's origins, and there should be no reason to shut out either one.

795 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:58:06pm

re: #790 Sharmuta

Gee- how about undermining the Constitution? Not "devious" enough for you?

Have you read the bill? If so, can you point to the part that violates the Constitution?

If you haven't, here it is
[Link: www.legis.state.la.us...]

796 poopeedoo  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:58:12pm

re: #765 MandyManners

Captain Underpants!

Those books are SO funny. Diary of a Wimpy Kid books are also terrific.

797 Last Mohican  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:58:20pm

re: #737 MandyManners

I'm a fud-pucker. I fud pucks. I'm the fastest fud-pucker that ever fudded pucks.

Wouldn't a fudpucker be someone who pucks fuds, rather than someone who fuds pucks?

I'm just sayin'.

798 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:58:33pm

re: #788 reesmatt

There is no such thing as "creation science." Period. Full stop.

799 reesmatt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:59:38pm

re: #790 Sharmuta

Gee- how about undermining the Constitution? Not "devious" enough for you?

How is allowing creationism to be taught undermining the Constitution? And does it undermine the Constitution more than say, teaching that the Constitution is a "living, breathing, document", which is standard fare in every public school system?

800 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 8:59:52pm

Nighty-night, Lizards.

801 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:00:18pm

re: #799 reesmatt

How is allowing creationism to be taught undermining the Constitution? And does it undermine the Constitution more than say, teaching that the Constitution is a "living, breathing, document", which is standard fare in every public school system?

Have you ever heard of the First Amendment?

802 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:00:52pm

re: #794 mcmeador

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. It is neither testable, nor falsifiable according to the scientific method. If anything it is a philosophy. Either way- it's not science and shouldn't be taught in science class.

803 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:00:56pm

Might have to prop open my eyelids for a few minutes.

804 notutopia  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:01:51pm

re: #782 realwest

They don't that I know of other than Islam. They however support the interests of Islam. I would think since they have legal, ample financial funding, and lobbyists ready and available to assist in getting Islam into the public school system anyway they can. Jindal just opened the door a big crack for the attempt to do so.

805 JCM  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:03:00pm
"At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail."
"There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell."
"There is only our natural world."
"Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

Text of non-religious display sponsored by Freedom From Religion Foundation.

I don't really care if they get a solstice display in the rotunda in Olympia. Do they as part of the their non-celebration or is it celebration at this time of the year have to insult every religious person?

Based on their text my heart is softer than theirs, and my mind more open.

806 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:03:12pm

re: #799 reesmatt

I'm not falling for your deflections. We're not talking about what is taught in other classes- we're talking about science class and what is taught there.

But then perhaps if we improved our civics education, you would know how this violates the Constitution.

807 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:03:51pm

re: #684 sattv4u2

Name me one politician in the last 200 years that can/ has done that seperate their beleifs from the way the govern! Psycologically I would think it to be impossible

Sarah Palin. She has religiously conservative personal beliefs, but governs Alaska as a centrist libertarian.

808 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:04:14pm

re: #783 sattv4u2
I don't know how to cut and paste from a PDF document, but I do note that in lines 1 and 2 before the digest it talks of evolution,the origins of life,..."
Now what do YOU think they are talking about when they seperate evolution from the origins of life? And isn't the Disco Institute trying to do just that - promote creationsism/Intelligent Design, separate and apart from evolution?
And yes I know it talks about not promoting religion.
The Discovery Institute doesn't say that either but that they want Creationism/Intelligent Design as in "God" created the Universe and especially man and earth taught as "Science" is really undeniable.

809 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:05:20pm

re: #806 Sharmuta

I'm not falling for your deflections. We're not talking about what is taught in other classes- we're talking about science class and what is taught there.

But then perhaps if we improved our civics education, you would know how this violates the Constitution.

Zing!

810 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:05:56pm

I've ordered some things from Amazon.com's partners thru the LGF link, I hope Charles tip jar rattles from it.

811 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:06:42pm

re: #807 Salamantis

Sarah Palin. She has religiously conservative personal beliefs, but governs Alaska as a centrist libertarian.

I believe that scared the shit out of the Democrats and the MFM. They like to paint all conservative, religious people as some kind of nuts, and they really had to stretch to do that with her.

812 notutopia  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:07:22pm

re: #810 ggt

does a portion go in the tip jar if we use the LGF link? I order all the time from Amazon.

813 J.S.  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:07:28pm

re: #794 mcmeador

First, in a public high school, teachers have a finite time to teach a particular topic. Let's say in a public high school there is a chemistry course. Would you appreciate it if you discovered that instead of chemistry being taught a group of magicians had gotten together and insisted that Alchemy (the magical transformation of lead into gold) be taught alongside chemistry? Would you object or acquiese?

Again, time is limited (if time were infinitie and there were no time constraints and every student had the luxury of pursuing anything and everything, then, sure, bizarro topics could probably be pursued, and no one would object) -- but time is limited, and you can't have science courses corrupted by pseudoscientific notions.

814 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:08:25pm

re: #807 Salamantis

Sarah Palin. She has religiously conservative personal beliefs, but governs Alaska as a centrist libertarian.


Please show me a bill she singed that is diametrically opposed to her personal beleifs, not just some vague " governs Alaska as a centrist libertarian"
i.e., if a bill crossed her desk that stated that Alaska MUST pay for late term abortions, you REALLY REALLY beleive she wouldn't veto it

816 MandyManners  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:09:02pm

I'm outta' here.

817 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:09:05pm

re: #808 realwest
My point is is that it;s nowehere in the bill, either explicit nor implied

818 reesmatt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:09:18pm

re: #801 MandyManners

Yes, it goes something like this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The idea that the first amendment prohibits the teaching of any religious concepts, even in a public school, is one of recent origin and is the product of the "living, breathing" Constitution canard. If you're prepared to allow the "living, breathing" idea to govern what is and is not Constitutional, then be prepared for a whole host of things much more disturbing than the idea of creationism being taught in the public school classroom.

819 legalpad  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:09:56pm

re: #794 mcmeador

It would help if you looked into a science text and found out how the term Theory is used. It doesn't mean that we are just guessing. It doesn't mean that it is just another opinion. We may use the term in those senses when we speak of the "theory" of Intelligent Design. But that is very different from how science uses the term when applied to evolution, or gravity. Intelligent Design is an assertion based on the idea that if we don't know everything, then it is true by default.

820 Ojoe  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:10:54pm

re: #805 JCM

At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail."
"There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell."
"There is only our natural world."
"Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

Seldom have I seen such a moronic ignorance of human nature and history as that statement shows.

Good Night All.

821 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:11:05pm

re: #812 notutopia

That is the idea behind the Book Category of the Spin-off links. I don't know how it works, exactly, but I try to do all my Amazon purchases thru a link at LGF. I hope it works in Charles's favor.

822 freetoken  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:11:36pm

re: #794 mcmeador

After all, it is just a theory, much like the theory of global warming.


Sigh...

823 Ojoe  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:12:48pm

re: #791 Last Mohican

IMHO eventually this islam vs. everyone else will be full war; they are begging us to wipe them out.

824 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:12:50pm

re: #742 reesmatt

I agree with Bulldog1967. This is not a huge issue, and I fear that turning minor and solitary issues like this into litmus tests is the kind of misguided party orthodoxy that will narrow the tent and give birth to our own versions of the Kos Kids and Moveon, and allow them to thrive. If we're a strong enough party to accommodate pro-choice Libertarians alongside pro-life Republicans, and anti-tax foreign policy doves alongside anti-tax foreign policy hawks, then we can certainly accommodate those that support allowing creationism to be taught in schools alongside those that are opposed to it. And in the interest of intellectual consistency, if we oppose its teaching on the grounds that it's false and non-science based, there are a whole host of other topics taught in just about every public school that we ought to be, but aren't presently, opposing just as vigorously.

Either we violate the 1st Amendment by mandating the teaching of religious dogma in public high school science class, or we don't. There is no middle ground on this issue.

825 Ojoe  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:13:12pm

Good Night Again.

826 JCM  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:13:19pm

re: #813 J.S.

Now, now, I learned how to turn lead into gold.

Okay it was in upper level quantum chemistry nuclear physics class...
And any gold you got would cost a couple of orders of magnitude than just buying it.

/sorry could help myself.

You point is correct.

827 rawmuse  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:13:33pm

re: #715 avanti

A very good post. I hope to read more from you.
But, where in the Bible does it say that the sun revolves around the earth? I must have missed that Bible class.

828 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:13:37pm

re: #818 reesmatt

The idea that "my rights end when they intrude upon yours" is long established- if you fail to see how creationism violates this concept, there is not much more to discuss.

829 JCM  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:13:43pm

re: #825 Ojoe

Good Night Again.

Night Ojoe!

830 Last Mohican  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:14:00pm

re: #823 Ojoe

IMHO eventually this islam vs. everyone else will be full war; they are begging us to wipe them out.

Well, they are at least begging to wipe us out. They're leaving our response up to us.

831 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:14:00pm

re: #807 Salamantis
I honestly believe you could add ANY president from the last 200 years to the list of politicians who have indeed seperated their religious beliefs from the manner in which they governed the Nation.
Shit, the last time I remember this issue of politicians and their personal religious beliefs coming up was when JFK was running for (and winning) POTUS. And HE didn't allow his Catholicism to affect his manner in running the Nation.

832 itellu3times  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:14:29pm

0bambi is our president-elect, the stock market is blowing in the wind, islamic wack jobs are painting the town red, and there are only 24 shopping days before Christmas, so who has the time to worry about Bobby Jindal?

833 Lynn B.  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:14:55pm

re: #794 mcmeador

... I still find myself annoyed by the close-mindedness of others, and now it is applying to those railing against intelligent design. This site has seemed to take up a crusade against intelligent design, and this newest post seems to highlight the extremities to which it goes.

It's one thing to oppose teaching solely intelligent design as the theory of the origin of life. But to suggest that it is something horrible for it to be simply permitted to discuss it as an alternative to the theory of evolution is absurd. Even more ridiculous is to oppose the discussion of criticisms of the theory of evolution. After all, it is just a theory, much like the theory of global warming. And I'm sure most of the people on this site, including Charles, would not have a problem discussing the criticisms of that theory.

The fact of the matter is that we don't know how life began. Evolution is a theory. Intelligent design is a theory. Maybe intelligent design doesn't have scientific evidence to support it, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it. ...

Anyway, I'm not trying to prove the validity of intelligent design nor the theory of evolution. All I'm saying is that we don't know what happened, so why not discuss both? They are the two prevailing views of life's origins, and there should be no reason to shut out either one.

This site is on a crusade. Close-minded. Teach the controversy. Teach the strengths and weaknesses. Discuss the strengths and limitations. Just a theory. Free speech! We don't know what happened. ... rewind and start the tape again.

Do you people never get tired of repeating this drivel? There's a video up-thread, from just yesterday!, that solidly debunks and exposes every single one of these talking points.

Yes, I understand the whole point is to wear down the rational opposition, like water on a rock.

Good luck with that.

/oh, and for the billionth time ... evolution has nothing to do with "life's origins." [self-deleted]

834 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:15:21pm

re: #744 sattv4u2

Nope; just any candidate who wants to legislate the shoehorning of religious dogma into public high school science class.

Read the bill. It doesn;t say that. [Link: www.legis.state.la.us...]

Scientists are currently following the empirical evidence away from that conclusion.

And that's what the bill does, actually. It states "to create and foster
an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

And then creationist teachers buy 'supplemental materials' from the Disco Institute's pet presses and introduce them into public high school science classes. And then they get sued by the ACLU on separation of church and state grounds, and they lose. And the school districts end up footing the bills, and the kids lose.

835 notutopia  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:15:26pm

re: #825 Ojoe

Good Night Ojoe, pleasant dreams!

836 Dartmouth  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:16:14pm

"criticisms of Darwinian evolutionary concepts "

Is that supposed to mean telling students that God created us? Criticizing concepts that are little more than theoretical has been part of the scientific process for decades.

837 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:16:25pm

re: #820 Ojoe
Hey hi Ojoe and bye Ojoe! Thanks again for the photo!

838 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:16:47pm
839 avanti  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:17:00pm

re: #756 Steffan

That is the essence of the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law."

What your neighbor believes is between him and whatever deity he pays homage to.

It's not your business, and it's certainly not the business of the government.

In that, I agree with you 100%.


Great, we can have a honest discussion on this site. I was banned for less on some other right leaning sites when I posted my feeling about social issues. To be honest, I voted for both Reagan and Obama, so cut me some slack for the last vote. I was prepared to vote for McCain until he moved to the right socially. IMHO, he could lose the middle by so doing,but he'd lose the base by not shifting, a true Catch 22.

840 itellu3times  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:17:37pm

re: #826 JCM

Now, now, I learned how to turn lead into gold.

Okay it was in upper level quantum chemistry nuclear physics class...
And any gold you got would cost a couple of orders of magnitude than just buying it.

Might be cheaper someday.

Meanwhile, looks like they've figured out how to make up to kilogram-size perfect diamonds at about the price of silicon ingots, if they can just get DeBeers to stand down.

841 notutopia  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:17:44pm

Good night all !
: )

842 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:17:47pm

All of those who think they know what they are talking about regarding Creationism and Intelligent Design. Please take some time and look-up the actual definitions of these terms.

The "official" definition may not mean what it means to you.

Same goes for Darwinism, Evolution and Natural Selection.

843 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:18:44pm

Add to that: Empiricism.

844 reesmatt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:19:51pm

re: #824 Salamantis

And I simply do not see this as a violation of the 1st Amendment. As I've stated, the idea that the 1st Amendment prohibits any expression of religion, or even the teaching of religion, in a public setting, is of recent origin and is the product of the living, breathing Constitution canard. If we're trying to stamp out all forms of religion being taught in public schools, we may want to focus on Goreism (in the form of global warming) first, as that is arguably taught as religion, even if nobody calls it that.

845 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:20:09pm

re: #831 realwest

I honestly believe you could add ANY president from the last 200 years to the list of politicians who have indeed seperated their religious beliefs from the manner in which they governed the Nation.
Thats ludicrous on it's face! What makes one's convictions. What makes one's moral compass? For most it's their spiritual beleifs, weather that be a God, a Sun, a tree ,, etc. etc. On a daily basis YOU make decisions because of those beleifs. What makes you think anyone could put them aside just because they hold a title in government/

846 Catttt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:20:19pm

OT

Deepak Chopra - arrrghhh!

847 BlueCanuck  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:21:00pm

re: #840 itellu3times

I wonder how strong a "window" pane of that would be? I read that article too. Just imagine the industrial applications that could be done with that.

848 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:21:00pm

re: #780 mich-again

I hope you are as passionate in that regard when your local high school shows Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" in science class. Or is pushing politics in science class less egregious an offense?

I'm just as strongly against that, as well. I haven't heard of it happening in my Deep South school district.

849 JCM  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:21:32pm

Ted Turner is an ass...

...we're not prejudice against somebody who's worked at the FBI. It's an honorable place to work. And the KGB, I think, was an honorable place to work. And it, it gave people in the former Soviet Union, a communist country, an opportunity to do something important and worthwhile.

Ignorant maroon.

850 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:21:42pm

re: #846 Cattt

OT

Deepak Chopra - arrrghhh!


for his first name alone !

851 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:22:41pm

re: #844 reesmatt

It IS a violation of the First Amendment. You would have government schools teaching religion to students with tax payer money. If that's not establishing religion- what is?

852 reesmatt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:22:52pm

re: #828 Sharmuta

Yes, that's a familiar cultural reference which, because it sounds so perfectly reasonable, is frequently used to shut down any serious discourse on an issue, but it is found nowhere in the text of the Constitution.

853 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:23:12pm

re: #849 JCM

it gave people in the former Soviet Union, a communist country, an opportunity to do something important and worthwhile.

In todays world free market, there's a big demand for experienced thumb breakers !

854 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:24:10pm

re: #783 sattv4u2

re: #778 realwest

Here's the bill. Please cut and paste the part where it promotes "Religious Dogma"
[Link: www.legis.state.la.us...]

This analysis of the Jindal bill was written by Barbara Forrest, whose video on the Disco Institute Wedge strategy was recently the subject of an LGF post:

[Link: www.lasciencecoalition.org...]

855 Catttt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:24:19pm

Root causes! Root causes! Root causes! Root causes!

Arrrghhh!

Deepak wants to do a monologue.

856 itellu3times  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:25:22pm

re: #843 ggt

Add to that: The Structure of Scientific Theories.

First Sentence:
If any problem in the philosophy of science justifiably can be claimed the most central or important, it is that of the nature and structure of scientific theories, including the diverse roles theories play in the scientific enterprise.
Key Phrases - Statistically Improbable Phrases (SIPs):
independent observational control, only nonlogical terms, corrigible data, fruitful axiomatization, admissible experimental procedures, characteristic reasoning patterns, extensionless point masses, different disciplinary matrixes, independent semantic interpretation, radical new hypotheses, common disciplinary matrix, interfield theories, symbolic generalizations, partial observational interpretation, antecedent vocabulary, canonical reformulation, historically oriented philosopher, deep structural properties, initial vague idea, retroductive reasoning, idealized replicas, inclined plane systems, putative knowledge claims, conceptual variants, new disciplinary matrix
857 Catttt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:25:30pm

Root causes! Root causes!
Can I FINISH what I'm saying?
Root causes! Root causes!
Blah blah blah

858 JCM  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:26:28pm

re: #853 sattv4u2

it gave people in the former Soviet Union, a communist country, an opportunity to do something important and worthwhile.

In todays world free market, there's a big demand for experienced thumb breakers !

Maybe a stay in an authentic recreation of Lefortovo might help his clarity of thought. It is hard to recreate the climax; just after a prisoner is allowed to right a letter of appeal to the president, a guy in a doorway shoots them the the back of the head.

859 reesmatt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:26:38pm

re: #851 Sharmuta

At the time it (the first amendment) was written, it was clearly understood to prohibit the establishment of a state religion, not the expression or even teaching of general religious beliefs.

860 jaunte  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:26:42pm

re: #857 Cattt

"Can I FINISH?"
Deepak channeling Ross Perot?

861 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:26:43pm

re: #854 Salamantis

This analysis of the Jindal bill was written by Barbara Forrest, whose video on the Disco Institute Wedge strategy was recently the subject of an LGF post:

[Link: www.lasciencecoalition.org...]

I'll read it, but you didn;'t answer my question

862 itellu3times  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:27:30pm

re: #847 BlueCanuck

I wonder how strong a "window" pane of that would be? I read that article too. Just imagine the industrial applications that could be done with that.

Strong ... but flammable!

I've occassionally been told that GE knew how to make gem-quality diamonds for relatively cheap since the 1950s, but DeBeers bought them out.

863 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:27:44pm

re: #818 reesmatt Uh, excuse me counselor, but the language that states:
""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," applies here because schools funded with taxpayer money that teach religion as a science - and a very particular religion at that - literal Christianity - does violate that rule. It is the government using government money to teach and thereby promote a particular religion.

864 anti-looter  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:27:56pm

re: #7 jwpaine

Oh yes indeedy. If the GOP doesn't get that "social conservatism" out of its system, the fiscal conservatives are gonna find another party.

This is the best analysis, now all that is needed is a party.

865 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:28:06pm

re: #788 reesmatt

Well, they're already teaching their version of history, and we don't seem to be breaking down any doors to stop it. Is teaching "creation science" in the classroom wrongheaded? Yes. Is it silly? Yes. Is creationism something which, even if one believes it, can be taught in schools as science? I seriously doubt it. But is it dangerous? I'm sorry, but I just don't see any devious ulterior motives behind allowing creationism to be taught. I see it instead as a reflexive action against a government that for too long has protected and actively promoted an evangelical secularism as the state religion to the exclusion of all other religions. Although I am a Christian, I don't pretend to speak for those who support allowing creationism in school, as I'm personally not terribly jazzed about the idea of delegating to the public school system the task of teaching of religious concepts. However, I can certainly identify with the expression of frustration at a school system that nine times out of ten insists on teaching what most parents don't want taught (Columbus was evil, the Indians lived in a utopian paradise before the white man ruined everything, global warming is beyond debate) and then refuses to teach (in at least a few school districts, apparently) what they do want taught.

Teaching religious dogma in public school science class would result in kids choosing not to pursue bioscience in college, or else dropping out of it when they find it's not what they were taught in high school. This would cost the US future bioscientists, and ensure that more of the discoveries, innovations, and inventions in the field happen overseas, as well as the manufacturing of products based on such research. This would damage the US both economically and geopolitically.

866 jaunte  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:28:50pm

re: #859 reesmatt

There is nothing in the law to prevent plaintiffs of other religions from suing to have their beliefs included in the science class.
The school districts will lose, and the taxpayers will foot the bill.
The legal precedent has been set.
That's why it's a boneheaded political move for Jindal.

867 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:29:12pm

re: #852 reesmatt

Yes, that's a familiar cultural reference which, because it sounds so perfectly reasonable, is frequently used to shut down any serious discourse on an issue, but it is found nowhere in the text of the Constitution.

Fascinating- because I usually find it opens things up to more discourse to discuss individual rights. It's my right in this country to not have Biblical literalists trying to shove creationism on my kid in science class because I have the right to teach my kid what my religious beliefs are. I'll be damned if I allow anyone to take that away from me.

868 Lynn B.  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:30:35pm

re: #842 ggt

All of those who think they know what they are talking about regarding Creationism and Intelligent Design. Please take some time and look-up the actual definitions of these terms.

The "official" definition may not mean what it means to you.

Same goes for Darwinism, Evolution and Natural Selection.

They would also do well to take some time to study the actual meaning of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution instead of simply regurgitating, ad nauseum, simplistic misinterpretations of it that they read on a website somewhere.

869 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:31:07pm

re: #859 reesmatt

At the time it (the first amendment) was written, it was clearly understood to prohibit the establishment of a state religion, not the expression or even teaching of general religious beliefs.

Please show me where the First Amendment was intended to support creationist dogma as science to be promoted in science classes.

870 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:31:10pm

The creationists are really climbing out of the woodwork tonight.

871 reesmatt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:31:27pm

re: #865 Salamantis

I disagree. There are plenty of creationists out there who find neither conflict nor inconsistency between a belief in a literal creation and a passion for and belief in evolution and all forms of science.

872 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:32:10pm

re: #838 Iron Fist
I don't think there's any real arguement that Obama bought this election. None at all. And there will be no accountability as to whom he raised that money.
Public funding of Presidential Elections IS OVER. Period.

873 JCM  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:33:01pm

Hey! I've got a great idea!
Let's pollute to stop global warming!

Pumping sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, as volcanoes do, is the most well established way to block the sun. Other proposals call for brightening clouds over the oceans by lofting sea salt into the atmosphere and building a sunscreen in space.

Makes me question if we should be teaching our kids science.
only semi /

874 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:33:21pm

re: #869 Sharmuta

Please show me where the First Amendment was intended to support creationist dogma as science to be promoted in science classes.

right below the "Darwinian Clause" !

