The Top 3 GOP Governors: All Creationists

Politics • Views: 10,299

Here’s an Associated Press article on three Republican governors who are being looked at as front runners in the 2012 presidential election: Mark Sanford, Tim Pawlenty, and Bobby Jindal.

All creationists.

Mark Sanford:

Newswatch * WIS * TV * January 29, 2006
Host: David Stanton
Guest: Gov. Mark Sanford

DS: What do you think about the idea of teaching alternatives to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in public schools* for instance Intelligent Design?

Gov. Sanford: I have no problem with it.

DS: Do you think it should be done that way? Rather than just teaching evolution?

Gov. Sanford: Well I think that it’s just, and science is more and more documenting this, is that there are real “chinks” in the armor of evolution being the only way we came about. The idea of there being a, you know, a little mud hole and two mosquitoes get together and the next thing you know you have a human being* is completely at odds with, you know, one of the laws of thermodynamics which is the law of, of … in essence, destruction.

Whether you think about your bedroom and how messy it gets over time or you think about the decay in the building itself over time. Things don’t naturally order themselves towards progression*. Uuummm.. in the natural order of things. So, it’s in fact, it’s against fairly basic laws of physics* and so I would not have a problem in teaching both * Uh, you saying this is one theory and this is another theory.

(Ouch. That gave me a headache.)

Tim Pawlenty:

MR. BROKAW: Okay. In the governor’s race, she refused to be specific about her views on Creationism versus evolution. But, as I understand it, she did say that she thought that the two subjects should be taught side-by-side in public schools. Do you think that’s a good idea?

GOV. PAWLENTY: I saw her comments on it yesterday, and I thought they were appropriate, which is, you know, let’s — if there are competing theories, and they are credible, her view of it was, according to the comments in the newspaper, allow them all to be presented or allow them both to be presented so students could be exposed to both or more and have a chance to be exposed to the various theories and make up their own minds.

MR. BROKAW: In the vast scientific community, do you think that Creationism has the same weight as evolution, and at a time in American education when we are in a crisis when it comes to science, that there ought to be parallel tracks for Creationism versus evolution in the teaching?

GOV. PAWLENTY: In the scientific community, it seems like intelligent design is dismissed — not entirely, there are a lot of scientists who would make the case that it is appropriate to be taught and appropriate to be demonstrated, but in terms of the curriculum in the schools in Minnesota, we’ve taken the approach that that’s a local decision. I know Senator Palin — or Governor Palin — has said intelligent design is something that she thinks should be taught along with evolution in the schools, and I think that’s appropriate. My personal view is that’s a local decision —

MR. BROKAW: Given equal weight.

GOV. PAWLENTY: — of the local school board.

MR. BROKAW: And you would recommend it be given equal weight?

GOV. PAWLENTY: We’ve said in Minnesota, in my view, this is a local decision. Intelligent design is something that, in my view, is plausible and credible and something that I personally believe in but, more importantly, from an educational and scientific standpoint, it should be decided by local school boards at the local school district level.

And Bobby Jindal, who isn’t just talking about it; he promoted and signed into law a Discovery Institute-sponsored bill intended to sneak the teaching of creationism into Louisiana schools.

Some LGF readers ask me: Am I “obsessed?” Do I “hate Christians?” Why do I keep “harping” on this issue?

Answer: The top 3 GOP governors in America are all creationists, who have no problems with teaching pseudo-science to American children.

That’s why. This is wrong, and it’s one reason why the Democrats now control both houses of Congress. If this anti-scientific insanity continues, the Democrats will be in power for the next 20 years.

Jump to bottom

1327 comments
1 HelloDare  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:12:25pm

Hey, Zombie, got that third party name yet?

2 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:12:45pm

Not Pawlenty! That name is enough to drive me over the edge.

3 DistantThunder  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:13:31pm

Time to throw Creationism under the bus.

4 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:14:36pm

I am truly bummed...Mark Sanford was a guy I thought I was confident with...damn

5 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:15:25pm
6 HelloDare  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:15:42pm

This is really depressing.

7 MARedneck  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:15:51pm

Palin is better than any of these 3.

8 Luigi  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:16:09pm

That would be funny if the media accidentally gets one of them elected president.

9 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:16:58pm
If this anti-scientific insanity continues, the Democrats will be in power for the next 20 years.

I can't agree. It will be at least 40 years. What we need is a Rational Party.

10 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:17:08pm

Sanford sounds like someone gave him talking points which he did not understand.

11 godfrey  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:17:21pm

Change their minds.

12 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:17:24pm

I've found nothing about Cantor and creationism, and I've looked a lot.

Anyone?

13 LSD  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:17:35pm

Math & Science should be embraced and taught in public schools.

Ideology - Not.

14 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:17:35pm

re: #7 MARedneck

Palin is better than any of these 3.

I don't think so. Let's get a real candidate.

15 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:18:31pm

Is this going to be a party of rationalists? A party of limited government, individual rights, fiscal responsibility, and strong national defense? One that will honor our alliance with Israel? And keep the religion out of my politics and leave it at Church and Temple where it belongs?

If so, then I will give such a party my support. If not, then consider this "hostage" gone. I'm not suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

16 guest77  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:18:48pm

Shouldn't Gov. Sarah Palin be in the top 3? Just asking. In any event, I believe she is a creationist also.

I agree that teaching fake science in schools is wrong also. But there are so many big, big problems in the world - like Islamic nukes held by Pakistan are Iran - it is something that I can't get excited about right now.

17 Phil.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:19:04pm

Charles, I have no problem with you pointing to creationists who I think are rather silly myself (children living side by side with dinosaurs?)

But let's not forget that both parties distort science to their own ends. I don't know your stance on anthropogenic global warming, but the global temperature trends are down for the past several years now and it's not like there isn't precedent for the global warming environmentalists to be completely wrong about temperature creating global catastrophe (global cooling in the 70's anyone?)

I know you live in California where I'd gather if you expressed skepticism about global warming you'd be looked upon as some sort of Neanderthal but it's probably best not to forget that the so-called "flat earthers" were the ones who turned out to be right during the global cooling nonsense.

18 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:19:18pm

re: #13 LSD

Math & Science should be embraced and taught in public schools.

Ideology - Not.

I agree, as long as you concede that evolutionary theory is NOT ideology, but sound and solid empirical science.

19 winston06  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:19:50pm

If the Conservatives can't retake the WH in 2012, then there won't be an America left to discuss Creation Vs Evolution (my 2 cents as an evolutionist)

20 Teh Flowah  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:20:02pm

It's easy to see why the first is against evolution. He thinks it's a theory that says two mosquitoes get together and then the next step is a human being. The amount of ignorance in the party is amazing. Is this the best the GOP has? It's sad beyond words.

21 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:20:29pm
22 HelloDare  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:21:10pm

They try and make it sound like it's about science when it's all about religion.

23 devil in baggy pants  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:21:27pm
That’s why. This is wrong, and it’s one reason why the Democrats now control both houses of Congress. If this anti-scientific insanity continues, the Democrats will be in power for the next 20 years.


So your official statement on Election 2008 is that Obama won because there are creationists who govern three states?

Are you serious?

How about the fact that the GOP didn't run a candidate who didn't reflect true conservatism?

If we would have run a Duncan Hunter/Ronald Reagan republican, we would have won this thing in spades and it wouldn't have mattered a whit what 3 governors believe about evolution.

24 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:21:33pm
The idea of there being a, you know, a little mud hole and two mosquitoes get together and the next thing you know you have a human being* is completely at odds with, you know, one of the laws of thermodynamics which is the law of, of ... in essence, destruction.


Wow. I Checked his Wiki and he has an MBA. All of these guys sound like they never made it past 10th grade.

25 dentate  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:21:50pm

The Trilobite Party! 300 million years of incredibly successful adaptation to everything that came along, and if it had not been for that darned Permian extinction event they'd still be around today.

26 winston06  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:22:09pm

re: #23 devil in baggy pants

indeed.

27 Shug  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:22:14pm

The nomination of any of These three Creationists will create a second term for Obama

28 Cygnus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:22:15pm

re: #20 Teh Flowah

It's easy to see why the first is against evolution. He thinks it's a theory that says two mosquitoes get together and then the next step is a human being. The amount of ignorance in the party is amazing. Is this the best the GOP has? It's sad beyond words.

Well, maybe two mosquitoes got together and created Democrats.

29 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:22:29pm

You notice Gov. Perry of Texas is not in the top three.

There's reasons for that, LOL.

30 winston06  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:23:01pm

re: #23 devil in baggy pants

Duncan Hunter in 2012...

31 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:23:01pm

re: #23 devil in baggy pants

So your official statement on Election 2008 is that Obama won because there are creationists who govern three states?

Are you serious?

How about the fact that the GOP didn't run a candidate who didn't reflect true conservatism?

If we would have run a Duncan Hunter/Ronald Reagan republican, we would have won this thing in spades and it wouldn't have mattered a whit what 3 governors believe about evolution.

Sure, you just keep denying it. See what happens.

And by the way:

So your official statement on Election 2008 is that Obama won because there are creationists who govern three states?

Try to read what I wrote: "it's ONE reason."

Sheesh.

32 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:23:11pm

Did Gov. Mark Sanford even graduate high school?

33 jaunte  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:23:41pm

re: #23 devil in baggy pants

Are you saying the vote was 52% to 48% because the conservatives stayed home? I don't think so.

34 MAredneck  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:23:56pm

re: #14 Walter L. Newton

OK, but then we should stay away from the Govs. I wish Robt Gates or Petraeus would give it a try.

35 Bloodnok  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:24:13pm

re: #23 devil in baggy pants

Duncan Hunter himself ran and went nowhere.

36 MJ  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:24:17pm

Sorry to go O.T.:

Amnesty urges arms embargo on Israel

The human rights group Amnesty International called on the United States to stop weapons sales to Israel and on all countries to impose an arms embargo on both Israel and the Palestinians....

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

37 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:24:35pm

Duncan Hunter is a creationist, by the way.

38 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:24:58pm

re: #26 winston06

No- it's not "indeed". Charles didn't say shit about 0bama- he said Congress. And devil in baggy pants completely misconstrued Charles' point. "Indeed" my ass!

And devil in baggy pants- sorry, but we lost control of the House and Senate because fiscal conservatives are FED UP! Damn republicans spending money like a bunch of fucking democrats! And WTF do you mean by "real conservative"? I don't even know what that means anymore!

39 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:25:03pm

re: #16 guest77

Shouldn't Gov. Sarah Palin be in the top 3? Just asking. In any event, I believe she is a creationist also.

I agree that teaching fake science in schools is wrong also. But there are so many big, big problems in the world - like Islamic nukes held by Pakistan are Iran - it is something that I can't get excited about right now.

Although she is personally a creationist, she has not, as Alaska's governor, endeavored to include indoctrination in creationist dogmas in Alaska's public high school system, like Jindal has. Rather, she has governed as a fiscally conservative political libertarian, not as a socon.

And having our ability to quickly and effectively respond to a future jihadi bioterror attack technologically hamstrung because our public high school bioscience education has been polluted with creationist dogma seems to me like something that we all should view with grave concern.

40 Shug  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:25:16pm

The Whigs are our only hope

41 rightwinger3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:25:20pm

re: #21 Sharmuta

Draft Governor Jon Huntsman.

Huntsman is also a self-proclaimed fan of the progressive rock genre and on July 30, 2007, attended a concert by progressive metal band Dream Theater.

I believe I can vote for Huntsman in 2012.

42 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:25:26pm

re: #23 devil in baggy pants

So your official statement on Election 2008 is that Obama won because there are creationists who govern three states?

Where does Charles say that?

43 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:25:38pm

re: #17 Phil.

But let's not forget that both parties distort science to their own ends.


That's not forgotten and it's discussed here frequently. It's bad form to excuse one's problems by pointing to the problems of others. It's not relevant to the issue at hand. If you want to discuss global warming, stem cells or genetically modified food then you're certainly free to do so but don't distract from the issue at hand.

44 devil in baggy pants  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:26:01pm

re: #35 Bloodnok

Duncan Hunter himself ran and went nowhere.

Yes, in part due to the fact that blogs like LGF and others kept saying that we needed to run a moderate like Rudy or McCain.

And look how stupendously far THAT got us.

45 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:26:03pm
46 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:26:04pm

re: #37 Charles

Duncan Hunter is a creationist, by the way.

But, would he allow that to be taught in public schools?

47 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:26:17pm

re: #23 devil in baggy pants

So your official statement on Election 2008 is that Obama won because there are creationists who govern three states?

Are you serious?

How about the fact that the GOP didn't run a candidate who didn't reflect true conservatism?

If we would have run a Duncan Hunter/Ronald Reagan republican, we would have won this thing in spades and it wouldn't have mattered a whit what 3 governors believe about evolution.

No jerk. But the conservatives LOST because of the preponderance of uneducated social issue conservatives who couldn't think there way out of a paper bag.

Did you read that answer from Gov. Mark Sanford? If that is an example of the great thinkers in the GOP, we're surely fucked, which I believe is a fact anyway.

48 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:26:20pm

re: #17 Phil.

Charles, I have no problem with you pointing to creationists who I think are rather silly myself (children living side by side with dinosaurs?)

But let's not forget that both parties distort science to their own ends. I don't know your stance on anthropogenic global warming, but the global temperature trends are down for the past several years now and it's not like there isn't precedent for the global warming environmentalists to be completely wrong about temperature creating global catastrophe (global cooling in the 70's anyone?)

I know you live in California where I'd gather if you expressed skepticism about global warming you'd be looked upon as some sort of Neanderthal but it's probably best not to forget that the so-called "flat earthers" were the ones who turned out to be right during the global cooling nonsense.

Trying to attack evolutionary theory by invoking global warming is like trying to attack Abraham Lincoln by invoking Ron Paul.

49 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:26:22pm

re: #32 Walter L. Newton

I had the same thought. He has an MBA.

50 David IV of Georgia  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:26:37pm

re: #22 HelloDare

They try and make it sound like it's about science when it's all about religion.

While I believe in a Creator (NOT the Star Trek kind), and that science and religion are not opposed but compatible, it is this confusion of science and religion that causes me to disapprove of Intelligent Design being taught as science. Also, there is the problem that some of the ID people are idiots and liars.

51 dentate  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:26:37pm

re: #32 Walter L. Newton

Did Gov. Mark Sanford even graduate high school?

The Creationism thing is not directly related to level of education. Jindal is a good example. My former department chair, an MD PhD from Ivy League schools, is a brilliant physician, but he is a Ben Stein-style ID guy. I have for decades been amazed at how one dimensional intelligent people can be, and how restricted their fund of knowledge outside their own narrow fields. Unfortunately, these limitations do not set limits on their shooting their mouths off.

52 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:26:43pm

re: #44 devil in baggy pants

Yes, in part due to the fact that blogs like LGF and others kept saying that we needed to run a moderate like Rudy or McCain.

And look how stupendously far THAT got us.

Now you're being a real idiot.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

53 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:26:47pm

re: #44 devil in baggy pants

Rudy would have pulled in the middle voters we need to win elections.

54 snowcrash  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:26:49pm

Well you probably won't like Jim DeMint (R) S.C. either. From wikipedia :"DeMint believes openly gay individuals and single mothers should not teach in public schools.[5] He has been one of the strongest supporters of allowing school prayer"

55 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:27:43pm

Why is AP allowed to dictate who the top three governors are?

56 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:27:53pm

re: #44 devil in baggy pants

What is a "conservative" in your opinion?

57 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:27:54pm

re: #54 snowcrash

openly gay individuals and single mothers should not teach in public schools.


Ha!

58 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:28:31pm

re: #44 devil in baggy pants

Yes, in part due to the fact that blogs like LGF and others kept saying that we needed to run a moderate like Rudy or McCain.

And look how stupendously far THAT got us.

You're starting to piss me off, kid.

59 Summer Seale  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:29:01pm

I think the Kool-Aid drinkers have already long ago taken over the party, and there isn't much right now that we can do about it.

It's not my house, I didn't build it, and if they want me to leave because of this...I won't mind moving out.

I will, however, stand and cheer as I watch it burn if I don't have a room there any longer.

60 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:29:14pm

re: #54 snowcrash

Well you probably won't like Jim DeMint (R) S.C. either. From wikipedia :"DeMint believes openly gay individuals and single mothers should not teach in public schools.[5] He has been one of the strongest supporters of allowing school prayer"

Jim DeMint is a fanatical nutjob.

61 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:29:16pm

re: #54 snowcrash

Well you probably won't like Jim DeMint (R) S.C. either. From wikipedia :"DeMint believes openly gay individuals and single mothers should not teach in public schools.[5] He has been one of the strongest supporters of allowing school prayer"

That's just insane.

62 Empire1  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:29:22pm

I nominate Zombie for President. The fact that he/she/it doesn't want the power is only a plus.

63 HelloDare  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:29:24pm

I wrote Michael Steele a week and a half ago asking what his and the republican party's position on creationism is. Haven't heard anything yet.

I get more feedback from Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi. I at least get a form letter back.