875 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:33:56pm

re: #854 Salamantis
Thank you.

876 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:34:18pm

re: #871 reesmatt

A creationist, by definition, rejects evolution. Look it up.

877 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:34:57pm

re: #873 JCM

Well, it's obvious, the UN need to hold a summit or two and figure out exactly how strongly they want to word the letters they need to send to these volacanos.

///

878 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:34:58pm

re: #870 Charles

The creationists are really climbing out of the woodwork tonight.

The wood was designed by an intelligent being so that it could be crawled out of.

Betcha didn't know that.

879 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:35:42pm

re: #876 Sharmuta

A creationist, by definition, rejects evolution. Look it up.

ummm,,, where!?!?!

880 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:36:18pm

re: #879 sattv4u2

It's called a dictionary. They even have some on teh internet.

881 Lynn B.  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:36:36pm

re: #871 reesmatt

I disagree. There are plenty of creationists out there who find neither conflict nor inconsistency between a belief in a literal creation and a passion for and belief in evolution and all forms of science.

Please see: #842 ggt

882 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:37:30pm

For all of those living in the Chicagoland area:

I have, right now, in my refridgerator a 1/2 gallon of Oberweis Egg Nog.

ummm!

883 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:38:20pm

re: #794 mcmeador

I remember in high school, I used to laugh at and be annoyed at students who complained about having to learn about evolution. In my ninth grade biology class, we had a choice in whether we studied the theory of evolution or intelligent design. But there was one student who even had to complain about that because they didn't believe in evolution and didn't think it should be taught. I thought it was so ignorant that someone would be offended by a theory, and I considered myself a Christian at the time as well.

As I have gotten older, I have become a bit indecisive about what I believe. It's just kind of up in the air. I don't identify myself as a Christian any longer, and find that I lean towards a view of life as something that naturally occurs when the conditions are right and that can evolve over time to become more complex. But I still find myself annoyed by the close-mindedness of others, and now it is applying to those railing against intelligent design. This site has seemed to take up a crusade against intelligent design, and this newest post seems to highlight the extremities to which it goes.

It's one thing to oppose teaching solely intelligent design as the theory of the origin of life. But to suggest that it is something horrible for it to be simply permitted to discuss it as an alternative to the theory of evolution is absurd. Even more ridiculous is to oppose the discussion of criticisms of the theory of evolution. After all, it is just a theory, much like the theory of global warming. And I'm sure most of the people on this site, including Charles, would not have a problem discussing the criticisms of that theory.

Global warming theory is bad science, which is now being corrected by empirical investigation. Evolutionary theory is good science, supported by a century and a half of empirical evidence. Creationism and it's Disco-Institute-named propaganda PR stepchild are not science at all, and have no empirical evidentiary support.

The fact of the matter is that we don't know how life began. Evolution is a theory. Intelligent design is a theory. Maybe intelligent design doesn't have scientific evidence to support it, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it. After all, the big bang theory states that the universe exploded into being out of practically nothing. The singularity from which our universe originated represented the breakdown of the theory of general relativity, meaning the theory couldn't apply to it. Could it not be possible that life exploded into being similarly, the "singularity" from which it exploded representing the breakdown of the theory of evolution? In both the theories of the origin of the universe and the origin of life, is it not possible that both were initiated by a supernatural force and that natural laws took over from there?

There is empirical evidence for the Big Bang. There is empirical evidence for evolutionary theory. Origins of life theory is a different field. ID is NOT a scientific theory. Scientific theories are much stronger than the word 'theory' implies in common parlance, and evolutionary theory is among the strongest theories in science.

Anyway, I'm not trying to prove the validity of intelligent design nor the theory of evolution. All I'm saying is that we don't know what happened, so why not discuss both? They are the two prevailing views of life's origins, and there should be no reason to shut out either one.

Because one of them, evolutionary theory, is science, based upon reams of empirical evidence, and the other, ID, is religious dogma, without an iota of empirical evidence support. Thus, the first one belongs in public school science class, and the second one doesn't.

884 mikeymom  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:39:32pm

OT--dont want to get in the middle here- just want to say thanks to all lizards who prayed for my sis-about a month ago she had a second stroke she was released from rehab today to go home-still needs out patient rehab but the outcome looks good- knowing i could count on prayers here meant a lot-- bless you all

885 avanti  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:40:11pm

re: #827 rawmuse

A very good post. I hope to read more from you.
But, where in the Bible does it say that the sun revolves around the earth? I must have missed that Bible class.

The Bible is a bit fuzzy on the a point, but the Catholic church
attacked both Galileo and Copernicus for stating the earth moved and made them recant. The Bible only suggests the Sun moving by saying God stopped it. Kinda like the Catholic church now accepting evolution after further review. I think they recently forgave the early astronomers for their heresy.

886 JCM  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:40:15pm

re: #877 ggt

Well, it's obvious, the UN need to hold a summit or two and figure out exactly how strongly they want to word the letters they need to send to these volacanos.

///

I wonder if any of those scientists sitting in that conference had the urge to stand up shout "are you off you fucking rocker!" And didn't out of fear, and how many would have cheered him if he did.

887 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:40:19pm

re: #799 reesmatt

How is allowing creationism to be taught undermining the Constitution? And does it undermine the Constitution more than say, teaching that the Constitution is a "living, breathing, document", which is standard fare in every public school system?

It violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

888 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:40:29pm

re: #876 Sharmuta

A creationist, by definition, rejects evolution. Look it up.

re: #880 Sharmuta

It's called a dictionary. They even have some on teh internet.

Okay ,, here's what Merriam/ Webster has to say

a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis

So show me where it states "by definition" that a creationist rejects evolution

889 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:41:03pm

We found-out when Charles first posted Creationism/ID as a thread topic that there are all kinds of misunderstandings regarding the definition of:

Fundamentalism.

I still believe a lack of common understanding of the terminology involved is a big part of this debate.

And for the record, P.J O'Rourke and I agree:

Evolution is Intelligent Design.

890 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:41:54pm

re: #884 mikeymom

Wonderful!

891 Catttt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:43:12pm

re: #879 sattv4u2

ummm,,, where!?!?!

Look it up in your Funk and Wagnalls.

892 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:43:25pm

re: #814 sattv4u2

Please show me a bill she singed that is diametrically opposed to her personal beleifs, not just some vague " governs Alaska as a centrist libertarian"
i.e., if a bill crossed her desk that stated that Alaska MUST pay for late term abortions, you REALLY REALLY beleive she wouldn't veto it

She vetoed a bill that would have stripped employee spousal benefits from the partners of gay workers.

893 reesmatt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:43:42pm

re: #869 Sharmuta

Forgive my imprecision--there are plenty of people who believe in a literal creation who also believe in evolution.

894 esch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:43:56pm

re: #891 Cattt

Look it up in your Funk and Wagnalls.

Boy did I read that wrong at first glance LOL.

895 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:44:53pm

re: #891 Cattt

Look it up in your Funk and Wagnalls.

Rowan and Martin!

896 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:44:58pm

re: #893 reesmatt

Right- evolution in 6000 years?

897 rawmuse  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:45:10pm

re: #885 avanti

Yes, I know about Galileo and Copernicus, but I don't recall reading any Scripture that justified their persecutions. So, that was a failing of Man, not Scripture IMHO.

898 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:45:13pm

I swear. I hate being the sexy cheerleader in the room with a bunch of football players.

Finally had to tell them, "Boyz! You ain't getting none! Go home!"

See y'all in the morning!

899 Catttt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:45:41pm

The Free Dictionary's definition:

Noun creationism - the literal belief in the account of Creation given in the Book of Genesis; creationism denies the theory of evolution of species doctrine

ism, philosophical system, philosophy, school of thought - a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school

creation science - an effort to give scientific support for the truth of the account of Creation given in the Book of Genesis

900 mikeymom  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:45:55pm

re: #894 esch

my parents had one- set can still se the tan and red binders--jeez im old

901 Catttt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:46:07pm

re: #894 esch

Boy did I read that wrong at first glance LOL.

You're young, aren't you. Admit it.

902 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:46:13pm

re: #876 Sharmuta

A creationist, by definition, rejects evolution. Look it up.

from ENCARTA

belief that God created universe: the belief that God created the universe

Still no mention of it rejecting evolution,,, but I'll keep lookin'

903 Last Mohican  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:46:16pm

re: #872 realwest

I don't think there's any real arguement that Obama bought this election. None at all. And there will be no accountability as to whom he raised that money.
Public funding of Presidential Elections IS OVER. Period.

Agreed. And so from now on, whoever has the most money wins the election. It'll be like the record industry -- a new act that's awful might require three dollars per unit sold in advertising expenditure, and a really great new act might require fifty cents per unit sold. But either way, the more you spend on advertising, the more you sell.

This has some implications. First, I think it precludes the possibility of an independent or third-party candidate being president in the foreseeable future, because such a candidate couldn't raise enough money to compete. Some of us say we'll walk away from the GOP in 2012 if the next nominee is a centrist "RINO" who isn't a "true conservative," whereas others threaten to break ranks if the next nominee is a member of the religious right who seems to socially conservative. Either way, whoever walks away will have nowhere else to go.

Second, and quite ominously, I think the fact that elections must be bought with overwhelming capital from now on tends to ensure that only the most extreme candidates will ever be nominated. Consider for example McCain, the textbook example of a centrist. An easy-going, down-to-earth man whose appeal was that his moral compass was sound, and his political beliefs were close enough to the center to be acceptable to almost everyone. I personally would like to see more candidates like that. But McCain got hammered, in large part because his moderate politics couldn't pry big money out of core Republican donors.

I'm afraid that, from now on, the Democratic nominee will be the farthest candidate to the left, and the Republican nominee will be the farthest to the right.

904 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:46:35pm

re: #818 reesmatt

Yes, it goes something like this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The idea that the first amendment prohibits the teaching of any religious concepts, even in a public school, is one of recent origin and is the product of the "living, breathing" Constitution canard. If you're prepared to allow the "living, breathing" idea to govern what is and is not Constitutional, then be prepared for a whole host of things much more disturbing than the idea of creationism being taught in the public school classroom.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that amendment, and I trust that what he said in his letter to the Danbury Baptists clarified his intent:

[Link: www.usconstitution.net...]

Pertinent excerpt:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

905 Catttt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:47:02pm

Thank God. Non-Deepak people on now. Anyone but Deepak.

906 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:47:12pm

re: #901 Cattt

You're young, aren't you. Admit it.

What equals "Lizard Years"?

907 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:47:38pm

re: #901 Cattt

You're young, aren't you. Admit it.

Looking back, it's amazing how far that show pushed the envelope

908 Last Mohican  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:48:03pm

re: #882 ggt

For all of those living in the Chicagoland area:

I have, right now, in my refridgerator a 1/2 gallon of Oberweis Egg Nog.

ummm!

Can you enlighten us non-native-Chicagoans? Is this particularly good stuff? And if so, where would a visitor to Chicago look for it?

909 reesmatt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:48:07pm

re: #896 Sharmuta

You seem to be painting everyone who believes in a literal creation with a very broad brush. There is a tremendous diversity of beliefs even among those who believe in a literal creation, even down to what a literal creation means.

910 Winslow  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:48:57pm

(Apologies to Pink Floyd)

The lunatics are on the thread.
The lunatics are on the thread.
This topic brings the lurking loonies to the fore,
And every registration day brings more.

911 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:49:51pm

re: #845 sattv4u2
That's the most asine comment you've ever made out here.
Where do you get that

What makes one's convictions. What makes one's moral compass? For most it's their spiritual beleifs, weather that be a God, a Sun, a tree ,, etc. etc. On a daily basis YOU make decisions because of those beleifs.

[emphasis realwest]
You place far, FAR too much emphasis on how a person is raised in a religious sense, with what that persons' values are and that is simply NOT true. Are you saying that Atheists and Agnostics don't have a moral compass? That they don't have personal values?
Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that even people who have strong religious beliefs don't recognize when those religious beliefs are in conflict with the way the Government should be run?
Name one President who has allowed his religious beliefs to affect how he runs the United States.

912 mikeymom  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:50:16pm

re: #905 Cattt

im new to the dicussion about dee-shit--but hubby axwd me earlier tonight-who is this guy? i said--a friend of oprah--hubby said--gotya--bullshit central

913 WrathofG-d  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:50:38pm

The group think, and anti intellectualism on these threads gets to be a bit of a bore.

Why am I on this thread then do you ask? Good question.

You gotta love someone that cheers that the debate is over, refuses an opposing opinion, and brandishes everyone they disagree with on this topic as "anti-intellectual".

Doesn't feel like there is much intellectual thought with the closed minded from where I sit.

914 esch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:51:01pm

re: #901 Cattt

That would depend on who you ask, now wouldn't it. Going on 40.

915 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:52:19pm

re: #836 Dartmouth

"criticisms of Darwinian evolutionary concepts "

Is that supposed to mean telling students that God created us? Criticizing concepts that are little more than theoretical has been part of the scientific process for decades.

ALL concepts of empirical science are theoretical. And, contra to your 'little more than' phraseology, theories in science are quantums stronger than the term implies in common discourse. ID has fielded no credible criticisms of evolutionary theory, nor does it offer any alternative theories that explain any of the observed phenomena.

916 Haverwilde  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:52:40pm

Anti-intellectual religion is the achilles heel of social conservatism. It will kill the candidacy of any one who is vocal in support of anti-scientific and adherence to mythological thinking. (The theory of evolution has moved a long way since Darwin. To criticize Darwin is like criticizing Capernicus or Einstein because they didn't get it all correct. Interesting but only for a short aside from the main themes.)
If Jindal want my support, he is going to have to repudiate that science education act.

917 Catttt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:54:09pm

re: #907 sattv4u2

Looking back, it's amazing how far that show pushed the envelope

Sock it to me, baby. :D

918 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:54:43pm

Right now the "toolbox" is over Viedma, Rio Negro. (in case you are wondering)

919 Catttt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:54:48pm

I hate Skeletor the Pig.

920 Catttt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:55:01pm

I like John Kasich.

921 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:55:11pm

re: #917 Cattt

Jolsen? Again?

922 Catttt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:55:21pm

I declare this thread Cattt's thread.

923 mikeymom  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:55:32pm

re: #917 Cattt

wanna see my walnettos?

924 JCM  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:55:43pm

re: #918 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Right now the "toolbox" is over Viedma, Rio Negro. (in case you are wondering)

It's 9:55PM PST, do you know where your toolbox is?

925 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:55:45pm

re: #911 realwest

That's the most asine comment you've ever made out here.
Where do you get that


[emphasis realwest]
You place far, FAR too much emphasis on how a person is raised in a religious sense, with what that persons' values are and that is simply NOT true. Are you saying that Atheists and Agnostics don't have a moral compass? That they don't have personal values?
Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that even people who have strong religious beliefs don't recognize when those religious beliefs are in conflict with the way the Government should be run?
Name one President who has allowed his religious beliefs to affect how he runs the United States.

YOU highlighted the word MOST. Thats EXACTLY why I placed it there, because if I didn;'t you would hit me with the "what about Athiests and Agnostics". But even with my "MOST" you played that card anyway! Okay, I can handle that! ALL Agnostics and Athiets in this country are guided by our Rule Of Law, which was created (pay attention) MOSTLY by men of faith (see; founding fathers, circa 1700's)

Now, back to my point. EVERYBODY ( this time I negelected the MOST on purpose) is guided by THEIR beliefs, be they religious or not,. to say that man can put those aside and is the ludicrous part

926 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:55:51pm

re: #918 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Right now the "toolbox" is over Viedma, Rio Negro. (in case you are wondering)

Oops. South Atlantic.

927 Catttt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:55:51pm

Cattt and FBV's thread.

928 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:56:12pm

re: #909 reesmatt

You're trying to tell me Biblical literalism support evolutionary theory?

929 Silvergirl  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:56:23pm

re: #917 Cattt

Sock it to me, baby. :D

Want a Walnetto?

930 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:56:37pm

re: #844 reesmatt

And I simply do not see this as a violation of the 1st Amendment. As I've stated, the idea that the 1st Amendment prohibits any expression of religion, or even the teaching of religion, in a public setting, is of recent origin and is the product of the living, breathing Constitution canard. If we're trying to stamp out all forms of religion being taught in public schools, we may want to focus on Goreism (in the form of global warming) first, as that is arguably taught as religion, even if nobody calls it that.

Thomas Jefferson wrote his letter to the Danbury Baptists clarifying his intent in writing the 1st Amendment establishment Clause in 1802; hardly of recent vintage. And if you can't trust one of the Founders and Framers as to Constitutional intent, who can you trust?

931 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:56:39pm

re: #924 JCM

It's 9:55PM PST, do you know where your toolbox is?

It's 12:55 EST. Do you know what time it is?

932 Catttt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:56:51pm

re: #926 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Right now the "toolbox" is over Viedma, Rio Negro. (in case you are wondering) Oops. South Atlantic.

Hope it comes down here. I need a new wrench.

933 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:57:29pm

re: #884 mikeymom
{mikeymom} no thanks are needed at all. We prayed for her and it appears that she is getting better - "just" outpatient care now.
I'm very pleased for her and for you. And I'm going to keep on praying, too.

934 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:57:30pm

re: #928 Sharmuta

Finger.

935 Silvergirl  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:57:41pm

re: #923 mikeymom

wanna see my walnettos?

oops i didn't see your walnetto before I asked if anybody wanted one of mine.

936 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:57:58pm

re: #909 reesmatt

You seem to be painting everyone who believes in a literal creation with a very broad brush. There is a tremendous diversity of beliefs even among those who believe in a literal creation, even down to what a literal creation means.

Nor do any distinctions in creationism make it science.

937 WrathofG-d  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:58:25pm

re: #925 sattv4u2

I was commenting on this earlier today. On topics like these, those who are non-religious like to tell those who are to drop their beliefs and accept the G-dless views, as if religious values are not as important as secular values simply because they are based on religion.

Its interesting how far ones "respect" for religion goes. (ie: until it actually conflicts with their own views I guess)

I suggest that secular or scientific people put their secular/scientific values/beliefs aside when dealing with this topic. Impossible? Exactly!

938 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:58:27pm

re: #932 Cattt

Hope it comes down here. I need a new wrench.

"If you can dodge a wrench? You can dodge a ball!".

-Patches O'Houllihan

939 Catttt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:58:35pm

Thanks, people, but I'm allergic to walnettos. :D

940 Silvergirl  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:58:45pm

re: #934 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

re: #934 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Finger.

Fickle finger of fate?

941 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:58:47pm

re: #852 reesmatt

Yes, that's a familiar cultural reference which, because it sounds so perfectly reasonable, is frequently used to shut down any serious discourse on an issue, but it is found nowhere in the text of the Constitution.

It IS a direct quote from the fellow who wrote the 1st Amendment, though, where he was writing to explain to some people what he meant when he wrote it.

942 mikeymom  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:58:58pm

re: #927 Cattt

i think its gonna become real and satts thread--very soon--move over fbv

943 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:59:18pm

re: #940 Silvergirl

re: #934 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Fickle finger of fate?

She knows.

944 JCM  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:59:24pm

re: #931 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

It's 12:55 EST. Do you know what time it is?

Time is relative...

945 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 9:59:58pm

re: #942 mikeymom

I can only move, so far, so fast.

946 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:00:14pm

re: #859 reesmatt

At the time it (the first amendment) was written, it was clearly understood to prohibit the establishment of a state religion, not the expression or even teaching of general religious beliefs.

That's not what Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the 1st Amendment, said that it meant in 1802.

947 mikeymom  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:00:32pm

re: #933 realwest

and i for you realwest--first on my list-every night

948 JCM  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:00:58pm

Did anyone catch SF Mayor Newsom's 7½ hour long State of the City speech?

Didn't think so...

949 avanti  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:01:08pm

re: #897 rawmuse

Yes, I know about Galileo and Copernicus, but I don't recall reading any Scripture that justified their persecutions. So, that was a failing of Man, not Scripture IMHO.


Here's a Bible reference to stopping the sun.

"Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel: Sun, stand still over Gibeon; and Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon. So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the people had revenge upon their enemies. Is this not written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hastened to go down for about a whole day. And there has been no day like that, before it or after it, that the Lord heeded a voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel (Joshua 10:12-14)."

950 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:01:19pm

re: #937 WrathofG-d

I was commenting on this earlier today. On topics like these, those who are non-religious like to tell those who are to drop their beliefs and accept the G-dless views, as if religious values are not as important as secular values simply because they are based on religion.

Its interesting how far ones "respect" for religion goes. (ie: until it actually conflicts with their own views I guess)

I suggest that secular or scientific people put their secular/scientific values/beliefs aside when dealing with this topic. Impossible? Exactly!

well crafted. Thank you

951 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:01:35pm

re: #947 mikeymom

Because, your kiss. Your kiss is on my list.

(coors light powered!) Forgive me, Iron Fist!

952 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:01:52pm

re: #861 sattv4u2

I'll read it, but you didn;'t answer my question

She answers it far more comprehensively than I could in a post here. She pionts out all the painstakingly crafted loopholes that allow creationism to be insinuated into the curricula.

953 freetoken  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:02:15pm

re: #916 Haverwilde

To get my vote, Jindal would have to demonstrate (1) he understands the issues involved, and (2) will fully embrace the idea that the only way e pluribus unum can work (and has worked) in these United States is to make sure the religious beliefs/practices of any one group is not elevated over others.

954 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:02:23pm

re: #942 mikeymom

i think its gonna become real and satts thread--very soon--move over fbv

nahhh ,, i'm done ,,, finger fatigue!

955 rawmuse  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:02:37pm

re: #939 Cattt

Wow, your Youtube site is infested with some [bigoted word]s with a bad attack of CAPSLOCK-itis.

956 JCM  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:02:50pm

re: #951 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Because, your kiss. Your kiss is on my list.

(coors light powered!) Forgive me, Iron Fist!

Coors Light? you need more forgiveness than Iron Fist can give you, Bacchanal curses you!

957 esch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:02:55pm

re: #951 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Because, your kiss. Your kiss is on my list.

Hmmm, I just had a Haul of Oats.

Coincidence? I think not.

958 mikeymom  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:03:40pm

re: #951 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

and i am old enough to remeber thst--but real is my first love

959 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:03:55pm

re: #957 esch

Greatest Mustache in the history of R&R mustaches! John Hall.

G'night John-Stache!

960 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:04:20pm

re: #937 WrathofG-d

Its interesting how far ones "respect" for religion goes.

Indeed. How disrespectful to disguise one's religion as science and completely misrepresent the spiritual from the material, but instead convolute the two and trick people into following religious beliefs. I find it offensive.

961 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:04:49pm

re: #871 reesmatt

I disagree. There are plenty of creationists out there who find neither conflict nor inconsistency between a belief in a literal creation and a passion for and belief in evolution and all forms of science.