The Republicans need somebody, just one person, anybody, to stand up and say something against creationism. If they don't it will be identified as the creationists party.

64 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:29:28pm

re: #51 dentate

The Creationism thing is not directly related to level of education. Jindal is a good example. My former department chair, an MD PhD from Ivy League schools, is a brilliant physician, but he is a Ben Stein-style ID guy. I have for decades been amazed at how one dimensional intelligent people can be, and how restricted their fund of knowledge outside their own narrow fields. Unfortunately, these limitations do not set limits on their shooting their mouths off.

I'm not even talking about the level or lack of knowledge. His little trite answer has all the class of a grammar school 4th grader trying to answer a the question.

I mean really, he can't even form a proper paragraph, or communicate in a coherent manner.

65 Ojoe  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:29:50pm

Bye bye GOP.

Time for a new center.

THere may be other possibilities, but check out the Modern Whig party:

Modern Whigs

There may be other possibilities too.

And here is a name for Zombie:

American Block Party

Woo Hoo !

66 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:30:19pm

re: #55 MandyManners

Why is AP allowed to dictate who the top three governors are?

because they can....I'm lost in the wilderness...Hunter and Sanford?...I need a drink

67 MAredneck  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:30:19pm

re: #49 Killgore Trout

Hilarious!

68 devil in baggy pants  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:30:19pm

re: #52 Charles


No, I'm not. You posted a letter from Duncan Hunter... fine. However, I was a reader during that time period and most Hunter supporters here were given the smack down and told that he didn't have a chance and that republicans needed to run someone "electable".

And I don't get why I'm being called an idiot and jerk because I don't agree with you.

69 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:30:24pm

re: #23 devil in baggy pants

So your official statement on Election 2008 is that Obama won because there are creationists who govern three states?

Are you serious?

How about the fact that the GOP didn't run a candidate who didn't reflect true conservatism?

If we would have run a Duncan Hunter/Ronald Reagan republican, we would have won this thing in spades and it wouldn't have mattered a whit what 3 governors believe about evolution.

Nope. John McCain was the best shot we had at winning. He came close, and had the economy not tanked and the party in power been blamed for it while he was still leading in the polls, I still believe he would have won. Had we run an activist socon, we would lost the moderates, the centrists, and the Reagan Democrats, and have been defeated so resoundingly that it would have made George McGovern's loss look close.

70 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:30:39pm

re: #53 Sharmuta

Rudy would have pulled in the middle voters we need to win elections.

Well, no he wouldn't. Not in a million years. You can't get any votes if the party is not behind ya.

71 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:31:00pm

re: #68 devil in baggy pants

I supported Duncan Hunter and Rudy, and no one called me that. You're full of shit.

72 dentate  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:31:10pm

re: #64 Walter L. Newton

I'm not even talking about the level or lack of knowledge. His little trite answer has all the class of a grammar school 4th grader trying to answer a the question.

I mean really, he can't even form a proper paragraph, or communicate in a coherent manner.

You are right. Of course, eloquence without content got us what we have in the White House now.

73 HelloDare  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:31:10pm

re: #65 Ojoe

Modern Whigs

Hair Club for Men & Women.

74 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:31:12pm

re: #68 devil in baggy pants

No, I'm not. You posted a letter from Duncan Hunter... fine. However, I was a reader during that time period and most Hunter supporters here were given the smack down and told that he didn't have a chance and that republicans needed to run someone "electable".

And I don't get why I'm being called an idiot and jerk because I don't agree with you.

Because you're spewing a bunch of angry crap, without bothering to read what I wrote.

And Duncan Hunter was NOT electable.

75 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:31:43pm
76 snowcrash  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:31:46pm

Hey, I don't like DeMint. I checked his bio out early last year to see if he was any good and I gacked.

77 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:31:49pm

re: #65 Ojoe

Bye bye GOP.

Time for a new center.

THere may be other possibilities, but check out the Modern Whig party:

Modern Whigs

There may be other possibilities too.

And here is a name for Zombie:

American Block Party

Woo Hoo !

tomarrow I'm a Whig...it's done...40 yrs down the fucking drain

78 nyc redneck  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:32:05pm

re: #48 Salamantis

Trying to attack evolutionary theory by invoking global warming is like trying to attack Abraham Lincoln by invoking Ron Paul.

lol that's funny.

79 Boxy_brown  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:32:24pm

re: #65 Ojoe


THere may be other possibilities, but check out the Modern Whig party:


You probably posted that without the intention of being Ironic too.

80 Bloodnok  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:32:28pm

re: #44 devil in baggy pants

Horse. Shit.

Can you tell me why Independents would vote for a "Real" conservative (whatever that is)? Do you really think there are Independents and wavering Democrats that are thinking "Hmm, Social conservative AND Creationist?.....I'm switching over!"?

I just don't understand why some think that making the far right happy is a more useful play than winning over Dems and Independents. Would Reagan have won without "Reagan Democrats"? No. Did the Republican party do a good enough job of this in the last election? No. But that is not proof that they need to run a SoCon Creationist in the next election.

81 MAredneck  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:32:32pm

re: #70 Walter L. Newton

Rudy would have pulled in the middle voters we need to win elections.

Well, no he wouldn't. Not in a million years. You can't get any votes if the party is not behind ya.

Rudy also ran a poor campaign. Hate to say it. I sure like the guy and he's better than McCain.

82 Shug  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:32:37pm

re: #77 albusteve

tomarrow I'm a Whig...it's done...40 yrs down the fucking drain

You sound like a Detroit Lions Fan.

83 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:32:44pm

re: #75 buzzsawmonkey

He didn't pull 'em in in his bonehead effort to skip the early primaries and stake his entire pile of chips on one turn of the wheel.

Pissed me off beyond belief.

84 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:32:57pm

re: #75 buzzsawmonkey

He ran a shitty campaign. I don't deny it. But I did talk to moderates and liberals who liked him and would have voted for him in the general election.

85 Thor-Zone  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:33:06pm

In the post Charles said:

If this anti-scientific insanity continues, the Democrats will be in power for the next 20 years.

If this is the case...we'll all be broke. In the first month of the Obama Administration, they have already spent in the neighborhood of a TRILLION dollars. We just can't afford these guys.

86 rightwinger3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:33:16pm

re: #45 Sharmuta

He opposed ID in the classrooms

Yes he did. Smart guy. I don't know much about him so I will look further into it. He did win in Utah with 77% of the vote so he's popular there. With some luck maybe he can step it up to the national stage. That and he proclaimed a Utah "Dream Theater Day". How cool is that?

87 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:33:27pm

re: #44 devil in baggy pants

Yes, in part due to the fact that blogs like LGF and others kept saying that we needed to run a moderate like Rudy or McCain.

And look how stupendously far THAT got us.

It got us a narrow 54-46 loss, and we would have won had the economy tanked when it did. At the time it tanked, Mccain was leading in the polls.

88 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:33:47pm

re: #82 Shug

You sound like a Detroit Lions Fan.

I grew up in Kzoo...I know all about futility bro

89 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:33:47pm

re: #71 Sharmuta

I supported Duncan Hunter and Rudy, and no one called me that. You're full of shit.

Hunter was my first choice. He lasted about what, five minutes? I hope CA keeps electing him to the House as long as he does good work, but I think his shot was fired.

90 legalpad  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:33:52pm

Between creationism and their insistence on duplicating Democrat "immigration" policy we're doomed anyway.

It's coming here, and No politician, Republican or Democrat is going to stop it.

91 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:33:53pm
92 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:34:27pm

I suspect Rudy Giuliani's heart wasn't in the campaign because he got the word early on that the GOP wasn't going to stand for him as the nominee.

1) Not a creationist.

2) Not hardcore anti-abortion.

3) Not hardcore pro-gun rights.

4) Divorced.

5) Not in the pocket of the religious right.

6) Not a Washington insider. (Probably most important.)

93 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:34:30pm

re: #74 Charles

Because you're spewing a bunch of angry crap, without bothering to read what I wrote.

And Duncan Hunter was NOT electable.

Which he proved in spades, IMO.

94 Summer Seale  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:34:46pm

re: #23 devil in baggy pants

So your official statement on Election 2008 is that Obama won because there are creationists who govern three states?

Are you serious?

How about the fact that the GOP didn't run a candidate who didn't reflect true conservatism?

If we would have run a Duncan Hunter/Ronald Reagan republican, we would have won this thing in spades and it wouldn't have mattered a whit what 3 governors believe about evolution.

Yes, naturally what the GOP really needed was less votes than they got which, somehow, would have translated into a bigger win!

Given the fact that most of the country is centrist, and Conservatives are a small minority of the entire population of the United States (albeit as vocal as you!), this makes absolute sense...if you don't let silly stuff like math get in the way.

Then again, who on the Conservative side ever listens to the scientific method these days?

95 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:34:49pm

re: #83 MandyManners

Pissed me off beyond belief.

Ergo, there for, he is not a viable candidate. And I would never consider him again.

96 Scion9  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:35:18pm

re: #13 LSD

Math & Science should be embraced and taught in public schools.

Ideology - Not.

The only reason for the government to own and operate a school system is to teach ideology. I find it likely that is the real reasoning behinds its inception. They certainly are not and have never been Aristotelian centers that promote free thought.

In fact I'd say that there is a concerted effort to teach as little as possible that is of any actual use in either an academic or work force setting, while still doing a lot of indoctrinating. The fact that some kids happen to walk away from the whole thing knowing how to do long division and read is probably either coincidental or accidental.

That Creationists see it as a ripe ground for their own brand of indoctrinating children isn't really surprising. That no one wants to actually teach children, that has any political clout, is kind of surprising though.

97 Phil.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:35:18pm

re: #43 Killgore Trout

That's not forgotten and it's discussed here frequently. It's bad form to excuse one's problems by pointing to the problems of others. It's not relevant to the issue at hand. If you want to discuss global warming, stem cells or genetically modified food then you're certainly free to do so but don't distract from the issue at hand.

Kilgore,

I'm definitely in the anti-creationist camp along with Charles so please don't misconstrue what I'm saying. Creationism is just not an issue that is among my 1st,2nd,3rd,10th,or 30th issue among my "Top Issues" List.

If you haven't noticed, we're in the middle of a huge recession and some people seemed to be most concerned with "redistributing the wealth". I'd like a really strong intellectual conservative movement (I have a PhD myself) but Intelligent Design doesn't really work me into a rage either way. But again, I'm firmly in the anti-Creationist camp if that makes you feel better.

98 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:35:23pm

re: #91 buzzsawmonkey

OK- but that's what they told me before the primary elections happened- they liked Rudy. I believe he has a broad appeal. Too bad he blew it with a crappy campaign.

99 Silvergirl  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:35:33pm

re: #41 rightwinger3

I believe I can vote for Huntsman in 2012.

Yet another Mormon. Odd that we were speaking of them in yesterday's Beck thread. I mentioned that Beck, Romney, even Harry Reid are all Mormons. I was for Mitt Romney, so I can easily vote for a Mormon, but I seriously wonder about a large enough percentage of the rest of the country. So many were worried that we as a nation were too racist (which now, apparently, also means too "cowardly") to vote for a black president. How much courage do we have to vote Mormon?

100 HelloDare  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:35:44pm

Please somebody tell me that Mitt Romney is not a creationist. Not that I love Mitt. But he can't be. Can he?

101 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:35:55pm

re: #54 snowcrash

Well you probably won't like Jim DeMint (R) S.C. either. From wikipedia :"DeMint believes openly gay individuals and single mothers should not teach in public schools.[5] He has been one of the strongest supporters of allowing school prayer"

He wouldn't get MY vote for prez.

102 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:36:04pm
103 nyc redneck  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:36:19pm

re: #92 Charles

I suspect Rudy Giuliani's heart wasn't in the campaign because he got the word early on that the GOP wasn't going to stand for him as the nominee.

1) Not a creationist.

2) Not hardcore anti-abortion.

3). Divorced.

4) Not in the pocket of the religious right.

5) Not a Washington insider.

rudy looks so good right now compared to this spineless idiot we have.

104 devil in baggy pants  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:36:22pm

re: #74 Charles

Because you're spewing a bunch of angry crap, without bothering to read what I wrote.

And Duncan Hunter was NOT electable.


I'm not spewing, I'm not angry. I simply can't believe that you're linking 3 creationist governors to the GOP losses in November. Creationism isn't even on most people's grid when they go in to vote.

105 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:36:26pm

re: #84 Sharmuta

He ran a shitty campaign. I don't deny it. But I did talk to moderates and liberals who liked him and would have voted for him in the general election.

Would have, could have, may have, did, didn't, don't matter. He's not a viable candidate. Next.

106 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:36:30pm

re: #84 Sharmuta

He ran a shitty campaign. I don't deny it. But I did talk to moderates and liberals who liked him and would have voted for him in the general election.

Speaking as a liberal myself, I don't dislike him, but realistically speaking, he was never going to get the nomination.

And speaking as a big-city gal, the moment at the convention where he began babbling about small-town values was one for the ages.

107 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:36:37pm

re: #102 RobCon

Go back to pamela's.

108 MAredneck  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:36:37pm

re: #92 Charles

It was clear he'd lose the base and he did.

109 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:36:50pm

so where do conservatives go from here...I feel like I've been slapped up for stupid...my money is meaningless and my vote worth even less...where's the fucking beef?

110 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:36:52pm

re: #102 RobCon

WTF?

111 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:36:56pm
112 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:36:59pm

re: #86 rightwinger3

Yes he did. Smart guy. I don't know much about him so I will look further into it. He did win in Utah with 77% of the vote so he's popular there. With some luck maybe he can step it up to the national stage. That and he proclaimed a Utah "Dream Theater Day". How cool is that?

What is a Dream Theater Day?

113 Gus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:37:24pm

Considering that John McCain was maligned early on the campaign trail by the fringe elements of the Republican party and that he went so far the final outcome and election results were better than expected. Not only were they better than expected but they no doubt reflected a far better outcome had any of the other candidates early on.

Furthermore, it's rather naive to think that any other choice would have amounted to victory when you consider the popularity of Barack Obama during the campaign -- one that continues to this day. It is also naive to think that Americans (who tend to flip between Republicans or Democrats) would have chosen a Republican in light of George W. Bush's and the Republican parties negative polling numbers to date.

114 Boxy_brown  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:37:45pm

If people of common sense and triple digit IQ's are going to have a say in our government it is not going to be through a third party. We need to reform the Republicans, not reinvent the wheel.

Not Letting the perfect be the enemy of the non-disastrous and calling everyone who disagrees with you a RINO would be a great start at reform.

115 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:37:58pm

re: #59 Summer

I think the Kool-Aid drinkers have already long ago taken over the party, and there isn't much right now that we can do about it.

It's not my house, I didn't build it, and if they want me to leave because of this...I won't mind moving out.

I will, however, stand and cheer as I watch it burn if I don't have a room there any longer.

The Religious Right: I drink your conservative Republican milkshake! I drink it up!

116 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:38:01pm
117 MAredneck  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:38:04pm

re: #103 nyc redneck

Jeez, down to that, any of the creationists up there would be preferable.

118 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:38:08pm

re: #99 Silvergirl

Yet another Mormon. Odd that we were speaking of them in yesterday's Beck thread. I mentioned that Beck, Romney, even Harry Reid are all Mormons. I was for Mitt Romney, so I can easily vote for a Mormon, but I seriously wonder about a large enough percentage of the rest of the country. So many were worried that we as a nation were too racist (which now, apparently, also means too "cowardly") to vote for a black president. How much courage do we have to vote Mormon?

It will not be part of my considerations for a candidate. I liked Mitt to a degree (not my first choice, but neither was McCain), and I would have supported him wholeheartedly. Now that the economy is in a wish-fulfillment mode for Socialists, I would love to have someone with Mitt's knowledge and experience involved in the solution.

119 Bloodnok  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:38:16pm

re: #102 RobCon

Shouldn't you be in a storm cellar somewhere?

120 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:38:24pm

re: #63 HelloDare

I wrote Michael Steele a week and a half ago asking what his and the republican party's position on creationism is. Haven't heard anything yet.

I get more feedback from Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi. I at least get a form letter back.

The Republicans need somebody, just one person, anybody, to stand up and say something against creationism. If they don't it will be identified as the creationists party.

The GOP platform for 2008 hints at "Academic Freedom"


We oppose the hiring, firing, tenure, and promotion practices at universities that discriminate on the basis of political or ideological belief. When federal taxes are used to support such practices, it is inexcusable. We affirm the right of students and faculty to express their views in the face of the leftist dogmatism that dominates many institutions. To preserve the integrity and independence of the nation’s colleges, we will continue to ensure alternatives to ideological accrediting systems.


There's also a bunch of crap about prayer in schools, and replacing sex ed with abstinence training.

121 Shug  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:38:31pm

shouldn't have quoted that

122 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:38:34pm

re: #104 devil in baggy pants

I'm not spewing, I'm not angry. I simply can't believe that you're linking 3 creationist governors to the GOP losses in November. Creationism isn't even on most people's grid when they go in to vote.