Not according to the dictionary definition of creationism, which explicitly defines it as opposed to evolutionary theory.

962 mikeymom  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:04:56pm

re: #957 esch

WHACK- since mandy isnt here

963 rawmuse  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:05:01pm

re: #949 avanti

Interesting. Planets do retrograde from time to time. Hmm.

964 WrathofG-d  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:05:34pm

re: #950 sattv4u2

Personally, I think the attitude evidences their underlying belief that religious beliefs are transitory, or less serious than non-religious beliefs.

Its a paternalism, or arrogance to the non-religious belief. They respect it like a parent respects their child's imaginary friend. They go-along, but actually think the person is crazy.

Its not a respecting of another's view, its a soft-insult.

965 Haverwilde  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:05:55pm

re: #937 WrathofG-d


I suggest that secular or scientific people put their secular/scientific values/beliefs aside when dealing with this topic. Impossible? Exactly!


Of course it is not impossible.
In Church I put aside my secular/scientific beliefs and confine my actions to religious worship and study.
When I was working on educational curriculum or on legislation that will have an impact on education, I put aside my worship and religious studies and confine myself to those education actions.

966 JCM  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:06:08pm

re: #963 rawmuse

Interesting. Planets do retrograde from time to time. Hmm.

They do wander from time to time.

967 esch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:06:09pm

re: #962 mikeymom

*sigh* It'll have to do I guess.

I must be some kind of masochist.

968 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:06:21pm

re: #963 rawmuse

Hey! Raw! Moon, what were the two "stars" at about 3:30 and 5:30 tonight?

969 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:06:46pm

re: #961 Salamantis

Not according to the dictionary definition of creationism, which explicitly defines it as opposed to evolutionary theory.

depends on the dictionary,. i guess. i posted two well known respected sources (Merriam Webster and Encarta) and neither has an explicit or even inherent opposition to evolutionary theory

970 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:07:51pm

eff it. Bed. Peace.

971 Catttt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:07:55pm

re: #955 rawmuse

Wow, your Youtube site is infested with some Muslims with a bad attack of CAPSLOCK-itis.

I assume you are noticing lovepeaceNislam's posts. She and I went back and forth several times. She worked da'wa on me for a while there. She was polite, I was polite. I left her posts up, because she was not rude.

I just deleted some lunatic post about some crazy conspiracy theory. Went to the guy's youtube page - he had every crazy theory you can think of - even chem trails.

972 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:08:02pm

re: #893 reesmatt
Serious question for you - how can literal creationists, who necessarily believe in Genesis, explain away the incovenient truths that the earth was NOT founded in 6,000 or 10,000 years - that indeed Earth has been here for millions of years? That T-Rex and man did not coexist, that Noam did not take two of every species EXCEPT Dinosaurs?

973 Haverwilde  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:09:02pm

re: #953 freetoken

We are of a mind on that, by repudiate, I meant in a global sense.

974 WrathofG-d  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:09:17pm

re: #960 Sharmuta

I'm not commenting on Jindal, or the Discovery Institute. I dont' know enough, or care for that matter, about either of them to do so. Furthermore, my personal beliefs don't require anyone else's approval, so I don't go looking for it.

I am however discussing the attitude those without religious beliefs give to those who do. They think that religious beliefs can just be put aside because they don't gibe with their own secular beliefs. In fact, this is exactly what they ask them to do. They would never put aside their science/secular beliefs because they understand to do so is an impossibility. At the same time however, they expect those with different beliefs that happen to be based on religion to just toss them aside.

As one who has a firm, and undying belief in G-d, I assure you that pretending I don't either in a classroom, or in a voting booth is an impossibility.

975 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:09:55pm

re: #969 sattv4u2

depends on the dictionary,. i guess. i posted two well known respected sources (Merriam Webster and Encarta) and neither has an explicit or even inherent opposition to evolutionary theory

[Link: www.merriam-webster.com...]

a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis

That means Biblical literalism- as in 6000 years, or Young Earth Creationism. They don't subscribe to evolutionary theory.

976 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:10:09pm

re: #908 Last Mohican

It is Simply the Best. The Egg Nog has a full 11 grams of fat. You don't even feel it go down and all the sudden, the bottle is empty. In our house, I never makes it to a glass.

977 WrathofG-d  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:10:18pm

re: #965 Haverwilde

Then you have a magical power I don't: The ability to believe in the (I assume) Bible in one building, and to forget it in another.

Whatever makes you happy, I just ask that you don't ask others to be so fickle.

978 rawmuse  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:10:58pm

re: #968 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Hey! Raw! Moon, what were the two "stars" at about 3:30 and 5:30 tonight?

I dunno. Where I live that big, flaming, orange ball was still in the sky.

979 esch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:11:14pm

Ok my gag reflex is definitely going off.

980 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:11:59pm

re: #888 sattv4u2

Okay ,, here's what Merriam/ Webster has to say

a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis

So show me where it states "by definition" that a creationist rejects evolution

Creating the various forms of life out of nothing would preclude them evolving from earlier lifeforms. In Genesis, God is described as creating each and every species independently and as is.

981 mikeymom  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:12:12pm

weet dreams- and blessigs to all

982 JCM  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:12:42pm

re: #968 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Hey! Raw! Moon, what were the two "stars" at about 3:30 and 5:30 tonight?



Jupiter and Venus!

983 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:13:31pm

re: #893 reesmatt

Forgive my imprecision--there are plenty of people who believe in a literal creation who also believe in evolution.

Nope. Genesis literalism is incompatible with evolutionary theory.

984 Catttt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:13:32pm
re: #955 rawmuse

Wow, your Youtube site is infested with some Muslims with a bad attack of CAPSLOCK-itis.

I should mention - I think I attracted some Islamic attention with my first video, "Kill Them All." I made it in late 2002, when I was really, really angry.

I had a really nice e-mail exchange (via youtube's e-mail system) back and forth with a Muslim guy in Calif. who was upset by the name of my video, and its general theme. We had a meeting of minds, though we did not agree on everything. I believe in being polite as much as possible - more flies with honey, etc. He understood where I was coming from. It turned out we had something in common - carrying bugs outside instead of killing them. :D

985 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:14:35pm

re: #982 JCM

I saw it. Was Major-League cool! Thanx. Night!

986 wolfie  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:14:38pm

re: #941 Salamantis

IIRC...and I often don't recall correctly...Madison , not Jefferson, framed the Bill of Rights, largely cribbing it from George Mason's work. Maybe you are talking about the Virginia statute of religious freedom? In any case, I'm puzzled as to where you are getting the 1802 date as a time when TJ was supposedly working on writing the 1st amendment. The US Bill of Rights was passed in 1791 or 1792, I believe.

987 Catttt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:14:48pm

re: #976 ggt

It is Simply the Best. The Egg Nog has a full 11 grams of fat. You don't even feel it go down and all the sudden, the bottle is empty. In our house, I never makes it to a glass.

At the Royal Farms, they have Santa footprints on the floor leading to the egg nog in the back. :D

988 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:14:51pm
989 avanti  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:15:03pm

Jefferson was a odd Christian, read about the Jefferson Bible
Jefferson Bible...

990 rawmuse  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:15:12pm

re: #985 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

It wasn't the tool box then?

991 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:15:44pm

re: #978 rawmuse

I dunno. Where I live that big, flaming, orange ball was still in the sky.

I'm in the future.

992 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:15:48pm

re: #964 WrathofG-d

Personally, I think the attitude evidences their underlying belief that religious beliefs are transitory, or less serious than non-religious beliefs.

Its a paternalism, or arrogance to the non-religious belief. They respect it like a parent respects their child's imaginary friend. They go-along, but actually think the person is crazy.

Its not a respecting of another's view, its a soft-insult.

Right- and only atheists do this? No members of any faith ever get superior thinking their faith is better, and insult the views of others? Sorry- but thinking "it's another person's view" so it should be respected is a little much for me. I will continue to discriminate between other views to be respected and those I think shouldn't be respected based upon my own moral compass.

For example- some people have the view that because I'm a female, I am worth less than a man. You'll forgive me if I don't respect this view. Even if it's religious.

993 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:16:05pm

re: #909 reesmatt

You seem to be painting everyone who believes in a literal creation with a very broad brush. There is a tremendous diversity of beliefs even among those who believe in a literal creation, even down to what a literal creation means.

Yeah, there are young earth creationists and old earth creationists, but they agree on the rejection of evolutionary theory.

994 JCM  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:16:29pm

re: #985 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I saw it. Was Major-League cool! Thanx. Night!

Overcast and raining here (Seattle) missed it. Maybe tomorrow.

995 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:16:48pm

re: #980 Salamantis

Creating the various forms of life out of nothing would preclude them evolving from earlier lifeforms. In Genesis, God is described as creating each and every species independently and as is.

Would it preclude them from evolving after they were created ? There had tio be a START somewhere along the line.

996 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:17:31pm

re: #983 Salamantis

I'm sooo confused at this point, although I tend to agree with you, I thought Lao Stinky weighed in on this.

The Creationist Power Mongers want us to believe it is not compatible, but . . ..

997 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:18:09pm
998 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:18:29pm

re: #913 WrathofG-d

The group think, and anti intellectualism on these threads gets to be a bit of a bore.

Why am I on this thread then do you ask? Good question.

You gotta love someone that cheers that the debate is over, refuses an opposing opinion, and brandishes everyone they disagree with on this topic as "anti-intellectual".

Minds open to Genesis literalism might as well be open to Ptolemaic flat earth geocentrism.

Doesn't feel like there is much intellectual thought with the closed minded from where I sit.

999 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:19:12pm

re: #984 Cattt

That's my new question to people--now, I'll know how to categorize them.

do you carry bugs outside or kill them?

I kill them--actually, I get the dog to do it.

1000 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:19:55pm

re: #903 Last Mohican
Well

I'm afraid that, from now on, the Democratic nominee will be the farthest candidate to the left, and the Republican nominee will be the farthest to the right.

it is also possible that the Republicans will change to be the Conservative Party (as happened in NY - when Rockeffeller and Javists were the heads of the NY Republican Party and were "too liberal" for many NY Republicans then).
And frankly - just my opinion, the Democrats, by nominating and fighting to get the LEAST experienced and least qualified and MOST Liberal person in government elected, should also throw away their skins and become the Leftist Party ( I would say "Liberal" Party but the current Democratic Party really doesn't have room for what one would classically define as a liberal - see, e.g., Joe Lieberman and Scoop Jackson).
So we may have a "Leftist" Party and a Conservative or "Rightist" Party and those who feel unwanted or uncomfortable by belonging to either the Leftists or the Rightists will form a "Moderate" party.
And I think a Moderate Political Party could raise the necessary funds to compete.

1001 esch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:20:14pm

re: #988 buzzsawmonkey

Heh. I call it "Gag Nog".

To each their own.

1002 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:20:21pm

re: #995 sattv4u2

World without a beginning, world without End. Amen.

am I remembering that correctly?

1003 DesertSage  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:20:38pm

re: #999 ggt

That's my new question to people--now, I'll know how to categorize them.

do you carry bugs outside or kill them?

I kill them--actually, I get the dog to do it.

I always carry them outside. Even the Black Widows.

1004 Catttt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:20:41pm

re: #999 ggt

That's my new question to people--now, I'll know how to categorize them.

do you carry bugs outside or kill them?

I kill them--actually, I get the dog to do it.

It was a weird coincidence, since almost no one does that. We sort of bonded. It was weird, but nice.

1005 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:21:16pm

re: #1002 ggt

World without a beginning, world without End. Amen.

am I remembering that correctly?

I'm old ,, but not that old !

1006 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:21:32pm

re: #1003 DesertSage

LOL

1007 WrathofG-d  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:21:35pm

re: #992 Sharmuta

Yes people who claim to be religious also make rude comments etc. Its not only non-religous folk. I never did, and hopefully never would, say that.

Actually, if your stance is that you think that religious beliefs are stupid, and thus you are not going to respect them, I appreciate that. I really do. We can agree to not agree on issues where my religion/beliefs and your secularism/beliefs differ, and move on to something more productive. I guess we will see who is right in the end.

You are at least being honest. You admit that you are hostile to certain religious beliefs. That is your right, and I respect that. Of course, I think you are wrong, and you think I am wrong, but at least you are honest.

As for "thinking women are less than men", I presume you are speaking about Islam. (as I don't know any other religions that states that) For the most part, I think Islam is a crock, so...see...we can agree on something.

1008 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:21:46pm

re: #937 WrathofG-d

I was commenting on this earlier today. On topics like these, those who are non-religious like to tell those who are to drop their beliefs and accept the G-dless views, as if religious values are not as important as secular values simply because they are based on religion.

Its interesting how far ones "respect" for religion goes. (ie: until it actually conflicts with their own views I guess)

And here we have another Disco Institute Wedge Strategy talking point; divert the discussion from science vs. nonscience to atheism vs. theism.

More than a billion Roman Catholics both believe in God and accept evolutionary theory.

I suggest that secular or scientific people put their secular/scientific values/beliefs aside when dealing with this topic. Impossible? Exactly!

1009 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:22:14pm

re: #1003 DesertSage

I always carry them outside. Even the Black Widows.

And what if her husband were still alive? Would you still carry her outside?

1010 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:22:32pm

re: #904 Salamantis
Uh, technically James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights, with of course input from his mentor, Thomas Jefferson.
Just saying...

1011 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:22:50pm

re: #1005 sattv4u2

I don't go to Church anymore (well, weddings and funerals and if I really want to see the architecture when we are travelling), but I seem to remember reciting something to that effect in my yoot.

1012 WrathofG-d  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:23:24pm

re: #1008 Salamantis

Ok either (a) you don't know how to use the quote function, or (b) you are trying to misquote me.

If it is "a" then fine, please learn how to use the quote function. If it is "b" we gonna have issues.

1013 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:23:44pm

re: #1007 WrathofG-d

I believe the Southern Baptists have something to say about it too ... . . .I can't remember exactly.

1014 Haverwilde  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:23:57pm

re: #977 WrathofG-d

Then you have a magical power I don't: The ability to believe in the (I assume) Bible in one building, and to forget it in another.

Whatever makes you happy, I just ask that you don't ask others to be so fickle.


Okay I guess I see part of what you are saying. But this whole discussion, for me would be much more productive as a discussion of Theology, not science.
You see, my God is not inconsistent. What I learn in science becomes an elaboration and extension of what I belief in faith.
My God would not create false paths, and phony dead-ends for me to go astray. He created a world in all its majesty, and has created me with an inquisitive mind, and has allowed me to explore that world.
But I believe that our constitution prohibits the promotion of any specific faith in a classroom, and I for one appreciate that limitation. So I can put aside my religion, indeed, I don’t need to discuss God to be able to discuss the incredible workings of this world and recognize the truth that I find in scientific inquiry.
It is only as one puts some paternalistic or mythological limits on God’s creation that one comes into conflict.

1015 WrathofG-d  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:24:46pm

re: #1013 ggt

I don't know about that. I really only know about my religion, and a bit about Islam.

1016 DesertSage  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:24:49pm

re: #1009 sattv4u2

And what if her husband were still alive? Would you still carry her outside?

Her husband is not alive, that's why they call her a Black Widow.

1017 rawmuse  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:25:02pm

re: #1013 ggt

I believe the Southern Baptists have something to say about it too ... . . .I can't remember exactly.

They leave the word "obey" in the wedding vows.

1018 wolfie  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:25:21pm

re: #1000 realwest

We can call the Moderate Party...the Republican Party!
And our first candidate can be John McCain! :D

1019 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:25:27pm

re: #964 WrathofG-d

Personally, I think the attitude evidences their underlying belief that religious beliefs are transitory, or less serious than non-religious beliefs.

Its a paternalism, or arrogance to the non-religious belief. They respect it like a parent respects their child's imaginary friend. They go-along, but actually think the person is crazy.

Its not a respecting of another's view, its a soft-insult.

It's a matter of respecting the right of others to hold religious beliefs, while being opposed to them foisting such beliefs on other peoples' children in public high school science class.

1020 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:25:46pm

re: #1017 rawmuse

wishful thinking?

;)

1021 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:26:07pm

re: #1011 ggt

I don't go to Church anymore (well, weddings and funerals and if I really want to see the architecture when we are travelling), but I seem to remember reciting something to that effect in my yoot.

It's the liturgy of the hours Doxology, and it states
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

1022 swamprat  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:26:07pm

re: #1004 Cattt

Flies and mosquitos...dead
Impossibly large beetle trying to mate with bathroom scale ...outside
vinegaroons..
outside

I'll be glad when the house is complete.

1023 Catttt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:26:11pm

re: #1016 DesertSage

Her husband is not alive, that's why they call her a Black Widow.

I did carry a spider outside once, but it was just a regular garden spider lost in an office building.

1024 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:26:16pm
1025 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:26:36pm

re: #1021 sattv4u2

Thank you so much.

1026 Catttt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:26:55pm

re: #1022 swamprat

Flies and mosquitos...dead
Impossibly large beetle trying to mate with bathroom scale ...outside
vinegaroons..
outside

I'll be glad when the house is complete.

I tell flying insects to leave (I open the door and wait). If they are too stupid to leave, I kill them.

1027 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:27:11pm
1028 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:27:29pm

re: #925 sattv4u2
"be they religious or not" nice little addition there. But it hardly buttresses your arugment that was to the effect that everyone's values are "in play" so to speak, when they hold government office so of course their religious beliefs guide their actions.
So was it Jindahl's religious beliefs that led him to sign that bill?

1029 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:27:30pm
1030 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:27:37pm

re: #1023 Cattt

I did carry a spider outside once, but it was just a regular garden spider lost in an office building.

How do you know it was lost/ Did it ask directions? Was it looking at a little GPS !?!?!?

1031 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:27:42pm

re: #969 sattv4u2

depends on the dictionary,. i guess. i posted two well known respected sources (Merriam Webster and Encarta) and neither has an explicit or even inherent opposition to evolutionary theory

I have already explained how the Merriam Webster definition of creationism precludes its adherents from accepting evolutionary theory.

1032 DesertSage  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:28:25pm

re: #1023 Cattt

I did carry a spider outside once, but it was just a regular garden spider lost in an office building.

I do kill flies. I can't stand flies.

Any other insect I find in the house...especially spiders...I will relocate outside.

1033 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:29:12pm

I actually had a grown man tell me once that It was wrong to step on an ant because it might have a family.

I told him that the ant species was not on the Endangered Species List and the ant world would be fine without the one I killed. (red ant too!)

1034 esch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:29:27pm

My rules are 4 legs lives, 6 legs dies, 8 legs lives, anything with more legs than that dies with extreme prejudice.

1035 WrathofG-d  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:29:36pm

re: #1014 Haverwilde

I'm not getting into whether the Torah (bible) and evolution are incompatible. I'm not a scholar on either.

The only point I was trying to make at all on this thread really is that asking a religious person to "put aside" their religious beliefs/values in certain situations is ridiculous. You cannot simultaneously believe that Abortion is Murder, yet that it is ok in some circumstances, or literally that G-d created the world in 7 days, and accept a theory that it was created over billions of years. There are conflicting interpretations, and gray areas, and wedges between those ideas being put forth based on the Torah, but that falls into the first topic I refuse to discuss.

I just don't appreciate the attitude that people who have beliefs based on religion, or ideas rooted in religion are expected to just "get over it" in certain situations. If anyone is going to "get over it", it should be those that think it is so easy!

1036 itellu3times  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:29:38pm
1037 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:29:48pm

re: #947 mikeymom
Thank you very much.

1038 Catttt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:29:56pm

re: #1027 ploome hineni

doesn;t the black widow eat her mate?

Most of the time. He has to be really REALLY careful leaving the boudoir. If he makes one false move, she eats him.

1039 wolfie  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:30:34pm

re: #1031 Salamantis

Only by your ignoring the key word "usually."

1040 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:30:47pm
1041 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:30:56pm

re: #974 WrathofG-d

I'm not commenting on Jindal, or the Discovery Institute. I dont' know enough, or care for that matter, about either of them to do so. Furthermore, my personal beliefs don't require anyone else's approval, so I don't go looking for it.

I am however discussing the attitude those without religious beliefs give to those who do. They think that religious beliefs can just be put aside because they don't gibe with their own secular beliefs. In fact, this is exactly what they ask them to do. They would never put aside their science/secular beliefs because they understand to do so is an impossibility. At the same time however, they expect those with different beliefs that happen to be based on religion to just toss them aside.

As one who has a firm, and undying belief in G-d, I assure you that pretending I don't either in a classroom, or in a voting booth is an impossibility.

One doesn't have to believe in evolutionary theory; an objective and dispassionate perusal of the evidence will lead the rational reasonable mind to the knowledge of its empirical veracity.

Religious beliefs do not beoing in public high school science class; science does.

1042 Silvergirl  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:31:00pm

re: #1034 esch

My rules are 4 legs lives, 6 legs dies, 8 legs lives, anything with more legs than that dies with extreme prejudice.

Unless it's two legs, down in a spider hole. An Islamabug. That one had to die.

1043 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:31:11pm
1044 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:31:12pm

re: #1028 realwest

"be they religious or not" nice little addition there. But it hardly buttresses your arugment that was to the effect that everyone's values are "in play" so to speak, when they hold government office so of course their religious beliefs guide their actions.
So was it Jindahl's religious beliefs that led him to sign that bill?


Everyones values ARE in play when they hold gov't office! For you to think otherwise is something that your not, FOOLISH!

I think Jindal wasn't oppossed to letting each community decide weather or not they wanted to add creationism in the discussion of the origins of life. Most likely because of his beliefs. That is ALL the bill states. NOTHING about "teaching religion" NOTHING about mandating that ID be taught STATEWIDE.

1045 wiffersnapper  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:31:24pm

Mitt Mitt Mitt

1046 WrathofG-d  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:31:29pm

re: #1019 Salamantis

Yet you approve of non-religious values being pushed on religious people's kids.

To me this entire conversation is similar to when Liberals scream about equal time in schools for views, yet its really ONLY their views that they allow. "Religion shouldn't be taught in schools, therefore only teach what I believe".

1047 DesertSage  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:31:38pm

re: #1034 esch

My rules are 4 legs lives, 6 legs dies, 8 legs lives, anything with more legs than that dies with extreme prejudice.

I guess this guy wouldn't last very long in your house?

1048 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:32:44pm

re: #1040 buzzsawmonkey

And, of course, if the dictionary says so, it must be true.

How like Bible literalism that is.

OUCh ,,, thats gonna leave a nasty mark!

1049 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:32:45pm
1050 esch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:32:47pm

re: #1042 Silvergirl

Well, I have yet to find one of those around here.

1051 wolfie  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:32:54pm

re: #1033 ggt

I consider the "it might have a family" argument a reinforcement of the urge to smush the little critter.
Who wants the ant's family moving in?!

1052 WrathofG-d  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:32:57pm

re: #1041 Salamantis

That is your opinion, and whether I agree or not, I respect it. I only ask that those who oppose a religious belief that evolution is crap, and like practically every other scientific truth will be proven false over time, do the same.