And if you don't think Sarah Palin's support for creationism was an issue in the campaign, you must have been asleep.

123 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:39:18pm

re: #111 Iron Fist

There's no real evidence of that. And, again, Rudy did not run for President. He simply let it be known that he'd take the nomination if it were offered. When they didn't coronate him in Floridia, he dropped out of the race.

This is simply fact. Would he have won it if he had actually run? I don't know. There was a lot of momentum against the Republican candidate no matter who he or she was. Rudy might have pulled in some more votes from so-called "moderates" if he'd been the nominee, but it is also incontrovertable that he would have lost votes from the Right if he'd been the nominee. I think that they mostly would have been a wash. I would have voted for him, but I'd have voted for the President of the Hell's Angels if he'd been running against the Obamessiah.

nobody with any brains (Rudy) wanted to get plastered buy the donks...he didnt run, you are correct...friggin McCain the Rino stood up and took the fall...what a fucking mess

124 USA  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:39:24pm

This was a non-issue in 2008 election.

125 pink freud  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:39:48pm

re: #105 Walter L. Newton

Would have, could have, may have, did, didn't, don't matter. He's not a viable candidate. Next.

Same goes for Palin.

126 Shug  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:39:50pm

cleanup aisle 116.

sorry. should have known that would get zonked and not quoted it

127 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:39:55pm

re: #68 devil in baggy pants

No, I'm not. You posted a letter from Duncan Hunter... fine. However, I was a reader during that time period and most Hunter supporters here were given the smack down and told that he didn't have a chance and that republicans needed to run someone "electable".

And I don't get why I'm being called an idiot and jerk because I don't agree with you.

Hunter's poll numbers never made it into the double digits, and he dropped out early.

128 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:40:09pm

Wow. Four hate mails already! The creationists are all stirred up out there.

129 David IV of Georgia  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:40:13pm

re: #85 Thor-Zone

In the post Charles said:

If this is the case...we'll all be broke. In the first month of the Obama Administration, they have already spent in the neighborhood of a TRILLION dollars. We just can't afford these guys.

A friend of mine with family in China is thinking of moving there:

They didn't bother with bailouts (except to finance ours).

Due to the worldwide financial problems, they have eliminated capital gains taxes and property taxes and have halved most other taxes for both citizens and businesses.

130 Boxy_brown  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:40:18pm

re: #122 Charles

And if you don't think Sarah Palin's support for creationism was an issue in the campaign, you must have been asleep.


You are going against the whole "Sarah Palin victim/martyr" theme...

131 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:40:19pm

re: #124 USA

This was a non-issue in 2008 election.

Bullshit it was. Have you been even reading anything that Charles has posted, or is this just your opinion?

132 venomx  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:40:29pm

Just wondering...have DEM govs(or senators/congressmen) been asked the same question?Whats their position?Im sure in very liberal states its easy for them to dismiss all this,but what about those in states with larger "religious"populations?Just wondering.

133 devil in baggy pants  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:40:29pm

re: #122 Charles

And if you don't think Sarah Palin's support for creationism was an issue in the campaign, you must have been asleep.


Now wait a minute... didn't you even post that you respected her for not pushing that in schools? Anyone with any intellectual honesty who knew her position knew that she wasn't pulling a Jindal.

134 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:40:31pm

re: #124 USA

How's GCP these days?

135 winston06  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:40:55pm

Is Pres Bush a creationist or an evolutionist? What was his view on this before running for Pres in 2000?

136 LynnfromNZ  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:40:59pm

I'd put Palin above Pawlenty. And the commenter her is correct -- she might personally believe in creationism but she doesn't push it. And there ain't no way the President enforces creationsim nationwide, so who cares what they think about it?

137 Summer Seale  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:41:07pm

re: #124 USA

This was a non-issue in 2008 election.

Really? I recall it being a big joke about Palin.

Maybe you need to get out more?

138 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:41:08pm
139 USA  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:41:20pm

re: #131 Walter L. Newton

Both. Sorry, this was not why Obama won.

140 Gus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:41:23pm

LC HOGHEAD Down-Dinging and not commenting.

141 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:41:25pm

re: #129 David IV of Georgia

A friend of mine with family in China is thinking of moving there:

They didn't bother with bailouts (except to finance ours).

Due to the worldwide financial problems, they have eliminated capital gains taxes and property taxes and have halved most other taxes for both citizens and businesses.

They have also had a wave of factory closures and riot suppressions.

142 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:41:38pm
143 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:41:41pm

re: #133 devil in baggy pants

Now wait a minute... didn't you even post that you respected her for not pushing that in schools? Anyone with any intellectual honesty who knew her position knew that she wasn't pulling a Jindal.

What does that have to do with what I wrote?

144 Silvergirl  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:41:48pm

re: #75 buzzsawmonkey

He didn't pull 'em in in his bonehead effort to skip the early primaries and stake his entire pile of chips on one turn of the wheel.

What WAS that about, anyway? I couldn't and can't figure it out. Did he change his mind midstream like a groom with sudden cold feet? Did he not want to win? Was he avoiding having his personal life dragged into that relentless spotlight? He HAD to be smarter than that--relying on Florida alone.

145 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:41:50pm

So...that's two Republican Mormon Governors who, despite having great financial credentials, can't ever be elected because they believe in the Book of Mormon?

To be honest, I knew this.

146 cornerback  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:41:53pm

Let me get this straight. People believe that a few scratches on the ocean floor must be Atlantis because its way too complex of a pattern to be 'natural', ( [Link: www.thesun.co.uk...] ) but all of us, infinitely more complex were able to 'evolve'.

Sorry that just doesn't wash.

147 HelloDare  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:42:05pm

Now I know why I'm registered as an independent, or as they call it in CA Decline to State.

148 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:42:10pm

re: #80 Bloodnok

A lot of Republicans were willing to hold their nose and vote for McCain. I really think that Palin lost more Republican votes than McCain did.

149 Thor-Zone  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:42:10pm

re: #39 Salamantis

....Rather, she has governed as a fiscally conservative political libertarian, not as a socon.

Actually not so much. Since Sarah Palin became our Governor, the cost of our state government has balloned up to over 7 billion from about 3.5 billion under Murkowski, and she jacked up taxes 400%. That is not what I calll fiscal responsibility.

150 Pvt Bin Jammin  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:42:18pm

re: #134 Sharmuta

LOL

151 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:42:25pm

Here they come.

152 devil in baggy pants  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:42:42pm

re: #143 Charles

What does that have to do with what I wrote?


From what I could tell, her view wasn't an issue. She didn't push it in schools, so who cares?

153 Summer Seale  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:42:50pm

re: #135 winston06

Is Pres Bush a creationist or an evolutionist? What was his view on this before running for Pres in 2000?

Just before leaving office, President Bush said that he doesn't take the bible literally, and that he accepts Evolution. Didn't seem to taint his religion any.

Of course, the base was up in arms about what he said.

154 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:42:57pm

Melt-downs before No. 275?

155 rightwinger3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:43:03pm

re: #112 Walter L. Newton

What is a Dream Theater Day?

Walter, he likes "progressive metal". He went to see Dream Theater in concert and proclaimed the day "Dream Theater Day" in commemoration.

156 jones  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:43:04pm

I think creationism is silly.

However, I would rather have any of these three set up an Office of Leviathan Awareness than have crooked dems plunder and oppress.


There has never been a perfect candidate (I would dislike many of my own stances), but Creationism is down on my list of poison pills.

157 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:43:06pm

re: #128 Charles

Wow. Four hate mails already! The creationists are all stirred up out there.

And they should be, because reading what Gov. Mark Sanford is a clear indication of the mentality level of a lot of the dishonest creationist (I'm talking DI sorts).

Gov. Mark Sanford is evidently trying real hard to parrot (sorry Maisey) some standard DI tripe, and he's doing a sloppy job of it.

He shows them for what they are, and that drives them crazy, especially since he claims to be "one of them."

158 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:43:20pm

re: #152 devil in baggy pants

From what I could tell, her view wasn't an issue. She didn't push it in schools, so who cares?

Now I know you were asleep.

It was mentioned in almost every news article about her! Hello?

159 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:43:25pm

OK Charles -

I will state my opinion again. Belief in a Creator G-d and Evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. A creator G-d can be thought of as being "the uncaused cause" - the spark, if you will that set it all in motion. We as mere humans can only guess at rationale, and are probably wasting time doing so. A G-d who/ which can create can also allow creation to evolve which is my belief of what happened. In the early 1900's we had the Scopes Trial, at a time when "Creationism" was the only allowed curriculum, at least in Tennessee. Today we are, I hope about 100 years wiser. Evolution as a "Theory" has been for all intents and purposes been vindicated by the fossil record. Let us be wiser and allow that "Creationism" is an alternative view, and just that - without persecution, prosecution, OR PROOF in Science as we understand it. For what it is worth, as far as a One Zone Bus Ticket can get you, I believe I am echoing the thoughts of the late Prof. Albert Einstein of Princeton University.

-S-

160 pegcity  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:43:45pm

You Americans on LGF need to start a Lizard party, and only people with common sense need apply

161 Bloodnok  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:43:52pm

re: #133 devil in baggy pants

There's a big difference between people like us being content that that she's not pushing creationist bills and an Independent who refuses to vote R because they heard she believes in creation (or are told an outright lie that she's pushing for creation to be taught in schools).

162 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:43:53pm

re: #139 USA

Both. Sorry, this was not why Obama won.

This was why we lost though.

163 winston06  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:43:57pm

re: #153 Summer

I saw that but I wondered what he thought about this in 2000

164 Summer Seale  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:44:16pm

re: #146 cornerback

A Creationist loon using Atlantean loons to justify his lunatic explanation does not a proof make.

165 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:44:32pm

re: #152 devil in baggy pants

I'm still waiting for your definition of a "real conservative".

166 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:44:33pm

re: #153 Summer

Just before leaving office, President Bush said that he doesn't take the bible literally, and that he accepts Evolution. Didn't seem to taint his religion any.

Of course, the base was up in arms about what he said.

And here I thought I was part of the base. I must be on one of the kook fringes.

//

167 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:44:39pm

re: #136 LynnfromNZ

I'd put Palin above Pawlenty. And the commenter her is correct -- she might personally believe in creationism but she doesn't push it. And there ain't no way the President enforces creationsim nationwide, so who cares what they think about it?

Because she appeared to be uneducated, poorly informed, and not too bright. Those are not good leadership qualities.

168 Dave the.....  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:44:46pm

I live in Minnesota and I don't believe T-Paw has ever talked creation as part of any policy. He's more likely to appease neo-pagen nature worshippers.

169 winston06  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:44:58pm

How can I email a Lizard member here?

170 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:45:14pm
171 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:45:16pm

re: #145 EmmmieG

So...that's two Republican Mormon Governors who, despite having great financial credentials, can't ever be elected because they believe in the Book of Mormon?

To be honest, I knew this.

Don't know. I assumed at one point that Romney was unstoppable--but being a Mormon seems like a much bigger political liability than I understood.

172 dentate  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:45:17pm

re: #146 cornerback

Let me get this straight. People believe that a few scratches on the ocean floor must be Atlantis because its way too complex of a pattern to be 'natural', ( [Link: www.thesun.co.uk...] ) but all of us, infinitely more complex were able to 'evolve'.

Sorry that just doesn't wash.

What "people" are you talking about? No sane person believes that scratches on the abyssal plain of the Atlantic are Atlantis. And you are typifying the ID argument which always boils down to, "I personally don't understand how it could have occurred, therefore it couldn't have occurred."

173 jaunte  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:45:24pm

re: #167 Killgore Trout

The Africa thing killed it for me.

174 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:45:25pm

re: #40 Shug

The Whigs are our only hope

Shug -

Perhaps all'y'all are the Wisest Owl of the Bunch.

-S-

175 Shug  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:45:31pm

re: #146 cornerback

silly boy. everybody knows Atlantis is in the Bahamas and not at the bottom of the ocean

176 winston06  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:45:39pm

re: #167 Killgore Trout

Partly true but thats what media painted her like.

177 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:45:44pm

re: #168 Dave the.....

I live in Minnesota and I don't believe T-Paw has ever talked creation as part of any policy.

It's in the state party platform, Dave.

178 Boxy_brown  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:45:59pm

re: #170 buzzsawmonkey


Not good enough. We need a majority.

--Adlai Stevenson, slightly misquoted

Another concept that gets lost in the shuffle.

179 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:46:15pm

re: #104 devil in baggy pants

I'm not spewing, I'm not angry. I simply can't believe that you're linking 3 creationist governors to the GOP losses in November. Creationism isn't even on most people's grid when they go in to vote.

No, and creationists make it a point to be stealthy about it (except to their RR voters). Right up until the moment that the law passes allowing religious indoctrination of your kids in public high school science class.

180 Sheepdogess  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:46:25pm
Mark Sanford, Tim Pawlenty, and Bobby Jindal.

All creationists.

Barack Obama, Joseph Biden, Nancy Pelosi?

Pick your poison.

181 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:46:32pm
182 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:46:33pm

re: #170 buzzsawmonkey

Not good enough. We need a majority.

--Adlai Stevenson, slightly misquoted

buzzsawmonkey -

The correct term is "paraphrased."

-S-

183 rightwinger3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:46:34pm

re: #143 Charles

What does that have to do with what I wrote?

It's the t-shirt thread all over again, Charles.

184 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:46:39pm

re: #169 winston06

How can I email a Lizard member here?

Send me an email and I'll tell you!

185 Dave the.....  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:46:45pm
Because she appeared to be uneducated, poorly informed, and not too bright. Those are not good leadership qualities.

A lot of that impression is due to regional dialiects. Just like a lot of people think any one with a southern accent is a dumbfuck.

186 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:46:59pm

re: #148 Killgore Trout

A lot of Republicans were willing to hold their nose and vote for McCain. I really think that Palin lost more Republican votes than McCain did.

Prob'ly lost several long-time Democratic voters I know of as well.

187 Gus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:46:59pm

I would give Pawlenty points over Sanford going by the comments above. Even though I don't agree with Pawlenty on this issue. Sanford on the other hand makes a complete fool of himself.

188 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:47:14pm

re: #173 jaunte

Unfortunately the story got muddied by some idiot falsely claiming to be the source of the leak. He ended up being a fraud so most people think the story was a hoax.

189 Shug  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:47:15pm

re: #180 Sheepdogess

Barack Obama, Joseph Biden, Nancy Pelosi?

Pick your poison.

why must we nominate poison?

190 dentate  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:47:38pm

re: #183 rightwinger3

It's the t-shirt thread all over again, Charles.

My "very gradual change we can believe in" t-shirt shipped yesterday! If only they had bumper stickers....

191 DataDan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:47:39pm

A god who invented every species, one by one, and must continue to develop on them as the environment changes due to plate tectonics, periodic ice ages, and the occasional meteor strike would seem to have made a lot of work for him/her/itself.

But a god who invented fundamental particles and forces and the fabric of space such that matter would congeal into stars, which would fuse its components to form 100 different chemical elements, which would, under the right conditions, combine into self-replicating molecules, which would build structures (which we call "organisms") to spread those molecules in competition and cooperation with other structures--all without any further intervention on his part--now that would be a pretty amazing feat.

Call it the "lazy man's god".

192 bluetick3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:47:45pm

Maybe a creationist would be certain to lose in 2012, but personally I'd take an otherwise right-thinking creationist who sticks to the Constitution over a crypto-marxist pathological liar.

I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the Constitution that requires or allows the federal government to force creationism down the country's throat. I think it's silly for these Governor;s to cling to this creationist nonsense (and pretend to do so in the name of science). At least they presumably aren't clinging to beliefs that nonbelievers of their respective religions should be exploded.

I am dubious that any candidate would be perfect, but all the umbrage over creationism seems overblown to me, when examined in the context of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. I also don't get the umbrage against the "religious right" (Christians). They've never done anything to me.

Maybe I am missing something?

193 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:47:51pm
194 Thor-Zone  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:47:51pm

re: #109 albusteve

so where do conservatives go from here...I feel like I've been slapped up for stupid...my money is meaningless and my vote worth even less...where's the fucking beef?

No more beef....only government cheese

195 pink freud  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:48:00pm

Blue your nic, Winston. Check the box "show email" where you post a comment.

196 MAredneck  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:48:12pm

re: #152 devil in baggy pants

Everything about Palin was turned into an issue. She was spot on when it came to religion. A believer that doesn't foist anything on anyone with her office. Charles says it was an issue. But every nonissue was turned into one this time around.

197 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:48:13pm

re: #171 SanFranciscoZionist

Don't know. I assumed at one point that Romney was unstoppable--but being a Mormon seems like a much bigger political liability than I understood.

There are people who travel around to certain congregations putting on seminars and talks about why we are so evil/deluded/going to hell. I've actually known several LDS gals who joined the church even after having sat through those.

198 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:48:14pm

re: #167 Killgore Trout

Because she appeared to be uneducated, poorly informed, and not too bright. Those are not good leadership qualities.

I would say that why she appealed to so many conservatives.

199 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:48:27pm

re: #177 Sharmuta

It's in the state party platform, Dave.