1053 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:33:05pm

re: #946 Salamantis
And we should add, that the United States of America is the only "civilized" or other society that has that Bill of Rights.
And we have it BECAUSE our founding fathers DIDN'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO INTRUDE IN INDIVIDUALS LIVES - especially in their rights to worship (or not) and speak freely. That's why we don't have a "Hate Crimes Commission" or a "Hate Crimes Division" of the Justice Department.

1054 esch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:33:39pm

re: #1047 DesertSage

lol I knew I'd get feedback on that one.

1055 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:34:10pm

re: #986 wolfie

IIRC...and I often don't recall correctly...Madison , not Jefferson, framed the Bill of Rights, largely cribbing it from George Mason's work. Maybe you are talking about the Virginia statute of religious freedom? In any case, I'm puzzled as to where you are getting the 1802 date as a time when TJ was supposedly working on writing the 1st amendment. The US Bill of Rights was passed in 1791 or 1792, I believe.

1802 was when Thomas Jefferson wrote his letter to the Danbury baptists, clarifying the intent of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, and it is where he used the phrase "establishing a wall of separation between church and state."

1056 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:34:13pm
1057 WrathofG-d  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:34:29pm

Well this will probably bite you all in the shadows, but I probably wouldn't teach religion in school.

On that note...I'm gone.

1058 DesertSage  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:34:49pm

Yay, Salamantis said "empirical" again. :')

I told myself I'd stay awake until he said it again...I knew I wouldn't have to wait long.

'nite all.

1059 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:35:10pm

re: #1035 WrathofG-d

Actually, I can ask them to "get over it". If you want to pray in school, why do you need special permission? --do it quietly at your locker or whatever. If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one or behave in a way that might cause one.

If you believe that creationism is a science then set up classes at your church, make it part of your religious education program. Don't waste my time and yours lobbying for public funds to pay for it.

If you think that the Public School system in your community is advocating the belief that Religion and God are bogus, then lobby for it to stop, don't subvert Science in order to wipe out ideas you don't like.

1060 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:36:43pm

re: #1047 DesertSage

awww!

1061 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:37:19pm

re: #995 sattv4u2

Would it preclude them from evolving after they were created ? There had tio be a START somewhere along the line.

The problem is that evolutionary theory, as well as DNA evidence, demonstrates that they evolved from common ancestors. And those common ancestors were single celled organisms, from which animals, and plants, fish, fowl, humans and beasts, all evolved.

1062 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:37:39pm

re: #1049 buzzsawmonkey

yeah, you're probably right.

/

1063 Haverwilde  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:38:04pm

re: #1035 WrathofG-d

I'm not getting into whether the Torah (bible) and evolution are incompatible. I'm not a scholar on either.


But you don't have to be a scholar to recognize that 'god-less' science has contibuted massively to our improved way of life, to our understanding of the world we live in. You don't need to stubbornly adhere to what was a reasonable set of beliefs in 2000 BC (the mythology of a 7 day creation) when the revelations of the last 4000 years gives us a better handle on the timeline of creation and the process.

1064 Peter Verkooijen  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:38:15pm

re: #47 Killgore Trout

Actually, so far I'm very impressed with Obama. His staffing picks have largely been practical level headed folks. If I knew he was capable of being sane and moderate I might have voted for him.

It's the Alinsky method, moron! Wake up! Obama will continue the demagoguery while he's building up his networks, appointing his people to the judiciary, introducing "localism" to control media, etc. They're in it for the long haul. The long march through the institutions now will work from the inside and slowly strangle American capitalism and democracy.

1065 rawmuse  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:38:41pm

Oh well, I am not going to ditch my faith over this issue. I am going to need it in the days to come. There will be much rending of garments and gnashing of teeth, etc. We may even run out of gnus to gnash.

That's it! I will start the Church of the Good Gnus!

BTW, this was my most meaningful pilgrimage to date.

John had a few things to say about our times.

And with that, I sign off for the night. Good night Lizards!

1066 WrathofG-d  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:38:42pm

re: #1059 ggt

Science is Faith.

I don't expect you to see that. Noone I have ever had this conversation with does. But, I figured you should know.

Now, I am really Steppin' Out Have a great one!

1067 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:39:30pm

re: #996 ggt

I'm sooo confused at this point, although I tend to agree with you, I thought Lao Stinky weighed in on this.

The Creationist Power Mongers want us to believe it is not compatible, but . . ..

There is a vast difference in believing that God created the Universe some 13.7 billion years ago, and believing that God created each and every existent and extinct species, all tens of millions of them, independently and as is.

1068 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:40:37pm

re: #1061 Salamantis

That would be the part the Power Mongers can't stand. The idea that we might have evolved from apes is abhorrent to them. They think that makes them "less special" than their egotistical weenies need them to be. Oh, and I also believe there is a racist element, because human beings might then have originated in Afrika as brown faced chimps.

No joke. It's a Power game, nothing more.

1069 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:41:17pm

re: #964 WrathofG-d
OK, enough. I am a Christian. I do believe in God and in Jesus Christ, his only son, as our Saviour. I do not believe in literal or biblical creationism and I do believe in Evolution and I believe in Science and I have NEVER said that folks with religious beliefs should cast them aside or not follow them. I have and do say that those people with religious beliefs such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc., do NOT have the right to teach their belief system as science in our Public Schools.

1070 esch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:41:22pm

re: #1061 Salamantis

The problem is that evolutionary theory, as well as DNA evidence, demonstrates that they evolved from common ancestors. And those common ancestors were single celled organisms, from which animals, and plants, fish, fowl, humans and beasts, all evolved.

I'm waiting for the ID 'Copy-Paste-Modify' dodge to come along to 'defeat' that line of reasoning. The one where they assert God was lazy and based most creatures on snippets he'd created earlier. Hey, if a programmer can get away with it, why not the supreme being?

1071 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:41:48pm

re: #1067 Salamantis

ah, thanks for clarifying. We all just sprang up --like Diana? from Jupiter's head?

Did I get the god's names and Greek/Latin correct?

1072 Abu Bin Squid  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:42:11pm

re: #1064 Peter Verkooijen

It's the Alinsky method, moron! Wake up! Obama will continue the demagoguery while he's building up his networks, appointing his people to the judiciary, introducing "localism" to control media, etc. They're in it for the long haul. The long march through the institutions now will work from the inside and slowly strangle American capitalism and democracy.

I don't disagree with you points except I see no need calling Killgore a moron.

/didn't Obi-wan say "play nice"?

1073 itellu3times  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:42:14pm

re: #1066 WrathofG-d

Science is Faith.

'tisnt.

It's just a system you can work, you don't have to believe it, or understand it, just turn the crank, and it does what it does.

1074 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:42:36pm

re: #1012 WrathofG-d

Ok either (a) you don't know how to use the quote function, or (b) you are trying to misquote me.

If it is "a" then fine, please learn how to use the quote function. If it is "b" we gonna have issues.

I didn't properly format my blockquotes in two posts to you. My apologies for this error.

1075 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:42:51pm
1076 Abu Bin Squid  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:43:02pm

PIMF: your, not you

1077 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:44:55pm

re: #1063 Haverwilde

I think there is a big difference in those that believe in a Dark Ages Vengeful G-d and a 20th Century all knowing and all loving G-d.

I don't think it's so much a god-less world, and a world that does not fear G-d and acts accordingly.

1078 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:46:10pm

re: #1040 buzzsawmonkey

And, of course, if the dictionary says so, it must be true.

How like Bible literalism that is.

I don't know what you just said, since I apparently can't trust the dictionary definitions of the words you used.

1079 Peter Verkooijen  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:46:13pm

re: #58 Killgore Trout

How the GOP Can Take Back the Youth Vote

Conservatism should no longer be the starting point for the Republican party. Anyone under 40 has to be a masochist or political science wonk to call himself conservative. It's a dirty word, meaning "old-fashioned", "stale", "backwards looking", "stodgy", etc. Conservatism will never ever become "sexy"!

The Republican party should position itself as the party that defends the Constitution, liberal democracry and American capitalism against the socialist Obamanites.

1080 wolfie  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:46:23pm

re: #1075 ploome hineni

No, but it sounds interesting.

1081 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:47:20pm
1082 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:48:19pm

re: #1044 sattv4u2

Everyones values ARE in play when they hold gov't office! For you to think otherwise is something that your not, FOOLISH!

I think Jindal wasn't oppossed to letting each community decide weather or not they wanted to add creationism in the discussion of the origins of life. Most likely because of his beliefs. That is ALL the bill states. NOTHING about "teaching religion" NOTHING about mandating that ID be taught STATEWIDE.

The point is that the establishment clause of the 1st amendment forbids including religious dogma in public high school science class. It doesn't leave the decision up to individual communities.

1083 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:48:23pm

re: #1051 wolfie

Yeah, he didn't understand who he was talking too.

;)

1084 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:48:32pm

re: #1083 ggt

pimf-too=to.

1085 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:48:46pm
1086 Abu Bin Squid  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:48:49pm

re: #1077 ggt

Are you suggesting God's standards have changed, or human's perceptions have? Neither strikes me as productive.

I love/fear/respect/honor the vengeful One.

/no, no obama

1087 Rancher  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:49:50pm

The next pres election may be 4 years off but the vetting process for our candidates starts today and the race for the republican nomination is more like 2.5 years off we are better off properly vetting and gaining support for a candidate now than waiting for the last minute.

Rustler

1088 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:50:06pm

re: #995 sattv4u2
Ah, at last. Yes I am a Christian who believes God created everything - and then evolution took over.
But that's not what Salamantis is saying and it's definitely not what literal biblical creationists are saying: they are saying the EVERYTHING was created 6-10 thousand years ago, and that is Manifestly Not True.

1089 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:51:26pm

re: #1086 Abu Bin Squid

I think human perceptions have changed. If we do not fear G-d, we aren't afraid to THINK. We use the wonderful gift he gave us and explore his creation.

This, I believe, makes those do fear G-d cringe.

Do you think of him as a Master or a Father? It will determine if you think.

1090 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:52:39pm
1091 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:52:46pm

re: #1046 WrathofG-d

Yet you approve of non-religious values being pushed on religious people's kids.

To me this entire conversation is similar to when Liberals scream about equal time in schools for views, yet its really ONLY their views that they allow. "Religion shouldn't be taught in schools, therefore only teach what I believe".

Teaching evolutionary theory in public high school science class is indeed teaching a non-religious perspective (but not an anti-religious perspective), because science has nothing to say one way or another concerning religious questions. However, when religion illegitimately intrudes into the empirical domain, as when some folks claim that the earth is only a few thousand tears old, it can expect for counterfactual evidence that refutes such an intrusion to be presented.

And science isn't a matter of belief, like religion is. Belief occurs in the absence of empirical evidence; knowledge is what one has in its presence.

1092 Abu Bin Squid  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:53:11pm

re: #1079 Peter Verkooijen

I saw this article earlier today. I have to disagree that using "hip" words will bring in the youth vote. I do agreee with what you wrote:
The Republican party should position itself as the party that defends the Constitution, liberal democracry and American capitalism against the socialist Obamanites.

Isn't that conservativism? Why change the name for the youths?

1093 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:53:22pm
1094 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:54:10pm

re: #1027 ploome hineni
Only after sex; flirting no.

1095 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:54:35pm
1096 Peter Verkooijen  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:54:40pm

re: #1072 Abu Bin Squid

I don't disagree with you points except I see no need calling Killgore a moron.
/didn't Obi-wan say "play nice"?

It's clueless, wobbly conservatives like Killgore who have gotten us into this mess. Like the "play nice" McCain campaign. These people just don't understand what's at stake and how the radical left operates. Killgore has shouted me down a couple of times before the election when I posted things he didn't want to hear. I owe him no deference whatsoever.

1097 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:54:54pm

re: #1082 Salamantis

The point is that the establishment clause of the 1st amendment forbids including religious dogma in public high school science class. It doesn't leave the decision up to individual communities.

[Link: www.answers.com...]

show me where it states that please

1098 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:55:02pm
1099 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:55:38pm

re: #1088 realwest

Ah, at last. Yes I am a Christian who believes God created everything - and then evolution took over.
But that's not what Salamantis is saying and it's definitely not what literal biblical creationists are saying: they are saying the EVERYTHING was created 6-10 thousand years ago, and that is Manifestly Not True.

actually, it is ,,,

1100 nightwatch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:55:51pm

Oranges to ya!

Saw the Crescent Moon triangulated with the brightest of Venus and Jupiter tonight, now the thickest of fog, dense as cotton almost cocoon like in it's presence. over-night in 5...4...3...2...1

1101 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:55:59pm

re: #1091 Salamantis

non-religious, not anti-religious --good point!

Although there are some rabid atheist scientists out there who do teach anti-religion. I think they are bad scientists as they assume.

1102 Catttt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:56:01pm

I haven't checked my youtube comments in a while (been really busy). Usually, I get youngish guys with comments like "cool vid, dude!"

I have a new comment in Japanese.

音楽うるせー。あふぉなのか?

Anyone know Japanese? Does it say "cool vid, dude?" :D

1103 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:56:29pm

re: #1052 WrathofG-d

That is your opinion, and whether I agree or not, I respect it. I only ask that those who oppose a religious belief that evolution is crap, and like practically every other scientific truth will be proven false over time, do the same.

Religious dogma does not belong in public high school science class. Science does. That is my position, and it is the position of the US Constitution, and of several court decisions.

1104 mcmeador  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:56:38pm

re: #833 Lynn B.

This site is on a crusade. Close-minded. Teach the controversy. Teach the strengths and weaknesses. Discuss the strengths and limitations. Just a theory. Free speech! We don't know what happened. ... rewind and start the tape again.

Do you people never get tired of repeating this drivel? There's a video up-thread, from just yesterday!, that solidly debunks and exposes every single one of these talking points.

Yes, I understand the whole point is to wear down the rational opposition, like water on a rock.

Good luck with that.

/oh, and for the billionth time ... evolution has nothing to do with "life's origins." [self-deleted]

I guess it's inconceivable that the points I made could be original to myself and not part of some grander conspiracy to wear down the opposition and impose creationism on everyone. If you want to be that close-minded, then have at it.

And actually, if life was not created intelligently and instead naturally occurred, then that would require that life evolved from something previously inanimate.

And to J.S., as for alchemy, physicists actually did accomplish turning platinum into gold through nuclear reactions. It involves adding a neutron to a platinum-198 nucleus to produce platinum-199 and then the radioactive decay of the platinum-199 into gold-199. That's beside the point, though. Discussing intelligent design would serve the purpose of discussing views of the origin of life, something that there is no definitive theory to explain. Alchemy isn't about explaining anything that chemistry does not definitively explain.

You also object based on time constraints, but it's not like it is a time-consuming subject. It's very simple: life was created by an intelligent being. There's not much to discuss there. I don't want teachers getting preachy and pushing intelligent design, but I have absolutely no problem with them mentioning it as an alternative because it is a widely held view that disagrees with other scientific theories. Just because it doesn't have scientific evidence to support it doesn't mean it is not relevant to the field of science, as many scientists have become actively involved in discussing and debunking it.

Also, let me say again that there should be no reason why criticisms of the theory of evolution shouldn't be discussed either. Theories are labeled as such because they have not been proven or fully explained. Otherwise, they would be laws. What better way to illustrate this definition to children by discussing its weaknesses.

1105 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:56:39pm

re: #1093 ploome hineni

ah!

1106 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:57:12pm

re: #1102 Cattt

I haven't checked my youtube comments in a while (been really busy). Usually, I get youngish guys with comments like "cool vid, dude!"

I have a new comment in Japanese.

音楽うるせー&# x3002;あふぉなの&#x3 04B;?

Anyone know Japanese? Does it say "cool vid, dude?" :D


I think it says

Tuna Sushi, side of rice, small sake

1107 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:57:58pm

re: #1098 ploome hineni

for both sexes? through the ages?

1108 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:58:23pm

re: #1106 sattv4u2

It's a demand for reparations for Hiroshima.

1109 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:58:51pm

re: #1053 realwest

And we should add, that the United States of America is the only "civilized" or other society that has that Bill of Rights.
And we have it BECAUSE our founding fathers DIDN'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO INTRUDE IN INDIVIDUALS LIVES - especially in their rights to worship (or not) and speak freely. That's why we don't have a "Hate Crimes Commission" or a "Hate Crimes Division" of the Justice Department.

That's right; and mandating the teaching of some folks' religious dogmas to other peoples' kids in public high school science class is just such an unconstitutional intrusion.

1110 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 10:59:38pm
1111 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:00:33pm

I remember watching a PBS (I think) special on Creationism in schools and there were all kinds of interviews with Chicago area schools (Billy Graham center et.al.)

One interesting point that I remember is one interview with a Christian Family who were farmers. They had no problem with Evolution/Natural Selection --to them, it seemed obvious. They bred cows, chickens etc.

It was the suburban and city families that had all kinds of issues.

1112 redc1c4  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:00:49pm

re: #1102 Cattt

I haven't checked my youtube comments in a while (been really busy). Usually, I get youngish guys with comments like "cool vid, dude!"

I have a new comment in Japanese.

音楽うるせー&# x3002;あふぉなの 04B;?

Anyone know Japanese? Does it say "cool vid, dude?" :D

it says: "read Mega Tokyo!

1113 Peter Verkooijen  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:00:58pm

re: #1092 Abu Bin Squid

I saw this article earlier today. I have to disagree that using "hip" words will bring in the youth vote. I do agreee with what you wrote:
The Republican party should position itself as the party that defends the Constitution, liberal democracry and American capitalism against the socialist Obamanites.

Isn't that conservativism? Why change the name for the youths?

No it's not. It's classic liberalism. Republicans should start naming names. The Dems are socialists. We are the real liberals.

That's why so many young people are flocking to libertarians or nutcases like Ron Paul. They do want classic liberalism, but they want nothing to do with "conservatism", which is just a bad word to start with. Conserve? Like canned food? Stale. Old. Dying.

Norman Thomas, Socialist Party of America, 1940s: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

Republicans need to reclaim liberalism.

1114 Outrider  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:01:15pm

re: #1069 realwest

OK, enough. I am a Christian. I do believe in God and in Jesus Christ, his only son, as our Saviour. I do not believe in literal or biblical creationism and I do believe in Evolution and I believe in Science and I have NEVER said that folks with religious beliefs should cast them aside or not follow them. I have and do say that those people with religious beliefs such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc., do NOT have the right to teach their belief system as science in our Public Schools.

HUAH! ;-)>

1115 Abu Bin Squid  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:01:20pm

re: #1096 Peter Verkooijen

I never considered Killgore a conservative. I don't think you should show him any special reverence. Your posts are above name calling was my point. Rational thought gets lost in that respect.

1116 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:02:12pm

re: #1066 WrathofG-d

Science is Faith.

I don't expect you to see that. Noone I have ever had this conversation with does. But, I figured you should know.

Now, I am really Steppin' Out Have a great one!

Nope. Faiths are held in the absence of empirical evidence; knowledge is learned from of its presence.

1117 leftover54  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:02:43pm

OT - sorta... I had to travel to Albany NY today. Visited a "State Agency" building and was shocked - I mean SHOCKED to see a fully lit Christmas tree in the foyer ! There was also a Menorah. First time to any city in many years.
I thought this was no longer permitted (if not down right "illegal") ? I have no problem with it but just from hearing various news reports over the years concerning public schools etc. - no need to go into detail, y'all know what I'm talkin' about. Thats it. Just SHOCKED I tell ya. Actually I should add that I left the building pretty upbeat - surprised to visit the/a "big city" (in a blue state no less) only to find the world hasn't gone quite as insane as I thought it had.
Whats next - finding a Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria mobile hanging in a public school 1st grade classroom ? 'Tis the season !

1118 redc1c4  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:02:51pm

re: #1111 ggt

I remember watching a PBS (I think) special on Creationism in schools and there were all kinds of interviews with Chicago area schools (Billy Graham center et.al.)

One interesting point that I remember is one interview with a Christian Family who were farmers. They had no problem with Evolution/Natural Selection --to them, it seemed obvious. They bred cows, chickens etc.

It was the suburban and city families that had all kinds of issues.

time on their hands... anyone w*rking a real farm is too busy for bullshit.

JMHO

1119 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:03:06pm

re: #1116 Salamantis

perhaps faith in our senses and in our brains ability to interpret the input?

1120 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:04:03pm

re: #1118 redc1c4

They had all sent their kids to the same Christian college and were interviewed at length on the subject. I think they had some $$$. Probably had lots of 'hired hands'.

LOL

1121 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:04:12pm
1122 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:05:16pm

re: #1117 leftover54

I've noticed more "Merry Christmas" signs and merchandise this year. I think it's a response to the lack of media attention to the issue.

1123 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:05:22pm

re: #1071 ggt

ah, thanks for clarifying. We all just sprang up --like Diana? from Jupiter's head?

Did I get the god's names and Greek/Latin correct?

Thatr's basically it, except that it had something to do with dirt and a 'breath of life' instead.

1124 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:05:47pm

re: #1046 WrathofG-d
"To me this entire conversation is similar to when Liberals scream about equal time in schools for views, yet its really ONLY their views that they allow. "Religion shouldn't be taught in schools, therefore only teach what I believe".
Well yes. Religion should not be taught AS SCIENCE in public schools. Just as a practical matter, which religion would get taught? Christianity would seem to be in the lead, but, for once, the ACLU would be right to say that MAKES Jewish kids have to be taught Christian Values in Science Class. Or Islamic kids.
I think the teaching of religion is best left to persons who's job it is to do that and to parents. I do not want ANY religion taught as SCIENCE in taxpayer funded schools. You are certainly free to disagree with me - hell you already do! But I am a LOOONG way from being a liberal. And I have NEVER suggested nor implied, that people with strong religious beliefs that are different than mine have to follow my religious beliefs nor do I insult those who hold religious beliefs at all, much less religious beliefs that are different than mine. I just don't want - for example - Judaism being taught AS SCIENCE to my children (well, ok, I don't have any children but the principle is the same). Or Islam.

1125 IngisKahn  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:06:01pm

re: #1102 Cattt

I haven't checked my youtube comments in a while (been really busy). Usually, I get youngish guys with comments like "cool vid, dude!"

I have a new comment in Japanese.

音楽うるせー。あふぉなのか?

Anyone know Japanese? Does it say "cool vid, dude?" :D

He rudely says he hates the music.

1126 esch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:06:26pm

re: #1092 Abu Bin Squid

Isn't that conservativism? Why change the name for the youths?

Because the language is being redefined to benefit the intellectual left. Conservative principles have been transformed into ignorance and selfishness, successfully.

The branding needs to change.

1127 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:06:41pm
1128 Abu Bin Squid  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:07:06pm

re: #1113 Peter Verkooijen

But they want to be "progressives" - read: communist.