I'm sorry, Dave ...

/////

200 winston06  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:48:34pm

re: #195 pink freud

thanks

201 David IV of Georgia  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:48:41pm

re: #141 OldLineTexan

They have also had a wave of factory closures and riot suppressions.

Yeah—he did mention that it wasn't perfect in China. But then I was for letting the Detroit automakers close which would have caused some riots too.

202 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:48:50pm

re: #181 buzzsawmonkey

No, I don't know if there was any indication of it in the exit polls either. I just have so much personal experience with Republican voters (or Republican leaners) who jumped ship because of Palin.

203 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:49:05pm
204 jaunte  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:49:12pm

re: #188 Killgore Trout

Unfortunately the story got muddied by some idiot falsely claiming to be the source of the leak. He ended up being a fraud so most people think the story was a hoax.

Great. More mud.

205 Summer Seale  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:49:23pm

re: #192 bluetick3

You are missing something.

It is unconstitutional to teach Creationism in the classroom.

That's the part you're missing.

206 cowbellallen  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:49:34pm

Kinda early to be talking about the next presidential election....

207 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:49:48pm

re: #191 DataDan

A god who invented every species, one by one, and must continue to develop on them as the environment changes due to plate tectonics, periodic ice ages, and the occasional meteor strike would seem to have made a lot of work for him/her/itself.

But a god who invented fundamental particles and forces and the fabric of space such that matter would congeal into stars, which would fuse its components to form 100 different chemical elements, which would, under the right conditions, combine into self-replicating molecules, which would build structures (which we call "organisms") to spread those molecules in competition and cooperation with other structures--all without any further intervention on his part--now that would be a pretty amazing feat.

Call it the "lazy man's god".

Or call it science. That works for me.

208 cornerback  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:49:48pm

re: #164 Summer


re: #172 dentate

All I am pointing out is that those who believe in evolution will never think rationally of the complete absurdity of their theory. It will make perfect sense that chicken scratches on an ocean floor can't be random, but the peptide chain can be.

209 pink freud  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:50:04pm

re: #195 pink freud

Sorry, misread. Meant to say 'ask them in-thread to blue their nick'.

210 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:50:15pm
211 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:50:30pm

re: #202 Killgore Trout

No, I don't know if there was any indication of it in the exit polls either. I just have so much personal experience with Republican voters (or Republican leaners) who jumped ship because of Palin.

John McCain had a chance to pull in the moderates and fence-sitters. I didn't like him much, but that part of having him as the nominee made sense.

He picked Sarah Palin, clearly, to get the Christian far right on board. It backfired.

212 devil in baggy pants  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:50:31pm

re: #165 Sharmuta

I'm still waiting for your definition of a "real conservative".


Sorry, I lost track of your post... didn't mean to dodge the question.

Real conservative, in my opinion:

1) smaller (national) government
2) strong national defense/military
3) belief in the individual to accomplish
4) free market economy/supply side economics
5) Constitutional purist-- no monkeying around with it
5a) strong supporter of 2nd Amendment rights especially

Those are my top 5.

213 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:50:47pm

re: #208 cornerback

re: #172 dentate

All I am pointing out is that those who believe in evolution will never think rationally of the complete absurdity of their theory. It will make perfect sense that chicken scratches on an ocean floor can't be random, but the peptide chain can be.

Huh?

214 Bloodnok  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:50:56pm

re: #206 cowbellallen

Kinda early to be talking about the next presidential election....

Possibly. But it's not too early to debate what the future of the party should be.

215 Summer Seale  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:51:24pm

re: #208 cornerback

re: #172 dentate

All I am pointing out is that those who believe in evolution will never think rationally of the complete absurdity of their theory. It will make perfect sense that chicken scratches on an ocean floor can't be random, but the peptide chain can be.

Once again: Lunatic explanations shouldn't be used to try to justify other lunatic explanations.

You might as well be trying to justify people who believe in Crystal Healing as well with that line of thought.

216 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:51:37pm

I'm done with the GOP...I'm Whiggin out for new turf...a long family legacy of Ike and Goldwater and G Romney, and I carried the torch with Reagan and the Bushes and this is what the party has come to...I am no longer interested from here on out...I have spoken

217 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:51:41pm

re: #206 cowbellallen

Then go some place else. Start your own blog. Go to a gym. Take country and western dance lessons. But leave.

218 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:51:42pm

re: #198 Walter L. Newton

I think that's true. George Bush had an Ivy League education (Yale or Harvard) but he adopted a simple dumb guy persona which appealed to conservatives. I read somewhere that he didn't even have a Texas accent until he started in politics. I'm not sure if that's true or not but it would surprise me.

219 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:51:52pm

re: #136 LynnfromNZ

I'd put Palin above Pawlenty. And the commenter her is correct -- she might personally believe in creationism but she doesn't push it. And there ain't no way the President enforces creationsim nationwide, so who cares what they think about it?

Like there's no way a Governor can shoehorn it into public schools statewide?

220 abolitionist  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:51:57pm

re: #62 Empire1

I nominate Zombie for President. The fact that he/she/it doesn't want the power is only a plus.

The anonymity thing could be more of a problem with the vetting process than it was for Obama. Or maybe not.

221 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:52:07pm

re: #180 Sheepdogess

Barack Obama, Joseph Biden, Nancy Pelosi?

Pick your poison.

dogess -

1. dogess is nicer than the other word.

2. If Sanford, Pawlenty and Jindal are "Creationists" who do NOT force their beliefs on others, what are we to think of the THREE LIBERTINES who do?

-S-

222 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:52:25pm
223 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:52:25pm

re: #197 EmmmieG

There are people who travel around to certain congregations putting on seminars and talks about why we are so evil/deluded/going to hell. I've actually known several LDS gals who joined the church even after having sat through those.

I have to say that from a total outsider's perspective, Mormons look to me like evangelical Christians with really clean living and extra prophets, so it's hard for me to entirely grasp...

224 bluetick3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:52:46pm

re: #205 Summer

You are missing something.

It is unconstitutional to teach Creationism in the classroom.

That's the part you're missing.

That was exactly the point of what I wrote.

225 Thor-Zone  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:52:52pm

re: #129 David IV of Georgia

A friend of mine with family in China is thinking of moving there:

They didn't bother with bailouts (except to finance ours).

Due to the worldwide financial problems, they have eliminated capital gains taxes and property taxes and have halved most other taxes for both citizens and businesses.

This is a strange world we live in. The commies have figured out how to minimize the financial crisis in their country. Meanwhile our government does everything in their power to make it worse.

226 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:52:56pm

re: #193 buzzsawmonkey

Close enough for government work.

buzzsawmonkey -

Got me there!

-S-

227 winston06  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:52:58pm

re: #195 pink freud

sorry I may sound like an idiot about this but would you plz explain it to me again? LoL
Cant figure it out :-"

228 gclaghorn  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:53:12pm

Dayum! The trolls are going all out tonight!

229 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:53:12pm

re: #212 devil in baggy pants

Sorry, I lost track of your post... didn't mean to dodge the question.

Real conservative, in my opinion:

1) smaller (national) government
2) strong national defense/military
3) belief in the individual to accomplish
4) free market economy/supply side economics
5) Constitutional purist-- no monkeying around with it
5a) strong supporter of 2nd Amendment rights especially

Those are my top 5.

So- what part of this equates with pushing religion into public school science classrooms? Looks to me from your list that there is no room in our party for those who want to undermine the First Amendment.

230 Silvergirl  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:53:50pm

re: #211 Charles

John McCain had a chance to pull in the moderates and fence-sitters. I didn't like him much, but that part of having him as the nominee made sense.

He picked Sarah Palin, clearly, to get the Christian far right on board. It backfired.

I've wondered about that more than once. For awhile I was also convinced that he chose her to get the Hillary Clinton vote, and women vote in general. I wanted to take him at his word that he was looking for a maverick like himself. At this point, and still a Palin fan, I fell I can only put my support for any 2012 candidate on the back burner and maintain a wait and see attitude.

231 winston06  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:53:56pm

re: #216 albusteve

so you re surrendering?

232 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:54:13pm
233 rightwinger3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:54:17pm

re: #216 albusteve

I'm done with the GOP...I'm Whiggin out for new turf...a long family legacy of Ike and Goldwater and G Romney, and I carried the torch with Reagan and the Bushes and this is what the party has come to...I am no longer interested from here on out...I have spoken

steve, hang on...I'm going with you, let me get my jacket...

234 LynnfromNZ  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:54:42pm

re: #167 Killgore Trout

There are things the President can do something about, and things the President can't do anything about. Forget what candidates say about things they can't do anything about as President, and focus on what they say about things they might have some ability to enact as President.