To follow our assertion, liberal was good - then bad - now you want it to be good again. Young people need things spelled out clearly. I fear this is why the ever changing lexicon of the left is viewed as sexy to the young.

1129 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:07:10pm

re: #1108 ggt

It's a demand for reparations for Hiroshima.

Don't they know we;re broke ?

1130 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:07:38pm

re: #1067 Salamantis
Slight correction

There is a vast difference in believing that God created the Universe some 13.7 billion years ago, and believing that God created each and every existent and extinct species, all tens of millions of them, independently and as is and at the same time.
1131 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:07:38pm
1132 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:08:04pm
1133 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:08:10pm

re: #1127 ploome hineni

Christmas is my favorite holiday

I have my little Santa up, and snowmen and red velvet bells

:D

you do know the difference between snowMEN and snowWOMEN, don't you?

Snow Balls !

1134 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:08:41pm

re: #1088 realwest

Ah, at last. Yes I am a Christian who believes God created everything - and then evolution took over.
But that's not what Salamantis is saying and it's definitely not what literal biblical creationists are saying: they are saying the EVERYTHING was created 6-10 thousand years ago, and that is Manifestly Not True.

For the record, I am most definitely NOT saying that; I am saying that THEY are saying that.

1135 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:08:51pm
1136 Abu Bin Squid  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:09:14pm

re: #1117 leftover54

One cannot be OT on post #1117. Can they?

1137 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:09:25pm

re: #1135 ploome hineni

nutitoes?

not since I had them surgically fixed !

1138 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:09:35pm
1139 esch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:09:52pm

re: #1133 sattv4u2

Or yetitoe...

1140 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:09:54pm
1141 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:10:33pm
1142 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:10:54pm

re: #1141 ploome hineni

I can do a vasectomy

I can do lunch!

1143 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:11:15pm
1144 nightwatch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:11:19pm

re: #1118 redc1c4

Late to this thread, working the work of a non-farmer yet still working too hard to be able to get my arms around this...dispute? I am also a man of deep faith you uses science in his day to day profession to help my fellow man. Sometimes the science fails to nail down the logic of a certain how and why in my field which leaves me to my FAITH to get me through the disappointment of science! Try that for size

1145 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:11:25pm
1146 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:11:52pm

re: #1143 ploome hineni

before or after the vasectomy?

depends. Will I need those parts before or after lunch ?

1147 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:12:07pm
1148 Abu Bin Squid  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:12:32pm

re: #1126 esch

Disagree. We need to change the education system. Otherwise conservatism might one day be called "cat food".

The dictionary is printed so words have a constant, and consistent meaning. Playing leftist name changing games only benefits them.

1149 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:12:35pm
1150 redc1c4  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:12:46pm

re: #1069 realwest

amen, and i gave up being Catholic for Lent one year...

/felt so good i had to carry on!

1151 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:12:54pm

re: #1144 nightwatch

Late to this thread, working the work of a non-farmer yet still working too hard to be able to get my arms around this...dispute? I am also a man of deep faith you uses science in his day to day profession to help my fellow man. Sometimes the science fails to nail down the logic of a certain how and why in my field which leaves me to my FAITH to get me through the disappointment of science! Try that for size

I'm a 36 regular

1152 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:13:05pm
1153 Abu Bin Squid  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:13:16pm

re: #1141 ploome hineni

I can do a vasectomy


Thank you, no.

1154 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:13:19pm

re: #1095 ploome hineni
Of course they flirt - why do you think male black widow spiders bring crunchy treats to the fetching female who has caught his eyes, eh?!

1155 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:13:27pm

re: #1149 ploome hineni

do you need them now?

to type ? ummm,, no ,,, lemme see if i'm doing anything else right now !

1156 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:13:43pm

re: #1097 sattv4u2

[Link: www.answers.com...]

show me where it states that please

There are many different religious creation stories. Public school is a govenrment institution, paid for with levied taxes. To favor one religion's creation story over that of any other, say, those of the Hindus or of the Buddhists or of the Druids or the Native Americans, is to favor, or respect, a particular establishment of religion over others. This is prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

1157 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:14:03pm
1158 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:15:00pm

re: #1156 Salamantis

There are many different religious creation stories. Public school is a govenrment institution, paid for with levied taxes. To favor one religion's creation story over that of any other, say, those of the Hindus or of the Buddhists or of the Druids or the Native Americans, is to favor, or respect, a particular establishment of religion over others. This is prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

And all the bill states is to allow, IF the district wants to, that DISCUSSION
I asked you way upthread, and you never answered. its a YES or NO question

Have you read the bill ?

1159 Abu Bin Squid  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:15:34pm

re: #1152 ploome hineni

we are talking 8-10 cm of deferens

Hey, I got a lots a deferens.
/Chico Marx

1160 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:15:46pm

re: #1102 Cattt
Did ya try Babbelfish? [Link: babelfish.yahoo.com...]

1161 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:15:48pm
1162 nightwatch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:15:53pm

re: #1150 redc1c4


So you be a new and disproved secularist?

1163 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:15:57pm

re: #1156 Salamantis

Have you read the bill ?

NOT someone elses analysis of it. Have YOU yourself read the ACTUAL bill ?

1164 stevieray  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:16:10pm

re: #1133 sattv4u2

you do know the difference between snowMEN and snowWOMEN, don't you?

Snow Balls !

Two carrots instead of one!

1165 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:16:42pm
1166 redc1c4  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:16:47pm

re: #1132 LeePro

you left out the " /white smoke "

1167 ggt  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:17:01pm

weet dreams all!

1168 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:17:33pm
1169 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:17:34pm

re: #1109 Salamantis
Yep.

1170 redc1c4  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:18:46pm

re: #1162 nightwatch

So you be a new and disproved secularist?

no.

i'm a "recovering catholic".

we have meetings too, but they're usually in bars, nightclubs, etc...

1171 IngisKahn  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:19:04pm

re: #1160 realwest

Did ya try Babbelfish? [Link: babelfish.yahoo.com...]

It's purposefully misspelled so that you can't use a translator.

Ongaku urusei (urusai). Afo (aho) na no ka?
The music is annoying. Are you an idiot?

1172 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:19:49pm

re: #1170 redc1c4

no.

i'm a "recovering catholic".

we have meetings too, but they're usually in bars, nightclubs, etc...

I'm an active Catholic and have been known to go to bars, nightclubs, etc too !

1173 esch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:21:13pm

re: #1148 Abu Bin Squid

I agree wholeheartedly on the education issue. That capitulation so long ago led directly to the situation we have today.

However, you have to win first. To do that you have to mold perception. This is going to be a long hard battle which I don't know if conservatives can win, seeing as they don't seem to have the stomach for it.

And on that note, goodnight!

1174 LeePro  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:21:24pm

re: #1168 LeePro

Sorry Salamantis, I forgot to insert the link for that COMPLETE LIST REFERENCE.

And now that I've made a noble but inadvertent attempt to turn this into the MNFT, maybe I should just toddle on off to bed...

1175 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:21:46pm
1176 nightwatch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:22:54pm

re: #1170 redc1c4

If by "recovering" you mean a disdain for the teachings of the church, at least have the...how should I put it..."Oranges between your legs to admit so!" Come -on don't be a girly-man...;{

1177 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:22:55pm

re: #1134 Salamantis
Yeah, I know that, shoulda used
"But that's not what Salamantis is saying and it's definitely not what literal biblical creationists are saying: they the creationsists are saying the EVERYTHING was created 6-10 thousand years ago, and that is Manifestly Not True."

Sorry, very tired here.

1178 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:23:00pm

re: #1156 Salamantis

AND ,,, while you're throwing around the Establishment Clause, I suggest you research the Free Exercise Clause

1179 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:23:38pm

re: #1175 ploome hineni

oh nooo

don't worry. i've never had a vasectomy in a bar! (at least, not that i'm aware of !)

1180 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:24:34pm

re: #1176 nightwatch

If by "recovering" you mean a disdain for the teachings of the church, at least have the...how should I put it..."Oranges between your legs to admit so!" Come -on don't be a girly-man...;{

I beleive the phraseology you're looking for is Testicular Fortitude

1181 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:25:58pm

re: #1171 IngisKahn
Ah, thank you!

1182 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:26:06pm

re: #1104 mcmeador

I guess it's inconceivable that the points I made could be original to myself and not part of some grander conspiracy to wear down the opposition and impose creationism on everyone. If you want to be that close-minded, then have at it.

And actually, if life was not created intelligently and instead naturally occurred, then that would require that life evolved from something previously inanimate.

That is not the province of evolutionary theory, but of origins of life theory. Evolutionary theory deals with what happens when populations of already present life possessing high but imperfect copying fidelity are confronted by surrounding environments that select via opportunities and constraints which population members will survive and which will not.

And to J.S., as for alchemy, physicists actually did accomplish turning platinum into gold through nuclear reactions. It involves adding a neutron to a platinum-198 nucleus to produce platinum-199 and then the radioactive decay of the platinum-199 into gold-199. That's beside the point, though. Discussing intelligent design would serve the purpose of discussing views of the origin of life, something that there is no definitive theory to explain. Alchemy isn't about explaining anything that chemistry does not definitively explain.

You also object based on time constraints, but it's not like it is a time-consuming subject. It's very simple: life was created by an intelligent being. There's not much to discuss there. I don't want teachers getting preachy and pushing intelligent design, but I have absolutely no problem with them mentioning it as an alternative because it is a widely held view that disagrees with other scientific theories. Just because it doesn't have scientific evidence to support it doesn't mean it is not relevant to the field of science, as many scientists have become actively involved in discussing and debunking it.

The notion that life was created by an intelligent being (that being being, of course, God) is a religious rather than a scientific one, without any empirical evidence to support it, and as such it does not belong in public high school science class. It is not a scientific theory. And just because whingeing creationists irritate scientists into stating that it isn't a scientific theory is no reason to treat it as one; in fact, quite the contrary.

Also, let me say again that there should be no reason why criticisms of the theory of evolution shouldn't be discussed either. Theories are labeled as such because they have not been proven or fully explained. Otherwise, they would be laws. What better way to illustrate this definition to children by discussing its weaknesses.

Creationists have not been able to produce a single iota of empirical evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory. They have profferred no valid criticisms of evolutionary theory whatsoever. All this talk of 'discussing [nonexistent] weaknesses' is meant to allow bogus creationist propaganda to be employed to sway naive, credulous and gullible young minds.

1183 LeePro  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:26:37pm

re: #1166 redc1c4

you left out the " /white smoke "

Oh.




Ummm. I thought /white smoke was only if you're kidding...

1184 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:26:51pm

re: #1178 sattv4u2

AND ,,, while you're throwing around the Establishment Clause, I suggest you research the Free Exercise Clause

The problem with the Free Exercise Clause is the same thing- I'm free to exercise my religion up until it infringes on your right to exercise (or not) the religion of your choice.

1185 realwest  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:27:03pm

re: #1172 sattv4u2
Yeah but then you go to confession on Saturday and get it out of your system! LOL!

1186 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:28:58pm

re: #1185 realwest

Yeah but then you go to confession on Saturday and get it out of your system! LOL!

nahhh ,, I don't wait. I just turn to the barstool next to me and talk to my priest!

1187 redc1c4  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:29:02pm

re: #1172 sattv4u2

I'm an active Catholic and have been known to go to bars, nightclubs, etc too !

i stay later on Saturday night...

1188 nightwatch  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:30:04pm

re: #1180 sattv4u2

Oranges are the new "tabular" since I am known to throw flame when drinking, unless of course the oranges have been fermented in some dark place for a few weeks...then all bets are off!

Damn it, not waiting for the over-night...

Transponder...OFF

1189 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:30:07pm

re: #1184 Sharmuta

The problem with the Free Exercise Clause is the same thing- I'm free to exercise my religion up until it infringes on your right to exercise (or not) the religion of your choice.

Thats correct, and I asked you as I asked Sal before and didn't get a response from either of you. Have read the bill?

1190 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:30:13pm

re: #1119 ggt

perhaps faith in our senses and in our brains ability to interpret the input?

If we or our ancestors had been unable to do so, we or they would have never survived to reproduce. We could not have found nonpoisonous food, or avoided predators or natural hazards. The inability to accurately interpret and navigate and function in one's environment is environmentally selected against.

1191 LeePro  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:30:55pm

re: #1170 redc1c4

no.

i'm a "recovering catholic".

we have meetings too, but they're usually in bars, nightclubs, etc...

Heh. Been there. Done that.

Used that one night at a real 'meeting' — "Hello, my name is..."
Folks (mostly Catholic in some of those rooms) laughed late into the night!

1192 LeePro  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:34:31pm

re: #1176 nightwatch

If by "recovering" you mean a disdain for the teachings of the church, at least have the...how should I put it..."Oranges between your legs to admit so!" Come -on don't be a girly-man...;{

I don't think the term "recovering Catholic" necessarily means disdain for the teachings of the Church — one can be 'fallen away' without out-and-out rejection...

1193 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:35:29pm

re: #1158 sattv4u2

And all the bill states is to allow, IF the district wants to, that DISCUSSION
I asked you way upthread, and you never answered. its a YES or NO question

Have you read the bill ?

Yes. The public high school discussion of the various creation myths is best held in a comparative religion class, not in a science class. Because they ain't science.

1194 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:38:09pm

re: #1163 sattv4u2

Have you read the bill ?

NOT someone elses analysis of it. Have YOU yourself read the ACTUAL bill ?

I have read both the bill and Barbara Forrest's analysis of it. I concur with her analysis.

1195 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:38:30pm

re: #1193 Salamantis

Yes. The public high school discussion of the various creation myths is best held in a comparative religion class, not in a science class. Because they ain't science.

Thats generally a College Course. Except for a few Private religious schools, I don't know of any High Scholls that would offer that

1196 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:40:39pm

re: #1189 sattv4u2

Yes- I've read the bill you linked. It reads like creationist code-speak which was well covered in the video Charles linked to last night.

1197 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:41:58pm

re: #1168 LeePro

re: #1078 Salamantis

On the other hand, in case you need an online reference, this one is more than sufficient, as it provides answers to both questions:
1. Did you mean fuck you (in dictionary)?
  or
2. ! ! !Fuck You! ! ! (in reference)?

Since the second offering provides only a limited (and way too logical) reference, this complete list should be very revealing to you.

Hope I've helped you out tonight. I just hate to see a Lizard suffering as much as you do your poor brain does.

You might look up the phrase 'hoist on his own petard' to understand my reply in #1078.

1198 redc1c4  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:42:58pm

re: #1176 nightwatch

If by "recovering" you mean a disdain for the teachings of the church, at least have the...how should I put it..."Oranges between your legs to admit so!" Come -on don't be a girly-man...;{

the "disdain" i have is because of the disconnect between the Gospel as promulgated, and the Church as implemented.

my contempt for the formal Church is because of things like the Raj Mahal downtown LA, built by the same simpering idiot who is whining about the plight of all the poor downtrodden underprivileged illegals that he's helped bring here.

let the Church spend it's money to house, feed school and uplift these future members of its parishes, rather than w*rk to subvert the law of the land and let the tax payers do it for them.

1199 Rancher  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:42:58pm

re: #293 Walter L. Newton
Then how do you explain the placebo effect except as healing thru faith and beleif not necessarily in spirits or god but in medicine. Just because back in time without the technology to understand maladies and instead blamed spirits doesn't mean that faith has no effect on the recovery process. His beleive in exorcism doesn't bother me its his pushing of ID in schools that does. His beleif in exorcism however will kill his electability because of the media bias.

Rustler

1200 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:43:28pm

re: #1196 Sharmuta

Yes- I've read the bill you linked. It reads like creationist code-speak which was well covered in the video Charles linked to last night.

Sorry, I just don't see it as insidious. It will be interesting to see by this time next year how many school districts even opt to add it to the curriculum

1201 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:43:42pm

re: #1195 sattv4u2

Thats generally a College Course. Except for a few Private religious schools, I don't know of any High Scholls that would offer that

Not my problem, or the problem of any public high school system. Not everything can be taught in high school; that's what they have colleges for.

1202 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:43:50pm

re: #1195 sattv4u2

My high school had a world religions class as an elective.

1203 redc1c4  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:44:39pm

re: #1183 LeePro

Oh.




Ummm. I thought /white smoke was only if you're kidding...

cover is cover...

sarcastic, teasing, harsh... same same.

1204 redc1c4  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:46:20pm

re: #1192 LeePro

I don't think the term "recovering Catholic" necessarily means disdain for the teachings of the Church — one can be 'fallen away' without out-and-out rejection...

thank you...

the Church, as is, simply doesn't w*rk for me.

1205 redc1c4  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:47:30pm

re: #1202 Sharmuta

My high school had a world religions class as an elective.

mine had Catholicism as a mandatory 4 year requirement...

/epic fail %-)

1206 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:47:52pm

re: #1178 sattv4u2

AND ,,, while you're throwing around the Establishment Clause, I suggest you research the Free Exercise Clause

You're free to exercise your religion at home, in church, or on a soapbox in the park; you are not, however, permitted to intrude on other peoples' free exercise thereof by mandating that their kids be taught your religious beliefs in public high school science class.

1207 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:49:55pm

re: #1202 Sharmuta

My high school had a world religions class as an elective.

Thats great. I went to a Catholic High School (although way way back when) and we didn't have that

1208 Salamantis  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:50:39pm

re: #1200 sattv4u2

Sorry, I just don't see it as insidious. It will be interesting to see by this time next year how many school districts even opt to add it to the curriculum

Just as many as get successfully sued over it.

1209 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:52:57pm

re: #1206 Salamantis

You're free to exercise your religion at home, in church, or on a soapbox in the park; you are not, however, permitted to intrude on other peoples' free exercise thereof by mandating that their kids be taught your religious beliefs in public high school science class.

How does including creationism in the discussion of the origins of life "insist on conduct which threatens important interests of the society in an unreasonable manner"

(within the quotes is the essence of the Free Exercise Clause)

1210 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:54:07pm

re: #1200 sattv4u2

Sorry, I just don't see it as insidious. It will be interesting to see by this time next year how many school districts even opt to add it to the curriculum

But if islamists were sneaking their ideology into public school science classrooms, my guess is you'd see that as a threat.

1211 sattv4u2  Mon, Dec 1, 2008 11:59:01pm

re: #1210 Sharmuta

But if islamists were sneaking their ideology into public school science classrooms, my guess is you'd see that as a threat.

If they were demanding that 13 years olds girls had mandatory clitoral mutilatuion, yeah! Not if it was something as harmless as debating when/ how life began and we evolved. (and again,,, thats ALL the bill states)

1212 Rancher  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 12:00:17am

re: #1161 ploome hineni The Mcdonald's i eat at most nights on the way to work has 2 or 3 seperate drivethru clerks who don't know how to make change without the register.

1213 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 12:01:01am

re: #1208 Salamantis

re: #1210 Sharmuta

Thanks for the respectful debate. I have to catch a few winks now as I have to be on my toes in three hours!

Perhaps we can continue sometime

1214 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 12:02:56am

re: #1212 Rancher

The Mcdonald's i eat at most nights on the way to work has 2 or 3 seperate drivethru clerks who don't know how to make change without the register.


I screw with them even with the register. Say your order comes to $5.62. Give the person a $10.00 Wait until they ring the $10 into the register and it shows them the change. THEN give them 2 pennies! The looks on the faces are PRICELESS!

1215 Salamantis  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 12:04:12am

re: #1209 sattv4u2

How does including creationism in the discussion of the origins of life "insist on conduct which threatens important interests of the society in an unreasonable manner"

(within the quotes is the essence of the Free Exercise Clause)

It favors some religious beliefs over others. This is governmentally supported religious discrimination, and it threatens the very freedom of religion basis of our constitution.

1216 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 12:08:04am

re: #1209 sattv4u2

How does including creationism in the discussion of the origins of life "insist on conduct which threatens important interests of the society in an unreasonable manner"

(within the quotes is the essence of the Free Exercise Clause)

You don't understand the code speak, so you're not seeing the problem with this bill. Much like the european neo-fascists and their code speak- if you don't know the code, you can be fooled into thinking it's something it's not.

1217 Salamantis  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 12:09:34am

re: #1211 sattv4u2

If they were demanding that 13 years olds girls had mandatory clitoral mutilatuion, yeah! Not if it was something as harmless as debating when/ how life began and we evolved. (and again,,, thats ALL the bill states)

But either NO creation myths are permitted or ALL of them would have to be - both existent and extinct, and however frivolous they might be considered these days. I can foresee Cthulhu, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Holy Union of Eris and Bob, Ahura Mazda, Zeus, Odin and Ra all making appearances.

1218 Rancher  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 12:14:18am

I'll throw random change values at em occasionally if i have the time before my shift like if my meal is 4.63 ill give em 5.28 and it just burns there little minds.

1219 [deleted]  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 12:22:10am
1220 LeePro  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 12:33:00am

re: #1214 sattv4u2

I screw with them even with the register. Say your order comes to $5.62. Give the person a $10.00 Wait until they ring the $10 into the register and it shows them the change. THEN give them 2 pennies! The looks on the faces are PRICELESS!

I do that all the time!

McDonald's — LOVIN' IT ! ! !

1221 LynnfromNZ  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 1:37:41am

re: #478 Dr. Shalit

nice steal from an old m*a*s*h episode there.

1222 LynnfromNZ  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 1:38:03am

Palin-Jindal in 2012.

1223 Salamantis  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 1:48:34am

re: #1222 LynnfromNZ

Palin-Jindal in 2012.

Not on my vote. Jindal anywhere on the ticket is a deal-killer for me.

1224 jroberson  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 1:49:01am

I had no idea Reagan was stuck on Creationism.

1225 jroberson  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 1:51:02am

I hate to think the Republicans can do no better than Jindal. If so, we, the party, the ideas and the hope for a return to a more traditional and constitutional nation, are fubar.

1226 Rancher  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 3:18:30am

re: #1222 LynnfromNZ I had the same thought a few weeks ago but the ID thing is a deal killer with Jindal for me it's one thing for him to have beliefs it's another when he uses his political position to push said beliefs on the public. Plus the media bias with Jindal, Palin, and Romney's religious beliefs will cause issues with electability.

Rustler

1227 Blackwater28  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 3:18:56am

I think Mitt Romney would be a good choice for president in 2012. He's widely regarded as an economic expert and the economy is only bound to get worse with the idiotic socialist Obama in power. When unemployment reaches over 15% and our GDP plummets people will be freaking out. And Romney is just an upstanding family man so he has mass appeal to all parts of the country.

Even when I used to be a liberal I would have probably voted for him since he just seems like a decent man who would do the best job at turning the economy around. It would have trumped the socio-economic views I had at the time. So he has appeal to both the right and the left just like Reagan. Not to mention the conditions leading up to the election of Reagan are eerily similar to the conditions leading up to the 2012 election. If it worked before in the 1980s it will probably work now.

I also think Jindal would be a good choice because he seems to be an upstanding and solidly christian family man just like Romney. However he may be a bit too socially conservative for some Americans (including me since I don't agree with his uniform stance on abortion) and I've never heard him publicly speak so I can't judge how well he carries himself. However we do have to acknowledge the new era of politically correct racism that has swept over the world where people now believe they have to vote for somebody if they aren't white because "Yay diversity!" which I believe played a large role in Obama's election.

I think a Romney/Jindal presidential campaign would be unbeatable in 2012. I'd prefer Romney to fill the role as president and Jindal to fill the role of vice president because I think Romney has more experience and is a decent public speaker and because I know a lot less about Jindal.

And your refusal to vote for a politician simply because they believe in intelligent design or creationism is completely ridiculous. For such a trivial issue to be the deciding factor on how effective you think they'd be as president is mind boggling. It reminds me of the way I used to think when I was a liberal atheist in my teens debating with people in AOL chatrooms... What I liked about the republican party is stuff like this wasn't such a wedge issue like it is for liberals.

If you're a liberal and you believe in intelligent design or creationism you're automatically kicked from the group and are now a complete neanderthalic moron in their view to be sniggered at. But atleast conservatives had much more rational wedge issues like the positions political leaders had on terrorism or socio-economic policies. It simply doesn't make sense to me how grown adults could still argue over something so trivial.

1228 JRHelgeson  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 3:51:37am

I hate having to say this, especially to fellow conservative types but who the hell cares if he believes in creationism? Yes, it is an absurd belief, but you need to contrast this belief with what is currently being taught in our schools that is far more damaging than even the looniest of "The Discovery Institute's" "theories".

Global warming: I would much rather have half the population thinking the world is a grand total of 10,000 years old than have half the population believe that man can control the weather, The societal damage being done by spreading this groupthink brain cancer is FAR worse than the provably absurd notion of a young earth. The ability to use creationism to control the masses is laughable. The use of 'climate change' to exert control over

While the creationist belief is nutty, it is nowhere near as damaging and dangerous as this pseudo scientific belief that mankind can actually control the weather. I would dare say that you will never hear a creationist politician/presidential candidate make an outright declaration that they intend to destroy and bankrupt 'big pharmaceuticals' or whatever to save creationism in the same way that Obama promised to bankrupt the coal industry in order to save the planet.

Okay, so as a religious christian, I *ACTUALLY* believe that Moses saw a burning bush... so what! No matter what amount of modern-day "proof" you can show me will shake my belief in this absurd notion, and yet the grand societal impact of my belief in this is... uh, nothing?

Lets suppose a kid graduates from High School believing in intelligent design... so what! You're not going to be having every damned teacher in the whole school indoctrinating every student in the way that they have it now with every student learning about math, and how it relates to global warming. Geometry and how it relates to Chimpy McBusHitler. The kids today are graduating high school with absolutely NO education.

I could go on and on, but I have ranted enough. For now.

I, for one, *hearts* Bobby, including all his wacky beliefs.

1229 JRHelgeson  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 3:52:56am

Wow, I guess I wasn't done proofreading my comment. :)

1230 Joetheplumber  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 4:06:34am

re: #1228 JRHelgeson

While I do sympathize to some extent with your views, anyone who espouses (or had espoused in the past) teaching of creationism/ID in school is the last person who will be taken seriously by the rest of the World on issues such as global warming (which is yet another religion in the garb of science).

1231 Rancher  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 4:23:32am

re: #1227 Blackwater28 It's not his belief in ID that's the deal killer its the fact that he's pushing it in the schools.

1232 DocDale  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 4:29:45am

I haven't had chance to read this whole thread... but I am curious as to whether the bill Jindal's signed into law has been tested legally as yet. Presumably it's only a matter of time before some school board (as with Dover) tries it on and finishes up costing itself a packet with litigation.

The other thing I find surprising is Jindal's willingness to countenance ID as a Catholic. His views on abortion are entirely to be expected for a sincere Catholic, but the Church hasn't had anything to say against evolution for decades - indeed, there have even been (IIRC) Papal Encyclicals to the effect that evolution is accepted.

After reading that very odd exorcism article Jindal wrote while he was at Oxford (what he described bears no resemblance to exorcism as Catholics understand it), coupled with his - at least - toleration of ID, I do wonder how clear he is in his own mind on Catholic doctrine.

1233 annar  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 4:41:49am

By 2050 the Harun Yahya Publishing Co. will be furnishing almost all of the life sciences texts for the educational madrassas of the European Union. The former "red states" will be getting huge discounts on these texts; they will be adopted and this will be seen as the first step in the peaceful integration of the U.S. into the world wide caliphate in the 22nd century. Darwin will only be remembered as the name of some antique computer operating system.

I wish I could put a /sarc tag on this but it is a real possibility.

1234 SagamoreGal  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 6:18:11am

1). Unless Republicans - moderates and conservatives - start putting more $$$ in their bank accounts than the New Democratics and start moving away from traditional Red states into the Blue states in mass numbers (similar to what the affluent Dems have done over the last 15 years), a Theodore Roosevelt/Ronald Reagan reincarnate could not win the next election. The Republicans cannot keep up with the simple demographic numbers of the Democratic party.

2). The press, impossible to defeat, has mandated that this country cannot survive unless our President has an Ivy League education, preferably at least a masters degree.

3). Short of a major war and a depression, does anyone really see a Republican in the White House until at least 2016?

1235 tfc3rid  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 6:31:50am

I know this will annoy some people but we don't like it when people are 'one issue' morality voters... I don't know much about Gov. Jindal's policies in La but I also know that nowadays the election is about popularity and celebrity... Policy seemingly took a backseat in 2008... It will only get worse... If Jindal is the choice, even if I disagree with some of his views, I have to reason that his ideas might end up fitting mine more closely...

But I would say 50% of those who vote want a celebrity or a rockstar... You know, the guy you would want to hang out with... The AI generation wants a celebrity and doesn't care about policy...

1236 Basho  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 6:34:35am

re: #1234 SagamoreGal

3). Short of a major war and a depression, does anyone really see a Republican in the White House until at least 2016?

This reminds me of those rightwingers who believed they achieved a permanent Republican majority after the 2004 elections. The pendulum can switch from one side to another quickly, and thinking that it won't is foolish.

1237 Tatterdemalian  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 6:48:43am

I don't believe in eliminating "social conservatives" from the party. I do believe in eliminating the ones that don't understand just why they're so unpopular, and refuse to perform even the tiniest amount of research into why this is, despite their strengths. Not to mention the fact that so few of them know the difference between science and superstition these days. (Hint: Debate team tactics isn't science. The side that presents the most facts doesn't win in science, only the side that cannot be contradicted by any demonstrable facts.)

1238 elcaro  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 7:25:49am

I'll preface my comments below with the following: I actually find less enjoyment reading LGF since the focus has been drawn to this subject. I do believe that God created the Heaven's and the Earth, but I admit that I don't understand the mystery of creation and I think much of what is in the Bible is best understood as a mystery that is beyond mere human understanding.

I read a book in the 90s (the book was older than that) in the George Mason University library called "Intellectuals speak out on God" (the title was something like that). The book caught my eye and the introduction was written by Ronald Reagan, so I picked it up. The first chapter was from an astronomer (whose name I don't recollect) who I paraphrase: I believe the Universe could've taken billions of years to be formed and arrive at this very point, and I also believe it could've been formed in this very instant with all my memories intact.

I believe it's more of a culture war to most people... It's about a school system that has seen prayer removed completely... Where "Under God" is contested in the Pledge of Allegiance... Where global warming theory has been taught with equal religious fervor in science class for 20+ years without challenge... Where abstinence teaching is seen as inferior to passing out condoms...

"Creationism" isn't science... I'm not arguing it is. I think it's not constructive to just call people "stupid" and tell them to shut up (like many of the posts that I've read). Find a way to concede and even celebrate some appropriate elements of American culture back into schools that were once removed. I think you'll find the fervor of the "other side" in this debate diminishes.

1239 treefish  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 7:26:46am

The creationists are an embarrassment to educated Christian Republicans, and to the USA. I will oppose him any way I can.

1240 elcaro  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 7:29:16am

re: #1239 treefish

Just another one issue conservative... ;)

1241 dhg4  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 7:41:05am

Jindal, unlike many others running for higher office has actually accomplished something: he remade Louisiana's health care system. Given the entitlements crisis that we're facing, he's probably the one guy who - despite his baggage - has the necessary experience to take that on.

I also give him credit for rejecting the overtures of the McCain campaign. If the report is true he didn't want to be considered for the VP slot because he thought the campaign did not have enough focus.

1242 Yashmak  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 7:48:12am

re: #1238 elcaro

"Creationism" isn't science... I'm not arguing it is. I think it's not constructive to just call people "stupid" and tell them to shut up (like many of the posts that I've read). Find a way to concede and even celebrate some appropriate elements of American culture back into schools that were once removed. I think you'll find the fervor of the "other side" in this debate diminishes.

You may be right, but the science classroom is not the place for this to occur. Science classes teach just that, science. Not pseudo science, not religious issues. If the ID crowd finds a way to concede that, you'll find that the fervor in this debate not only diminishes, but disappears altogether.

1243 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 7:53:21am

re: #1232 DocDale

After reading that very odd exorcism article Jindal wrote while he was at Oxford (what he described bears no resemblance to exorcism as Catholics understand it), coupled with his - at least - toleration of ID, I do wonder how clear he is in his own mind on Catholic doctrine.

I think that's a fair question.

/One I'm sure the media will hold back from until it's too late.

1244 Lanzman  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 8:28:40am

Bobby Jindal, eh? So . . . the Republicans want to continue to lose elections? Jindal's creationist views alone should keep him out of higher office. Fiscal conservatism is good, social conservatism is harder to quantify. It's a much fuzzier scale.

1245 Aye Pod  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 8:50:13am

re: #1233 annar

By 2050 the Harun Yahya Publishing Co. will be furnishing almost all of the life sciences texts for the educational madrassas of the European Union. The former "red states" will be getting huge discounts on these texts; they will be adopted and this will be seen as the first step in the peaceful integration of the U.S. into the world wide caliphate in the 22nd century. Darwin will only be remembered as the name of some antique computer operating system.

I wish I could put a /sarc tag on this but it is a real possibility.

That's one thing that's not gonna happen in Europe. Creationism is dead here. Not 'just resting' or 'pining for the fjords'. It has passed on, gone to meet it's maker.

1246 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 9:10:11am

re: #1238 elcaro

"Creationism" isn't science... I'm not arguing it is. I think it's not constructive to just call people "stupid" and tell them to shut up (like many of the posts that I've read).

Please point out one post where I have called anyone "stupid" or told anyone to "shut up."

You can't.

I can, however, point out numerous examples of creationists doing EXACTLY that. Some are in this thread. And I can also point out numerous examples of creationists telling their opponents they're doomed to burn in hell, they're "atheists," they're ideologically aligned with Hitler, and on and on and on.

From my point of view, the uncivil behavior is heavily weighted on the creationist side of this debate.

Find a way to concede and even celebrate some appropriate elements of American culture back into schools that were once removed.

In one sentence you say "creationism isn't science," and in the very next sentence you say we should "concede" (read: appease the creationists) and let it be taught in science classes. Don't you risk whiplash by reversing yourself so quickly?

1247 mcmeador  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 9:57:54am

re: #1182 Salamantis

Creationists have not been able to produce a single iota of empirical evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory. They have profferred no valid criticisms of evolutionary theory whatsoever. All this talk of 'discussing [nonexistent] weaknesses' is meant to allow bogus creationist propaganda to be employed to sway naive, credulous and gullible young minds.

Well it seems that one recurring flaw in the argument for evolution is that evolutionists take the view that any criticism of evolution is motivated by support for creationism rather than being an actual scientific criticism.

I also don't see how you can claim there are absolutely no weaknesses in the theory. Even Darwin recognized that the Cambrian explosion was a threat to his theory of evolution. And so far, scientists have not been able to explain it. There are a variety of theories attempting to explain it, but there is no definitive one. If the theory of evolution can't explain a sudden explosion of complex animals and diversity in other organisms, then that is a weakness in the theory.

1248 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 10:18:24am

re: #1247 mcmeador

Well it seems that one recurring flaw in the argument for evolution is that evolutionists take the view that any criticism of evolution is motivated by support for creationism rather than being an actual scientific criticism.

Ridiculous. The fields of biology and life science are constantly experimenting, researching, and arguing over findings. These are vibrant fields of study with a LOT of debate.

But when criticism of evolution is dishonest, or based on religious beliefs, yep, it's dismissed. As it should be. Science does not deal with religious beliefs, and it shouldn't. You don't achieve breakthroughs in medicine or genetics research by saying, "Oh well, I can't figure that out. Must have been God."

"Intelligent design" has, to date, produced absolutely no scientific research or peer reviewed studies. Zero. Zip. Nada. If the Discovery Institute and their shills want to be taken seriously, why aren't they spending more of their money on real, verifiable scientific research? The answer is simple and obvious: because it's not about science. It's about pushing their religious beliefs on other people.

I also don't see how you can claim there are absolutely no weaknesses in the theory. Even Darwin recognized that the Cambrian explosion was a threat to his theory of evolution. And so far, scientists have not been able to explain it. There are a variety of theories attempting to explain it, but there is no definitive one. If the theory of evolution can't explain a sudden explosion of complex animals and diversity in other organisms, then that is a weakness in the theory.

This is a pure creationist talking point, and it's wrong.

1249 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 10:25:30am

re: #1247 mcmeador

I also don't see how you can claim there are absolutely no weaknesses in the theory. Even Darwin recognized that the Cambrian explosion was a threat to his theory of evolution. And so far, scientists have not been able to explain it. There are a variety of theories attempting to explain it, but there is no definitive one. If the theory of evolution can't explain a sudden explosion of complex animals and diversity in other organisms, then that is a weakness in the theory.

You contradict yourself. You say there's no explanation for the Cambrian Explosion, then turn around and say scientists have some competing theories. So it's simply incorrect that science has no answers to the CE. What I've read is that it's possible the increase of oxygen in the atmosphere gave rise to the Cambrian. (You'll note this hypothesis is still dealing with a material explanation and not metaphysical.)

1250 [deleted]  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 10:26:33am
1251 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 10:33:02am

The truth about the so-called "Cambrian explosion," which creationists like to portray as the "sudden" appearance of many different species, but which actually had a time-span of anywhere from 5 million to 40 million years:

[Link: www.talkorigins.org...]

1252 Tatterdemalian  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 10:41:14am

One of the larger problems is that the communication revolution has made it so easy for us to hear whatever we want to hear that we have actually become psychologically addicted to having our beliefs reaffirmed, so much that we see anything that contradicts our beliefs as a threat to our very survival, more so than things that actually are threats to our survival. It happens to both conservatives who demand that ID be treated as science, as well as liberals who demand that climate science be decided upon by popular vote.

Everyone's trying to ignore or conceal all challenges to their beliefs, rather than face them as a test of their validity. This is why the US keeps losing information-age wars. The only hedge against the new tyrranies is a population not only armed with guns, but trained in scientific research as well, and we're doing a frankly terrible job with the latter.

1253 annar  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 10:42:07am

re: #1245 Jimmah

It seemed to be doing well in the Parisian suburbs the last time I was in Paris (2007). They are going full throttle on the baby making so the demography seems to be playing against the natives. In any case I hope my take is wrong.

1254 Salamantis  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 11:38:09am

re: #1228 JRHelgeson

I hate having to say this, especially to fellow conservative types but who the hell cares if he believes in creationism? Yes, it is an absurd belief, but you need to contrast this belief with what is currently being taught in our schools that is far more damaging than even the looniest of "The Discovery Institute's" "theories".

Global warming: I would much rather have half the population thinking the world is a grand total of 10,000 years old than have half the population believe that man can control the weather, The societal damage being done by spreading this groupthink brain cancer is FAR worse than the provably absurd notion of a young earth. The ability to use creationism to control the masses is laughable. The use of 'climate change' to exert control over

While the creationist belief is nutty, it is nowhere near as damaging and dangerous as this pseudo scientific belief that mankind can actually control the weather. I would dare say that you will never hear a creationist politician/presidential candidate make an outright declaration that they intend to destroy and bankrupt 'big pharmaceuticals' or whatever to save creationism in the same way that Obama promised to bankrupt the coal industry in order to save the planet.

Okay, so as a religious christian, I *ACTUALLY* believe that Moses saw a burning bush... so what! No matter what amount of modern-day "proof" you can show me will shake my belief in this absurd notion, and yet the grand societal impact of my belief in this is... uh, nothing?

Lets suppose a kid graduates from High School believing in intelligent design... so what! You're not going to be having every damned teacher in the whole school indoctrinating every student in the way that they have it now with every student learning about math, and how it relates to global warming. Geometry and how it relates to Chimpy McBusHitler. The kids today are graduating high school with absolutely NO education.

I could go on and on, but I have ranted enough. For now.

I, for one, *hearts* Bobby, including all his wacky beliefs.

As I said in #865 above:

Teaching religious dogma in public school science class would result in kids choosing not to pursue bioscience in college, or else dropping out of it when they find it's not what they were taught in high school. This would cost the US future bioscientists, and ensure that more of the discoveries, innovations, and inventions in the field happen overseas, as well as the manufacturing of products based on such research. This would damage the US both economically and geopolitically.

1255 Salamantis  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 11:40:40am

re: #1227 Blackwater28

I think Mitt Romney would be a good choice for president in 2012. He's widely regarded as an economic expert and the economy is only bound to get worse with the idiotic socialist Obama in power. When unemployment reaches over 15% and our GDP plummets people will be freaking out. And Romney is just an upstanding family man so he has mass appeal to all parts of the country.

Even when I used to be a liberal I would have probably voted for him since he just seems like a decent man who would do the best job at turning the economy around. It would have trumped the socio-economic views I had at the time. So he has appeal to both the right and the left just like Reagan. Not to mention the conditions leading up to the election of Reagan are eerily similar to the conditions leading up to the 2012 election. If it worked before in the 1980s it will probably work now.

I also think Jindal would be a good choice because he seems to be an upstanding and solidly christian family man just like Romney. However he may be a bit too socially conservative for some Americans (including me since I don't agree with his uniform stance on abortion) and I've never heard him publicly speak so I can't judge how well he carries himself. However we do have to acknowledge the new era of politically correct racism that has swept over the world where people now believe they have to vote for somebody if they aren't white because "Yay diversity!" which I believe played a large role in Obama's election.

I think a Romney/Jindal presidential campaign would be unbeatable in 2012. I'd prefer Romney to fill the role as president and Jindal to fill the role of vice president because I think Romney has more experience and is a decent public speaker and because I know a lot less about Jindal.

And your refusal to vote for a politician simply because they believe in intelligent design or creationism is completely ridiculous. For such a trivial issue to be the deciding factor on how effective you think they'd be as president is mind boggling. It reminds me of the way I used to think when I was a liberal atheist in my teens debating with people in AOL chatrooms... What I liked about the republican party is stuff like this wasn't such a wedge issue like it is for liberals.

If you're a liberal and you believe in intelligent design or creationism you're automatically kicked from the group and are now a complete neanderthalic moron in their view to be sn***ed at. But atleast conservatives had much more rational wedge issues like the positions political leaders had on terrorism or socio-economic policies. It simply doesn't make sense to me how grown adults could still argue over something so trivial.

It's far from trivial when some people - like Bobby Jindal -are trying to get it taught to other peoples' kids in public high school science class.

1256 Salamantis  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 11:46:43am

re: #1238 elcaro

I'll preface my comments below with the following: I actually find less enjoyment reading LGF since the focus has been drawn to this subject. I do believe that God created the Heaven's and the Earth, but I admit that I don't understand the mystery of creation and I think much of what is in the Bible is best understood as a mystery that is beyond mere human understanding.

I read a book in the 90s (the book was older than that) in the George Mason University library called "Intellectuals speak out on God" (the title was something like that). The book caught my eye and the introduction was written by Ronald Reagan, so I picked it up. The first chapter was from an astronomer (whose name I don't recollect) who I paraphrase: I believe the Universe could've taken billions of years to be formed and arrive at this very point, and I also believe it could've been formed in this very instant with all my memories intact.

I believe it's more of a culture war to most people... It's about a school system that has seen prayer removed completely... Where "Under God" is contested in the Pledge of Allegiance... Where global warming theory has been taught with equal religious fervor in science class for 20+ years without challenge... Where abstinence teaching is seen as inferior to passing out condoms...

"Creationism" isn't science... I'm not arguing it is. I think it's not constructive to just call people "stupid" and tell them to shut up (like many of the posts that I've read). Find a way to concede and even celebrate some appropriate elements of American culture back into schools that were once removed. I think you'll find the fervor of the "other side" in this debate diminishes.

Who could possibly in all good and decent conscience prostrate themselves before a lying God who would go to all the trouble to fabricate deceiving evidence in the empirical world?

1257 Aye Pod  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 11:53:35am

re: #1253 annar

Point taken. But I don't think the forces of ignorance will prevail in the end either here or in America. I can't see many people these days being fooled into allowing creationism into the classes out of 'respect' for Islam, although we will of course hear religious figures and assorted moonbats making those calls from time to time.

1258 Salamantis  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 11:56:59am

re: #1247 mcmeador

Well it seems that one recurring flaw in the argument for evolution is that evolutionists take the view that any criticism of evolution is motivated by support for creationism rather than being an actual scientific criticism.

I also don't see how you can claim there are absolutely no weaknesses in the theory. Even Darwin recognized that the Cambrian explosion was a threat to his theory of evolution. And so far, scientists have not been able to explain it. There are a variety of theories attempting to explain it, but there is no definitive one. If the theory of evolution can't explain a sudden explosion of complex animals and diversity in other organisms, then that is a weakness in the theory.

Actually, the Cambrian 'explosion' occurred over a period of 110 million years - longer than the period between the extinction of the dinosaurs and today. And it is easily explained by the advent of directable mobility. The first cases of organisms evolving to be able to intentionally pursue food, instead of sitting and photosynthesizing or drifting around waiting for edibles to bump into them, were during the beginning of the Cambrian. These organisms had abundant fixed or randomly drifting food sources and no natural enemies. Practically any nonlethal mutation could be successful. And this evolutionary free-for-all continued up until directionally mobile predators that fed on directionally mobile prey evolved, which placed the constraints of self-defence or flight upon further successful evolution.

1259 Aye Pod  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 12:03:01pm

re: #1254 Salamantis

Notice how the reasons given for allowing the Discovery Institute to have their way are evolving. Now it's - "Look at us - we're harmless goofballs! So what if we want to sprinkle the science books that your kids will be reading with a little of our special brand of nonsense - it's hardly the end of the world is it?"

1260 h0mi  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 12:13:02pm

My take on ID is this. If you support ID being taught in science class, you should also support that the Tower of Babel story should be taught in English, Language Arts, Grammar or any classes teaching foreign languages or linguistics. The Tower of Babel story, presented by Noam Chomsky. (laugh).

1261 Yashmak  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 12:21:42pm

re: #1259 Jimmah

Notice how the reasons given for allowing the Discovery Institute to have their way are evolving. Now it's - "Look at us - we're harmless goofballs! So what if we want to sprinkle the science books that your kids will be reading with a little of our special brand of nonsense - it's hardly the end of the world is it?"

No joke . . ."All we're looking for is a bit of a concession. . .a salve for our feelings!" Notions like that strip away any pretense at ID being a viable scientific alternative to evolution. . .heck, half the commentors saying things like this are stating outright that they KNOW ID isn't science. . .but they then go on to say they feel some sort of creationist material should be imposed upon the science classroom. "It only needs to be one paragraph".

1262 mcmeador  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 12:40:35pm

re: #1248 Charles

Ridiculous. The fields of biology and life science are constantly experimenting, researching, and arguing over findings. These are vibrant fields of study with a LOT of debate.

That's good, and I'm not arguing that that is happening. My point is that in a variety of places, including here in these discussions, pro-evolution theory folks are quick to dismiss any criticism of evolution theory as something motivated by support for creationism rather than being based on science. Salamantis seems to be doing just that and even goes as far as to suggest that there are absolutely no valid criticisms of evolution theory.

But when criticism of evolution is dishonest, or based on religious beliefs, yep, it's dismissed. As it should be. Science does not deal with religious beliefs, and it shouldn't. You don't achieve breakthroughs in medicine or genetics research by saying, "Oh well, I can't figure that out. Must have been God."

I feel you're missing a key segment of intelligent design supporters. Sure there are those whose criticisms of evolution theory are motivated solely by religious beliefs. But there are also those who come to believe in intelligent design after finding that there is much in evolution theory that they find weak and unable to explain certain aspects of life. This doesn't scientifically validate the idea of intelligent design, but it does show that some people believe in it not simply because they can't figure out any other way it could have happened but also because they don't believe evolution explains it sufficiently either.

This is a pure creationist talking point, and it's wrong.

How is this a pure creationist talking point? You can look up the Cambrian explosion online and see a wide variety of scientific theories attempting to explain it. But there is no definitive explanation for it. Some question whether it really happened to the extent that fossils would have us believe. That's fine. What's important is that some believe it did, some believe it didn't, many believe evolution did go through rapid advancement but not to the extent that some would suggest, etc. Then to explain the different possible degrees of evolutionary advancement in this period, there are an assortment of theories. But no one has quite determined which is correct, if any. It's just guessing at this point. Plain and simple: evolutionary theory cannot presently explain life development in this time period. If the theory cannot explain it, then it is a weakness in the theory and is exactly why it remains a theory.

The same goes for the theory of relativity, which I suppose I can illustrate without such a rabid opposition. The theory of relativity goes to explain a lot of the workings in our universe. But there are points where the theory of relativity cannot adequately explain certain things, where it cannot apply. That is why physicists have been seeking for years to develop a universal theory that incorporates relativity and quantum physics...a theory that can explain everything because those theories alone have weaknesses.

Many evolutionists also seem to assume that if you are suggesting that evolutionary theory has weaknesses or that it may not be able to adequately explain certain things then you are also suggesting that the alternative is necessarily intelligent design. That's definitely not what I'm doing. Maybe one day evolutionary theory will be able to definitively explain the developments of the Cambrian period. But it's also possible that maybe there can be another explanation for it. Maybe evolution as we know it today doesn't apply, but that doesn't mean the explanation has to be intelligent design. It could be a combination of evolution and something else.

1263 mcmeador  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 12:45:47pm

And let me add that I'm definitely getting tired of losing karma every time I post. Apparently that's people's way of punishing me for expressing an opinion that differs from their own. You'd think as long as you were respectful and made a legitimate attempt at debating points, people would respect you in return. Oh well. Hopefully this karma doesn't carry over to real life because if it does that probably means I'm going to be kidnapped and brutally tortured and murdered within the next day or so.

1264 Yashmak  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 12:49:50pm
This doesn't scientifically validate the idea of intelligent design, but it does show that some people believe in it not simply because they can't figure out any other way it could have happened but also because they don't believe evolution explains it sufficiently either.

- mcmeador

Well, unless they can scientifically validate the idea of intelligent design, they can keep it out of the science classroom.

The theory of relativity goes to explain a lot of the workings in our universe. But there are points where the theory of relativity cannot adequately explain certain things, where it cannot apply.

But in none of these cases has the theory itself been overturned. Modified? Yes. Refined? Yes. Just as the theory of evolution has been modified and refined as scientific evidence dictates. ID has no scientific evidence with which to overturn evolution. It has no scientific basis from which to dispute evolution whatsoever, beyond "I simply don't believe it could have happened that way". Science isn't about belief though. It's about evidence and observation.

1265 Salamantis  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 1:19:10pm

re: #1262 mcmeador

That's good, and I'm not arguing that that is happening. My point is that in a variety of places, including here in these discussions, pro-evolution theory folks are quick to dismiss any criticism of evolution theory as something motivated by support for creationism rather than being based on science. Salamantis seems to be doing just that and even goes as far as to suggest that there are absolutely no valid criticisms of evolution theory.

There are no valid criticisms of evolutionary theory that do not themselves invoke that selfsame evolutionary theory, and serve only the eminently scientific purpose of refining the model. Anyone with a credible criticism of evolutionary theory that successfully invokes nonevolutionary explanations would receive a Nobel Prize, an Ivy League University tenured professorship, fat research grants for the rest of his life, and a prominent place in the history of science. But out of millions of scientist, none have been able to grasp that brass ring.

Certainly no credible criticisms, nor any credible alternative theories, are coming from the ID camp; even Disco Institute heavies such as George Gilder and Michael Medved admit that ID is content-free. Its sole purpose is to attempt to rhetorically undermine evolutionary theory, not to offer up empirically feasible alternative explanations.

I feel you're missing a key segment of intelligent design supporters. Sure there are those whose criticisms of evolution theory are motivated solely by religious beliefs. But there are also those who come to believe in intelligent design after finding that there is much in evolution theory that they find weak and unable to explain certain aspects of life. This doesn't scientifically validate the idea of intelligent design, but it does show that some people believe in it not simply because they can't figure out any other way it could have happened but also because they don't believe evolution explains it sufficiently either.

ID is a PR propaganda label that Disco Institute shills stuck on creationism in order to try to make the religious sound scientific. It explains nothing to state that GodDidIt; this appeal to a God of the Gaps explains nothing, and is in fact the rejection of all empirical explanation. The absence of answers is not an answer. And those gaps are, to the IDers' dismay, progressively becoming fewer and narrower as empirical science advances - and not due to any nonexistent contributions from the ID camp, but due to authentically scientific explanations.

One would still have to explain how and from whence came such an intelligence and power - one that would of necessity be quantums more complex than its creation - and this explanation would be vastly more difficult than simply explaining the proliferation and speciation of terrestrial life via random genetic mutation and nonrandom environmental selection - not to mention violating Occam's Razor, which states that explanatory entities should not be multiplied beyond what is necessary to explain the observed natural phenomena - a task that evolutionary theory continues to competently advance in without recourse to supernatural devices - and has for a century and a half, with all discovered empirical evidence in its favor, and none in opposition.

to be continued...

1266 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 1:20:51pm

re: #1262 mcmeador

How is this a pure creationist talking point? You can look up the Cambrian explosion online and see a wide variety of scientific theories attempting to explain it.

Yes, you can Google it -- and just look at all the creationist web sites that turn up:

[Link: www.google.com...]

That's why I said this is a pure creationist talking point: because it is.

Are there different scientific theories about that prehistoric era? Sure, there are. But none of them involve creationism or "intelligent design."

1267 Aye Pod  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 1:29:42pm

re: #1262 mcmeador

But there are also those who come to believe in intelligent design after finding that there is much in evolution theory that they find weak and unable to explain certain aspects of life. This doesn't scientifically validate the idea of intelligent design, but it does show that some people believe in it not simply because they can't figure out any other way it could have happened but also because they don't believe evolution explains it sufficiently either.

You are talking about people who have been misled by creationist websites and 'intelligent design' propoganda. Having genuine puzzlement about evolution should be a stimulus to find out more from scientific sources, not to throw your hands in the air and invoke the supernatural. The supernatural has never been successfully invoked as part of a scientific explanation for any phenomenon, ever.


Maybe one day evolutionary theory will be able to definitively explain the developments of the Cambrian period.

There is no crisis in evolutionary thought concerning the cambrian explosion. This is a creationist talking point, one that you have evidently swallowed whole. Please read the link Charles provided.

As for your karma, it isn't so bad - at the moment. Translated into real life you're talking about getting into bed tonight and finding the cat's been sick on your pillow - something of that order. Nothing that a short program of education in evolutionary science can't fix.

1268 Salamantis  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 1:36:01pm

re: #1262 mcmeador

continued...

How is this a pure creationist talking point? You can look up the Cambrian explosion online and see a wide variety of scientific theories attempting to explain it. But there is no definitive explanation for it. Some question whether it really happened to the extent that fossils would have us believe. That's fine. What's important is that some believe it did, some believe it didn't, many believe evolution did go through rapid advancement but not to the extent that some would suggest, etc. Then to explain the different possible degrees of evolutionary advancement in this period, there are an assortment of theories. But no one has quite determined which is correct, if any. It's just guessing at this point. Plain and simple: evolutionary theory cannot presently explain life development in this time period. If the theory cannot explain it, then it is a weakness in the theory and is exactly why it remains a theory.

On the contrary; as has been posted on this very thread, evolutionary theory has offered up several explanations for the Cambrian phenomena - and these explanations tend to complement each other. Any combination of them may be the actual reason. But to say that evolutionary science has not yet conclusively settled on one or a set of definitive explanations is quite different from claiming that they have profferred no credible explanations whatsoever.

The same goes for the theory of relativity, which I suppose I can illustrate without such a rabid opposition. The theory of relativity goes to explain a lot of the workings in our universe. But there are points where the theory of relativity cannot adequately explain certain things, where it cannot apply. That is why physicists have been seeking for years to develop a universal theory that incorporates relativity and quantum physics...a theory that can explain everything because those theories alone have weaknesses.

Biology is not cosmology. I find it surpassingly odd that creationist IDers continue to argue against evolutionary theory by talking about the lack of a grand unified theory of everything in theoretical physics (and a candidate that unites relativity theory and quantum mechanics that has been proposed by Garrett Lisi is being experimentally tested in the Large Hadron Collider, by searching for the elusive Higgs boson his theory predicts). After all, the Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago, while life first appeared on this planet more than 10 billion years later.

Many evolutionists also seem to assume that if you are suggesting that evolutionary theory has weaknesses or that it may not be able to adequately explain certain things then you are also suggesting that the alternative is necessarily intelligent design. That's definitely not what I'm doing. Maybe one day evolutionary theory will be able to definitively explain the developments of the Cambrian period. But it's also possible that maybe there can be another explanation for it. Maybe evolution as we know it today doesn't apply, but that doesn't mean the explanation has to be intelligent design. It could be a combination of evolution and something else.

The obnus is on those who claim, without any evidence, that evolutionary theory lacks the capacity to explain a particular phenomenon, to propose an alternative theory that can be demonstrated to explain the phenomenon better. And this is precisely what IDers have been unable to do, and even unwilling to try. Nor has anyone else been able to do so.

To say that because we don't yet know everything that we don't know some things is fallacious. We know that evolution exists, that it proceeds by random genetic mutation and nonrandom environmental selection, and that its physical substrate mechanism is deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA).

to be continued...

1269 Salamantis  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 1:46:37pm

continued...

We can peer into the genomes of related species, and by comparing the embedded artifactual retroviral DNA sequences they do and do not share and their degrees of genetic degradation, deduce when they evolutionarily diverged from common ancestors. We can employ the genome to create forms of life that did not exist before, such as splicing carotene-producing genetic sequences from daffodils into rice genomes to create a Vitamin-A-rich grain that can prevent millions of poor SE asian children from developing rickets, or splicing the flourescence-producing genetic sequence from jellyfish into the mouse genome to create rodents that glow in the dark. And Lenski can reproduce at will, in his laboratory and under controlled conditions, the mutation of e coli bacteria into organisms that can metabolize citric acid.

It is useless to claim that internal combustion engines don't exist when we can tune their carburetors at will.

1270 mcmeador  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 1:55:50pm

re: #1264 Yashmak

But in none of these cases has the theory itself been overturned. Modified? Yes. Refined? Yes. Just as the theory of evolution has been modified and refined as scientific evidence dictates. ID has no scientific evidence with which to overturn evolution. It has no scientific basis from which to dispute evolution whatsoever, beyond "I simply don't believe it could have happened that way". Science isn't about belief though. It's about evidence and observation.

What is it that y'all are not understanding? I've made it perfectly clear in my posts that I'm not advocating intelligent design over evolution. Where did I suggest that the theory of evolution should be overturned? You even go as far to suggest that I am saying that it should be overturned on the basis of intelligent design! Where are you getting this? My only point with that was to say that the theory of evolution has weaknesses. You even admitted yourself that it has had weaknesses because you said that the theory has had to be modified and refined. There are still weaknesses. There are still areas that the theory of evolution as it exists does not definitively explain. That was my only point, and it was perfectly clear.

Salamantis, now you're only further proving my point. It's been clear that my point on this particular matter is that there are valid criticisms and weaknesses of the theory of evolution. That's it! Now you are acknowledging that refinements have been made to the theory. Refinements aren't made unless there are weaknesses. At no point have I attempted to validate the idea of intelligent design or even suggested that it is a valid counterpoint to the theory of evolution. All I said is that the theory has weaknesses and there is no reason why they shouldn't be discussed in a classroom.

The only other main point that I've made relates to intelligent design itself. All I said there was that I see no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned in the classroom. It is a heated debate that involves scientists and is the most popular alternative to the theory of evolution. There is no reason to pretend that it doesn't exist. That is something that many of you disagree with, so that's fine. That is an opinion, and I see no reason to pursue it any further. I'm not saying that belief in intelligent design should be advocated or that it is a scientific theory.

re: #1266 Charles

Yes, you can Google it -- and just look at all the creationist web sites that turn up:

[Link: www.google.com...]

That's why I said this is a pure creationist talking point: because it is.

Are there different scientific theories about that prehistoric era? Sure, there are. But none of them involve creationism or "intelligent design."

Just because a lot of creationist web sites use it doesn't mean it's a pure creationist talking point. I'm not a creationist, and I'm talking about it. That would be like saying that opposition to the war in Iraq is solely an anti-war talking point if you were to search opposition to the it and found a bunch of anti-war web sites. Well I know for a fact that there are plenty of people who are not anti-war, but just don't support the war in Iraq.

Your last paragraph only further proves the point I was making. You say there are different scientific theories about the Cambrian era. That's my point! There is no end-all explanation for the developments of that era. Therefore that is an area in which the theory of evolution is weak. There are too many differing scientific theories that attempt to explain it, and therefore the theory of evolution in its current state cannot do so. Maybe with refinement it can, but not right now.

1271 elcaro  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 1:56:35pm

re: #1246 Charles

Not sure where you found my post addressed to you personally... Quite a lot of posts over the last 6 months or so have unapologetically taken the tone I mentioned above. I wasn't "calling anyone out", but mentioning the cultural issues at play. I am truly sorry if I made it sound that way.

Regarding the "appease the creationists" line... I wasn't using the word "concede" to mean that we concede on issues where it was not "appropriate" to concede. Why not consider other initiatives like "school choice", abstinence (Obama has stated he will change course there), prayer/meditation (done in a way that doesn't promote a particular religion), etc?

I believe we agree that the issue isn't scientific, and I also happen to believe that the people arguing in favor of creationism are more doing so because they feel traditional American values are under attack.

Creation is a mystery... Therefore, not a scientific study. However, the people who are being called "anti-intellectual" are probably more concerned with culture than science. Give them back aspects of their culture where it makes sense. THAT was my primary point. It's just my opinion. I didn't mean any harm by it.

1272 Aye Pod  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 2:09:35pm

re: #1270 mcmeador

You say there are different scientific theories about the Cambrian era. That's my point! There is no end-all explanation for the developments of that era. Therefore that is an area in which the theory of evolution is weak. There are too many differing scientific theories that attempt to explain it, and therefore the theory of evolution in its current state cannot do so. Maybe with refinement it can, but not right now.

Here's the giveaway - you keep coming back to the idea that unresolved questions are equivalent to - not arguments for this or that evolutionary account or some combination thereof- but 'weaknesses' in evolutionary theory itself. There are no scientists who would commit such a distortion, but it happens to be exactly the message that the Discovery Institute are putting out.

By the way, Charles posted a video in which the 'teach the strengths and weaknesses' agenda of the Disco Institute is laid bare for all to see. So imagine how convinced we are when you come here spouting the exact same line, and at the same time claiming to not have any interest in furthering intelligent design. Quite simply, you are not fooling anyone.

1273 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 2:13:05pm

re: #1270 mcmeador

There is no end-all explanation for the developments of that era. Therefore that is an area in which the theory of evolution is weak.

Nope. Just because the Cambrian period is not fully understood does not mean that "the theory of evolution is weak." It means it's still being researched.

Evolutionary theory is not weak at all; it's one of the most solid, well-documented scientific theories in human history. It's amazing how well Darwin's work has stood the test of time and the advance of science.

"Intelligent design" is not even a weak scientific theory, because it is not science at all.

All I said there was that I see no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned in the classroom. It is a heated debate that involves scientists and is the most popular alternative to the theory of evolution.

Science is not a popularity contest.

1274 Salamantis  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 2:22:08pm

re: #1270 mcmeador

What is it that y'all are not understanding? I've made it perfectly clear in my posts that I'm not advocating intelligent design over evolution. Where did I suggest that the theory of evolution should be overturned? You even go as far to suggest that I am saying that it should be overturned on the basis of intelligent design! Where are you getting this? My only point with that was to say that the theory of evolution has weaknesses. You even admitted yourself that it has had weaknesses because you said that the theory has had to be modified and refined. There are still weaknesses. There are still areas that the theory of evolution as it exists does not definitively explain. That was my only point, and it was perfectly clear.What is it that y'all are not understanding? I've made it perfectly clear in my posts that I'm not advocating intelligent design over evolution. Where did I suggest that the theory of evolution should be overturned? You even go as far to suggest that I am saying that it should be overturned on the basis of intelligent design! Where are you getting this? My only point with that was to say that the theory of evolution has weaknesses. You even admitted yourself that it has had weaknesses because you said that the theory has had to be modified and refined. There are still weaknesses. There are still areas that the theory of evolution as it exists does not definitively explain. That was my only point, and it was perfectly clear.

You criticize empirical science for its strength. Unlike religious dogmas forever frozen like flawed flies in the amber of ancient history, science continues to modify, refine, elaborate and advance. You make it sound like incomplete is a synonym for incorrect, and it isn't.

Salamantis, now you're only further proving my point. It's been clear that my point on this particular matter is that there are valid criticisms and weaknesses of the theory of evolution. That's it! Now you are acknowledging that refinements have been made to the theory. Refinements aren't made unless there are weaknesses. At no point have I attempted to validate the idea of intelligent design or even suggested that it is a valid counterpoint to the theory of evolution. All I said is that the theory has weaknesses and there is no reason why they shouldn't be discussed in a classroom.

Refinements are also made when a theory is incomplete, and in principle no scientific theory can ever be declared complete, for that would foreclose any possibility that future evidence could further refine it - something that dogmatic religions do, not empirical science. In fact, I cannot think of a single major consensus tenet of evolutionary theory - not random genetic mutation, not nonrandom evolutionary selection, not the mendelian model of inheritance of dominant and recessive characteristics, not the identity of DNA as the material substrate for the coding and passing on of these characteristics - that has been discredited or overturned. Some have been added over time, but none have been subtracted. Once again; incomplete does not entail incorrect. If I answer a 20 question multiple choice test by inking in the correct answers on 19 of the questions and leaving the 20th one blank, the test is incompletely answered, but the 19 answers I gave are still correct, anyway. Incompleteness is not a weakness or a flaw; it is just an invitation to investigate and experiment further. And I have yet to see a valid or credible criticism of any aspect of evolutionary theory, or any modification or elaboration of it, that did not depend upon and originate within evolutionary theory itself.

1275 mcmeador  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 2:25:38pm

re: #1267 Jimmah

You are talking about people who have been misled by creationist websites and 'intelligent design' propoganda. Having genuine puzzlement about evolution should be a stimulus to find out more from scientific sources, not to throw your hands in the air and invoke the supernatural. The supernatural has never been successfully invoked as part of a scientific explanation for any phenomenon, ever.

I'm not intending to defend intelligent design with that point. All I was saying is that some people are led to support intelligent design because of the problems they see with the theory of evolution rather than because they are religiously brainwashed. It was just a point made in passing.

There is no crisis in evolutionary thought concerning the cambrian explosion. This is a creationist talking point, one that you have evidently swallowed whole. Please read the link Charles provided.

It may not be a crisis. Scientists may not be freaking out about it. But my point is that there are a variety of theories, which goes to show that it is not explained with any certainty. They can't just slap the theory of evolution on it and say, "problem solved." It has to be worked out.

As for your karma, it isn't so bad - at the moment. Translated into real life you're talking about getting into bed tonight and finding the cat's been sick on your pillow - something of that order. Nothing that a short program of education in evolutionary science can't fix.

Well then that's pretty bad because I don't have a cat. Perhaps it evolved from some object in my room lol.

re: #1268 Salamantis

continued...

Biology is not cosmology. I find it surpassingly odd that creationist IDers continue to argue against evolutionary theory by talking about the lack of a grand unified theory of everything in theoretical physics (and a candidate that unites relativity theory and quantum mechanics that has been proposed by Garrett Lisi is being experimentally tested in the Large Hadron Collider, by searching for the elusive Higgs boson his theory predicts). After all, the Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago, while life first appeared on this planet more than 10 billion years later.

Well then it is coincidence as I am not a "creationist IDer" nor do I visit creationist web sites or read their works. My only point was to present another scientific theory that doesn't explain everything adequately. The theory of evolution in its current state doesn't necessarily explain everything adequately, so it needs to be refined or we may find that it must be combined with another theory to do so (and I AM NOT implying intelligent design). I am also not implying that a weakness in the theory of evolution means that the theory is altogether incorrect. I don't know where you got that from. My very first post on this thread actually stated that I lean towards a theory of life occurring naturally where conditions are right and then evolving from there to become more complex. If anything, I have supported overall the theory of evolution. Just because I disagree with the way other people view and defend the theory doesn't mean I'm attacking it.

As for the last thing Charles said, you are twisting what I said about evolutionary theory having a weakness into my supposedly saying that it is weak overall. I'm not saying that. You, Charles, have a weakness too, as we all do. We are not immune to illness. But that weakness doesn't imply that humans are weak overall.

And Jimmah, if you want to be a conspiracy theorist and accuse me of being some part of the Discovery Institute's grand plan, then do so. Be paranoid. I really don't care. Just don't accuse me of being part of the JFK assassination because I wasn't born until 1985.

1276 Salamantis  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 2:35:21pm

re: #1270 mcmeador

The only other main point that I've made relates to intelligent design itself. All I said there was that I see no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned in the classroom. It is a heated debate that involves scientists and is the most popular alternative to the theory of evolution. There is no reason to pretend that it doesn't exist. That is something that many of you disagree with, so that's fine. That is an opinion, and I see no reason to pursue it any further. I'm not saying that belief in intelligent design should be advocated or that it is a scientific theory.

Science is not a popularity contest. It depends upn empirical evidence, and all of it favors evolutionary theory, and none of it favors creationism or ID. The 'debate' only involves scientists to the degree that they get irritated enough by creationist whingeing to respond to it by debunking it - and then creationists seize on that debunking in order to claim an apparent controversy, where none genuinely exists. Read and learn:

[Link: ase.tufts.edu...]

Just because a lot of creationist web sites use it doesn't mean it's a pure creationist talking point. I'm not a creationist, and I'm talking about it. That would be like saying that opposition to the war in Iraq is solely an anti-war talking point if you were to search opposition to the it and found a bunch of anti-war web sites. Well I know for a fact that there are plenty of people who are not anti-war, but just don't support the war in Iraq.

The Cambrian canard is too classic a creationist dodge for you not to have picked it up from one of their websites - either Creationontheweb, Answersingenesis, the Disco Institute, or some other creationist propaganda outlet.

Your last paragraph only further proves the point I was making. You say there are different scientific theories about the Cambrian era. That's my point! There is no end-all explanation for the developments of that era. Therefore that is an area in which the theory of evolution is weak. There are too many differing scientific theories that attempt to explain it, and therefore the theory of evolution in its current state cannot do so. Maybe with refinement it can, but not right now.

Once again, a surfeit of possible explanations, all of which could be, and most likely are, valid to some degree (scientific explanations are frequently both/and rather than either/or), is quite different from the absence of any explanation, which is what ID offers concerning every observed phenomenon in empirical bioscience. If you have ten bowls of raw milk, you still have a bowl of cream - you just have to skim it out.

1277 mcmeador  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 2:39:05pm

re: #1274 Salamantis

You criticize empirical science for its strength. Unlike religious dogmas forever frozen like flawed flies in the amber of ancient history, science continues to modify, refine, elaborate and advance. You make it sound like incomplete is a synonym for incorrect, and it isn't.

Lmao...where did I say the theory of evolution is incorrect? Now you are even acknowledging that the theory of evolution is incomplete. You continue to further prove my points every time you post. Not being complete is a weakness. That doesn't mean the theory is incorrect. That doesn't mean the theory is weak overall. It just means that it can't in its current state completely explain everything.

If I answer a 20 question multiple choice test by inking in the correct answers on 19 of the questions and leaving the 20th one blank, the test is incompletely answered, but the 19 answers I gave are still correct, anyway. Incompleteness is not a weakness or a flaw; it is just an invitation to investigate and experiment further.

Incompleteness is definitely a weakness. If someone were to present a brand new problem to the theory of evolution, and I were to just say, "well here, take the theory of evolution." They would respond, "Well that doesn't exactly explain it. I would say, "Hmm...I guess my theory has a weakness and I need to refine it."

If you put a successful boxer in the ring and he lost, then you would recognize that the boxer has a weakness. He was not prepared to fight his opponent, and something that opponent did exploited a weakness of the boxer. That does not mean the boxer is a weak person. It just means that you must discover how to correct that weakness so that he can win.

All I've said is that the theory of evolution has weaknesses. And I'm really not understanding the weird turns the debate has taken in an attempt to discredit me. It seems like every time someone responds to me, they are silently conceding a part of my point and instead replacing it with a point I never made.

How many times do I have to say that my point is simply that the theory of evolution has weaknesses...not that it is weak overall...not that it is incorrect...not that I think intelligent design is a relevant counterpoint...not that I think intelligent design is scientific...

1278 mcmeador  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 2:47:17pm

re: #1276 Salamantis

The Cambrian canard is too classic a creationist dodge for you not to have picked it up from one of their websites - either Creationontheweb, Answersingenesis, the Disco Institute, or some other creationist propaganda outlet.

Actually I read it in the National Review. Is that a creationist publication? I have no idea because I hardly ever read it anymore and have never found myself particularly interested in the debate until now, and I'm already sick of it. All the National Review did was make mention of it, so I looked it up myself and just read all the various theories there are regarding it on Wikipedia and came to my own conclusions. I didn't read creationist opinions about it. All I looked at were the large amounts of theories attempting to explain it.

Once again, a surfeit of possible explanations, all of which could be, and most likely are, valid to some degree (scientific explanations are frequently both/and rather than either/or), is quite different from the absence of any explanation, which is what ID offers concerning every observed phenomenon in empirical bioscience. If you have ten bowls of raw milk, you still have a bowl of cream - you just have to skim it out.

Yes, and once again, I have not advocated intelligent design to fill any gap in evolutionary theory's ability to explain anything. You continue to discuss it as if I have for some reason.

1279 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 2:56:52pm

re: #1278 mcmeador

Actually I read it in the National Review. Is that a creationist publication?

Assuming you're talking about this article: [Link: www.nationalreview.com...]

... then, yes, you were reading creationist propaganda by one of the Discovery Institute's main spokesmen.

1280 Nemesis6  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 3:01:04pm

I see a few people here talking about us not knowing how life began. It's been said a lot of times, but I think it's important to repeat it: Evolution does not talk about how life began. It's really quite sad when this many people argue against evolution based on a fallacious premise; that Evolution is on any level explanatorily comparable to the bible account of Creation

To make it easy:
The bible tells us that a Sky Wizard created everything.
The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life.

Saying that evolution doesn't explain our origins is kind of like bursting into an English-class shouting that English doesn't explain quantum mechanics. The kid will laugh at you.

1281 Salamantis  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 3:05:36pm

re: #1275 mcmeador

Well then it is coincidence as I am not a "creationist IDer" nor do I visit creationist web sites or read their works. My only point was to present another scientific theory that doesn't explain everything adequately. The theory of evolution in its current state doesn't necessarily explain everything adequately, so it needs to be refined or we may find that it must be combined with another theory to do so (and I AM NOT implying intelligent design). I am also not implying that a weakness in the theory of evolution means that the theory is altogether incorrect. I don't know where you got that from. My very first post on this thread actually stated that I lean towards a theory of life occurring naturally where conditions are right and then evolving from there to become more complex. If anything, I have supported overall the theory of evolution. Just because I disagree with the way other people view and defend the theory doesn't mean I'm attacking it.

There IS NO other scientific theory but evolution to explain the speciation and proliferation of life on this planet - and not from lack of trying. Once again, scientific incompleteness is not a bug or weakness, it's a feature or strength. In principle, no empirically based theory can ever be declared complete, for there are always other measurements that can be made, and other data that can be collected, collated and analyzed, that can serve the purpose of further strengthening a theory and more precisely delineating its scope and range. Unlike religious dogmas, scientific theories do not claim to be Perfect, Complete and Utter Absolute Truth, but they DO claim to be asymptotically approaching the ideal of veracity, statistically speaking. One cannot in principle say that it is 100% certain that the basic tenets of evolutionary theory are correct; one can, however, state that the statistical probability that they are correct so closely approaches apodictic certainty that the difference between them is vanishingly small.

As for the last thing Charles said, you are twisting what I said about evolutionary theory having a weakness into my supposedly saying that it is weak overall. I'm not saying that. You, Charles, have a weakness too, as we all do. We are not immune to illness. But that weakness doesn't imply that humans are weak overall.

Wow. You repeated the words 'weak' and 'weakness' five times in five lines. Really pushing that weakness meme, are we? It doesn't fly. The strength of evolutionary theory in the face of all challenges for a century and a half, and the undeniable fact that mountains and tsunamis of empirical evidence support it, while not an iota or whit of counterfactual empirical evidence exists, is so blindingly obvious that even Helen Keller could see it.

And Jimmah, if you want to be a conspiracy theorist and accuse me of being some part of the Discovery Institute's grand plan, then do so. Be paranoid. I really don't care. Just don't accuse me of being part of the JFK assassination because I wasn't born until 1985.

I figured you had to be young. You'll mature and learn, as time goes by, and learn to look ID gift horses in their mouths, and not buy creationist pigs in pokes, or go on snipe hunts or wild goose chases for phantom anti-evolutionary explanations like a thirsty desert-wandering soul seeing an oasis in ever mirage. Providing that you continue to study and observe, and that you objectively and dispassionately evaluate and verify what you find.

1282 Salamantis  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 3:25:04pm

re: #1277 mcmeador

Lmao...where did I say the theory of evolution is incorrect? Now you are even acknowledging that the theory of evolution is incomplete. You continue to further prove my points every time you post. Not being complete is a weakness. That doesn't mean the theory is incorrect. That doesn't mean the theory is weak overall. It just means that it can't in its current state completely explain everything.

EVERY scientific theory is incomplete, IN PRINCIPLE; otherwise, there would be no possibility for scientists to improve them, and they would be saddled with the same problems as religious dogmas forever forced to deny their obvious and manifest flaws, such as God breathing life independently into and creating as is every one of tens of millions of separate species, both existent and extinct, in the span of six days a few thousand years ago, even though the earth and life are both demonstrably far, far older than that, and the DNA residing in every living cell conclusivelt demonstrates the evolutionary interrelation of all life. NO scientific theory can explain everything. Evolutionary theory, for instance, has nothing to say about how to reconcile relativity theory and quantum mechanics, or where to find dark matter. Theories have their own domains and ranges. And within the domain of the speciation and proliferation of terrestrial life, there quite simply is no competition whatsoever to evolutionary theory.

Incompleteness is definitely a weakness. If someone were to present a brand new problem to the theory of evolution, and I were to just say, "well here, take the theory of evolution." They would respond, "Well that doesn't exactly explain it. I would say, "Hmm...I guess my theory has a weakness and I need to refine it."

YOU might, but most scientists would simply say that here the theory is incomplete, and I need to add something to it in order to explain the observed phenomena. Kinda like Gregor Mendel did.

If you put a successful boxer in the ring and he lost, then you would recognize that the boxer has a weakness. He was not prepared to fight his opponent, and something that opponent did exploited a weakness of the boxer. That does not mean the boxer is a weak person. It just means that you must discover how to correct that weakness so that he can win.

But nothing has defeated evolutionary theory. Not one whit of credible evidence contradicting it has ever been produced.

All I've said is that the theory of evolution has weaknesses. And I'm really not understanding the weird turns the debate has taken in an attempt to discredit me. It seems like every time someone responds to me, they are silently conceding a part of my point and instead replacing it with a point I never made.

You keep pushing the fallacious meme that in science, incompleteness equals weakness. And no one is prepared to concede that point, because it is an invalid and unsound one. In fact, just the opposite is the case; dogmatic religions' false claims of perfection and completeness are their Achilles' Heel.

How many times do I have to say that my point is simply that the theory of evolution has weaknesses...not that it is weak overall...not that it is incorrect...not that I think intelligent design is a relevant counterpoint...not that I think intelligent design is scientific...

You have not pointed out a single instance in which evolutionary theory is explicitly contradicted by empirical evidence. Until you can manage to do that, your claims of weakness are not credible. I won't be holding my breath.

1283 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 3:28:29pm

Jindal is a complete non-starter. If he gets the nom in '12, we'll be up to our eyes in Republican Brand Purple Twinkies

1284 Yashmak  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 3:41:57pm

re: #1270 mcmeador

You even admitted yourself that it has had weaknesses because you said that the theory has had to be modified and refined. There are still weaknesses. There are still areas that the theory of evolution as it exists does not definitively explain. That was my only point, and it was perfectly clear.

The refinement or modification of a theory does not indicate a weakness in the underlying theory. Why do you have such difficulty understanding that? With each modification or refinement, the theory gets stronger. Your interpretation seems to be that each new modification or refinement indicates a new weakness, when in fact the reverse is true.

1285 Aye Pod  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 4:04:13pm

re: #1275 mcmeador

And Jimmah, if you want to be a conspiracy theorist and accuse me of being some part of the Discovery Institute's grand plan, then do so. Be paranoid. I really don't care. Just don't accuse me of being part of the JFK assassination because I wasn't born until 1985.

Well, you read that piece "Unintelligent Design" or similar on NRO's page and took it for credible science. You then came here and repeated what you had 'learned' there. Although unaware, you were indeed a part of their 'grand plan' to spread misinformation about science.

You should watch the video I mentioned earlier here if you want a clearer idea of the history of creationist/ intelligent design propaganda, how to recognise it, and who is behind it.

1286 mcmeador  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 9:50:12pm

First, let me say that is not the National Review piece I read. The one I did read I have found was written by a different member of the Discovery Institute. But in that article, he only mentioned the Cambrian explosion in passing, which I did my own research on. I did not learn anything specific from his article, and as I said the only thing I did was read the variety of theories that attempt to explain it and came to my own conclusions.

Secondly, I'm done with this. It seems no matter how many times or how much more clearly I reiterate my points, you all continually fail to grasp what it is that I'm saying. Now the defense has been reduced to such inane arguments as, "incompleteness is not a weakness, it's a strength!" What?!? I can hear it now..."Sir, your theory simply does not explain this adequately." "Oh, no problem, that just means the theory is stronger!" The funny thing, Salamantis, is that you make this absurd claim and then follow with this:

In principle, no empirically based theory can ever be declared complete, for there are always other measurements that can be made, and other data that can be collected, collated and analyzed, that can serve the purpose of further strengthening a theory and more precisely delineating its scope and range.

Oh...ok. So every theory can be further strengthened. Well if you can add strength to it in certain areas, that means it previously lacked that strength there. So by definition it would have previously been a weakness. Just ask Webster:

Weak´ness
n. 1. The quality or state of being weak; want of strength or firmness; lack of vigor; want of resolution or of moral strength; feebleness.
2. That which is a mark of lack of strength or resolution; a fault; a defect.
Many take pleasure in spreading abroad the weakness of an exalted character.

([Link: www.webster-dictionary.net...]

How much more absurd can this get... I mean, really...I feel like you are a bunch of sensitive Muslims and I've just drawn a picture of Allah. The defensiveness of some of you on this subject is bordering on fanaticism if it hasn't already crossed that line. I'll be staying away from these posts from now on, especially considering that I'm really not that passionate about this subject anyway. If I decide I want to take part in a crazy time-consuming argument that goes no where, I'll just sign up for an account on the Daily Kos. At least there I won't care how much respect I lose. See you in another thread on better terms I hope. Later!

1287 JRHelgeson  Tue, Dec 2, 2008 10:00:59pm

re: #1254 Salamantis

As I said in #865 above:

Teaching religious dogma in public school science class would result in kids choosing not to pursue bioscience in college, or else dropping out of it when they find it's not what they were taught in high school. This would cost the US future bioscientists, and ensure that more of the discoveries, innovations, and inventions in the field happen overseas, as well as the manufacturing of products based on such research. This would damage the US both economically and geopolitically.

And right now, they are being taught the religious dogma of Global Warming -er- climate change which is creating an entire wasted generation because they are not just being taught this in science class, they are being taught this in English class, in social studies, in math class. It has made its way into every part of the curricula and this secular religion of climate change has even less 'proof' than the intellegent designers claim to have.

My point is twofold and thus: Intelligent design will never reach the absurd levels of hysteria that global warm-er climate changers have. My issue is not what should we do with those kooks, per se. My issue revolves around is Bobby J. qualified and can he do the job? The answer is yes. Does he believe in funny things like I believe there's this guy who died on a cross and came back to life 3 days later? Ya, we both believe in silly stuff. The silly stuff we believe in is far less dangerous to our society than the silly stuff the secularists are forcing on our children. THAT is the real problem, and THAT is what we need to focus on.

To focus on Bobby J and the designers is to be troubleshooting the wrong problem.

1288 Salamantis  Wed, Dec 3, 2008 6:51:01am

re: #1286 mcmeador

It's quite simple, really; the capacity to further refine, elaborate or augment existing theories is a strength; the necessity of accepting flawed dogmas as is without any chance to improve them based upon subsequent data is a weakness. Replying to an absence of particular explanation in a theory with an additional explanation empirically tailored to that specific area is much stronger than being told no, the dogma is forever perfect and complete, the holy pronouncement of God's own cosmic Lips, and if you don't believe in it, and believe that it is forever perfect and complete, you're going to hell.

1289 Yashmak  Wed, Dec 3, 2008 7:52:24am

re: #1287 JRHelgeson

And right now, they are being taught the religious dogma of Global Warming -er- climate change which is creating an entire wasted generation because they are not just being taught this in science class, they are being taught this in English class, in social studies, in math class. It has made its way into every part of the curricula and this secular religion of climate change has even less 'proof' than the intellegent designers claim to have.

You'll get no argument from me that our societal reaction to climate change has been overblown, but the rest of this statement is pure horsewash. In the case of climate change, there is ample scientific evidence to suggest that it is indeed occcurring, even though that evidence has often been mis-represented by the likes of Al Gore, and even though there have been some errors (like Nasa's recent Siberian temperatures fiasco). If there was even ONE data point suggesting climate change, that would place it leaps and bounds ahead of Intelligent Design in terms of empirical evidence. The only real equivalence between these two topics, is that they have both been politicized.

My point is twofold and thus: Intelligent design will never reach the absurd levels of hysteria that global warm-er climate changers have.

Correct. The attempt to insert Intelligent Design into our science classrooms is more insidious. By comparison to climate change, it is flying under the radar with most of our population, which makes it all the more important that individuals like Charles highlight it. . . lest we awaken one day and find thinly veiled religious concepts being taught as science.

The silly stuff we believe in is far less dangerous to our society than the silly stuff the secularists are forcing on our children. THAT is the real problem, and THAT is what we need to focus on.

1290 Yashmak  Wed, Dec 3, 2008 7:56:51am

continued. . .

What about the 'silly stuff' the ID folks are trying to force on our children through the science classroom? How is THAT not a real problem as well? How is non-science being forced into the science classroom any less of a problem than bad science (some. . but not all. . of the Global Warming stuff) being inserted into the science classroom?

1291 Sharmuta  Wed, Dec 3, 2008 10:17:46am

re: #1287 JRHelgeson

To focus on Bobby J and the designers is to be troubleshooting the wrong problem.

I completely disagree. The focus is on keeping science education strong and not allowing it to be watered down with pseudo-science like ID. If we really want to confront issues with AGW, that will require American students be trained properly in the scientific method and taught the distinction between science and religion.

Furthermore, the whining about global warming on these threads is nothing more than an attempt at deflection. You complain the AGW is a religion that shouldn't be tolerated in science class, but shrug your shoulders at creationism. That reeks of hypocrisy.

Whatever you make think of it, climate change is a real phenomenon. The dispute is in how much of it is natural and beyond our control, and how much of it has been caused by human influences. The thing is, if we allow science to be science, allow the hypotheses to undergo the scientific method, the evidence will speak for itself. Of course- if we allow the foundations of the scientific method to be undermined by the agenda of the IDers, then applying the scientific method to climate change will be worthless.

1292 Salamantis  Wed, Dec 3, 2008 10:58:55am

re: #1287 JRHelgeson

And right now, they are being taught the religious dogma of Global Warming -er- climate change which is creating an entire wasted generation because they are not just being taught this in science class, they are being taught this in English class, in social studies, in math class. It has made its way into every part of the curricula and this secular religion of climate change has even less 'proof' than the intellegent designers claim to have.

My point is twofold and thus: Intelligent design will never reach the absurd levels of hysteria that global warm-er climate changers have. My issue is not what should we do with those kooks, per se. My issue revolves around is Bobby J. qualified and can he do the job? The answer is yes. Does he believe in funny things like I believe there's this guy who died on a cross and came back to life 3 days later? Ya, we both believe in silly stuff. The silly stuff we believe in is far less dangerous to our society than the silly stuff the secularists are forcing on our children. THAT is the real problem, and THAT is what we need to focus on.

To focus on Bobby J and the designers is to be troubleshooting the wrong problem.

You are wrong on at least two counts.

First of all, mostly-human-induced global warming is indeed bad science. Which is why credible scientists, following the empirical evidence, are now fleeing it in droves, barely three decades after it was first proposed. The problem is self-correcting; good science remedies bad, and usually sooner rather than later.

Second of all, this should have not one damned thing to do with whether religious dogmas should be taught in public high school science classes. You have a complaint about global warming being taught there, fine. But the way to treat the arsenic poisoning of global warming indoctrination in public schools is not to dose the education patient with creationist religious dogma strychnine.

1293 satan sidekick  Wed, Dec 3, 2008 11:19:10am

re: #126 Thanos
I say the Republicans lost because there were too many people with BDS. Remember - McCain was in the lead until the economy fiasco popped up. Besides, McCain was another Dole. I don't believe the Republican platform needs to change but the people need to grow spines and stand up for what they believe.

FYI - I have relatives named Thanos. If that's really your name I wondered if you have any relatives in NH?


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

Name:

Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

Turn off ads by subscribing!
For about 33 cents a day, our subscription option turns off all advertisements at LGF!
Read more...


► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

May God bless you my brothers, but the password is wrong.

TwitterFacebook
LGF Pages
Recent Pages

MikeySDCA
China Is Culturally Superior to America - the Atlantic Wire
16 minutes ago
Views: 10 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

researchok
'I Was Looking Forward to a Quiet Old Age': Instead, Etta Shiber, Helped Smuggle Stranded Allied Soldiers To Freedom
5 hours, 47 minutes ago
Views: 73 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 0

Daniel Ballard
Late Afternoon Light-Kalanchoe
13 hours, 28 minutes ago
Views: 108 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 5

Eclectic Infidel
City College of San Francisco Budget Update
14 hours, 20 minutes ago
Views: 125 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

Michael McBacon
Kansas governor signs 'Shariah bill' to ban Islamic law
18 hours, 51 minutes ago
Views: 237 • Comments: 6
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 5

Aigle
National Geographic Traveler Veers Off Track
1 day, 18 hours ago
Views: 459 • Comments: 7
Tweets: 0 • Rating: -5

MichaelJ
Apple TV Slated to Debut in December?
1 day, 20 hours ago
Views: 229 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1

Ascher
Israeli Who Saved Turk on Everest: You Never Abandon a Friend - Israel News, Ynetnews
1 day, 21 hours ago
Views: 301 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 3

Haywood Jabloeme
The Harrassment of Patterico & Its Roots in Left-Wing Activism
1 day, 21 hours ago
Views: 524 • Comments: 2
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 4

Curt
Brian Banks: (Video) Falsely accused of rape speaks out
1 day, 23 hours ago
Views: 276 • Comments: 2
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 5

 Frank says:

A prune isn't really a vegetable...
CABBAGE is a vegetable...