Lots of times candidates simply throw red meat out to galvanize the base -- abortion! Same-sex unions! Creationism! End the Iraq War! -- but all it is, in the end, is bluster designed to confuse the simple-minded who never stop to think "Wait a second, the President doesn't have any control over that issue..."

I'd rather have a president who thinks every American should become a Wiccan who promises to lower my taxes and get government out of the business of business than a president disinterested in personal religious beliefs who thinks we need more government in our lives, because a President can do something about taxes and the size of government, but can't do a thing about my religious practices.

235 Summer Seale  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:54:48pm

re: #224 bluetick3

That was exactly the point of what I wrote.

...

I am dubious that any candidate would be perfect, but all the umbrage over creationism seems overblown to me

I don't think it is "overblown".

236 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:54:52pm

re: #206 cowbellallen

Kinda early to be talking about the next presidential election....

c.b.allen -

"Bet'cha" that President Obama was thinking about it by Christmas 2004.

-S-

237 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:55:01pm
238 godfrey  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:55:02pm

Who were the swing voters, and was creationism a significant factor in their vote?

239 dentate  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:55:10pm

re: #208 cornerback

re: #172 dentate

All I am pointing out is that those who believe in evolution will never think rationally of the complete absurdity of their theory. It will make perfect sense that chicken scratches on an ocean floor can't be random, but the peptide chain can be.

Oh boy. I know one should never argue with a fool. But if you understand physics, tectonics, materials science, and geology, OR ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT SCIENCE, you would understand that there are myriad scientific explanations that do not require that the scratches be random just because they were not man-made. Just like the protein sequence, it can be NON RANDOM as the result of NATURAL FORCES that can be observed, measured, modeled and that have predictive value. You absolutely typify the ignorance, no, the stupidity of the argument that if you can't understand the process yourself, it can't be true.

240 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:55:20pm

re: #218 Killgore Trout

I think that's true. George Bush had an Ivy League education (Yale or Harvard) but he adopted a simple dumb guy persona which appealed to conservatives. I read somewhere that he didn't even have a Texas accent until he started in politics. I'm not sure if that's true or not but it would surprise me.

You might be surprised. I can speak without my accent, especially after college. Bush's family is not particularly Texan or hick.

/BFG on the "hick", BTW. I watched one "hick" NASA head with a THICK Georgia accent and a PhD lead a roomful of engineers into a feeling of superiority and then demolish every point made in three hours, one by one, from memory. He is still my Patton of NASA, LOL.

241 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:55:42pm

re: #146 cornerback

Let me get this straight. People believe that a few scratches on the ocean floor must be Atlantis because its way too complex of a pattern to be 'natural', ( [Link: www.thesun.co.uk...] ) but all of us, infinitely more complex were able to 'evolve'.

Sorry that just doesn't wash.

The irreduceable complexity canard has been refuted here and refuted here again and again ad nauseum ad infinitum until the cows have come home and laid down and died, and sequoias have sprouted and towered from the rotted compost of their deliquescent carcasses. Search LGF for Ken Miller.

242 Racer X  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:55:45pm

re: #211 Charles

John McCain had a chance to pull in the moderates and fence-sitters. I didn't like him much, but that part of having him as the nominee made sense.

He picked Sarah Palin, clearly, to get the Christian far right on board. It backfired.

I disagree with you there. McCain was going nowhere until he picked Palin. He would have lost by a far worse margin had he picked another moderate Republican. IMO

243 winston06  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:55:45pm

test

244 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:56:03pm

re: #218 Killgore Trout

I think that's true. George Bush had an Ivy League education (Yale or Harvard) but he adopted a simple dumb guy persona which appealed to conservatives. I read somewhere that he didn't even have a Texas accent until he started in politics. I'm not sure if that's true or not but it would surprise me.

Of course it's true. So many people were drooling over Palin JUST BECAUSE of that "countryfied" slop she put on. Well, what in the hell does that tell you about the electorate.

Why did Hillary shift dialects faster than a con man on the run as she pandered to the folks in different parts of the country.

Because a lot of folk out there don't have the smarts to understand the implications of all this.

The world so loves a boob.

245 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:56:18pm

re: #223 SanFranciscoZionist

I have to say that from a total outsider's perspective, Mormons look to me like evangelical Christians with really clean living and extra prophets, so it's hard for me to entirely grasp...

Yeah, you're a tad bit off. But politically, I think you're close enough.

246 Kreuzueber Halbmond  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:56:24pm

Future Republican nominees who can't grasp the difference between scientific fact and pseudo-science and who debase the basic American concept of separation of church and state is bad. What's worse is a generation of lost students in the fields of science, whose minds have been muddled by faulty/no-value curricula being allowed into the public education system by ignorant politicians.

247 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:56:46pm
248 Summer Seale  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:56:48pm

re: #241 Salamantis

The irreduceable complexity canard has been refuted here and refuted here again and again ad nauseum ad infinitum until the cows have come home and laid down and died, and sequoias have sprouted and towered from the rotted compost of their deliquescent carcasses. Search LGF for Ken Miller.

Yes, but Creationists have difficulty reading. =)

249 USA  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:56:52pm

re: #137 Summer

Really? I recall it being a big joke about Palin.

Maybe you need to get out more?

That is the sort of personal attack the democrats have turned into an art. Recall, there were a lot of "jokes" about Palin. I don't believe this one tipped the balance in the election. But I won't attack you personally or suggest you need to "get out more" for thinking so.

250 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:57:05pm
251 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:57:37pm

It's simple- real conservatives don't push their religion down other people's throats! These creationists and those who want to make excuses for them better back the fuck off, because I will not have them teaching any child of mine that they're going to hell if they don't read Genesis literally. How dare they! If that's what you think "conservatism" means, you are whacked out.

You can have your religion, but don't you dare infringe on my right to have mine.

252 bluetick3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:57:57pm

re: #235 Summer

I don't think it is "overblown".

You may not. I disagree. But it's obvious you didn't accurately read my initial comment, where I made it quite clear about the Constitution and creationism. comment #224 is in essence making the same point that I made.

253 devil in baggy pants  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:58:05pm

re: #229 Sharmuta

So- what part of this equates with pushing religion into public school science classrooms? Looks to me from your list that there is no room in our party for those who want to undermine the First Amendment.


I think it's a states' rights issue, myself. Let each state figure it out.

254 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:58:05pm

re: #231 winston06

so you re surrendering?

to who?...for what?....the GOP can kiss my ass...you can have them all you want...I've never surrendered to anybody

255 Bloodnok  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:58:07pm

re: #250 Steve_NO

Let me help you with your hat and coat...

256 Maximu§  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:58:08pm

If I may, Louisiana has a Christian majority and their Man is Bobby Jindal. He speaks for them, not us and who the hell are we on the left-coast to question what their business is? A few words from the Good Book never hurt anyone and by the looks of these kids I see now-a-days, they could use it.

257 gclaghorn  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:58:23pm

re: #250 Steve_NO

Bye bye.

258 snowcrash  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:58:31pm

I think Palins problem was more the anti-abortion stance. She walked the walk and had Trig. Unthinkable for many women. Her young unwed daughter had the baby too. This isn't lip service about being pro-life. Put many women voters off. Independents and Republicans. Abortion is a toxic political issue and she brought it to the forefront of the discussion. Too bad.

259 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:58:33pm

re: #156 jones

I think creationism is silly.

However, I would rather have any of these three set up an Office of Leviathan Awareness than have crooked dems plunder and oppress.

There has never been a perfect candidate (I would dislike many of my own stances), but Creationism is down on my list of poison pills.

They don't pass my finger-on-the-button test. I don't want someone who can't even understand basic scientific theory deciding when or whether to deploy one of the most fearsome weapons that scientific minds have produced.

260 godfrey  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:58:40pm

re: #237 buzzsawmonkey

The film critic? She was a good read, from what I've read.

261 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:58:57pm
262 Summer Seale  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:59:08pm

re: #249 USA

That is the sort of personal attack the democrats have turned into an art. Recall, there were a lot of "jokes" about Palin. I don't believe this one tipped the balance in the election. But I won't attack you personally or suggest you need to "get out more" for thinking so.

Are you kidding? It was a national joke that Palin was a Creationist.

263 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:59:09pm

re: #243 winston06

test

In the text entry box above the comment box, put you email address and click the box "show email."

264 bluetick3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:59:27pm

re: #252 bluetick3

You may not. I disagree. But it's obvious you didn't accurately read my initial comment, where I made it quite clear about the Constitution and creationism. comment #224 is in essence making the same point that I made.

make that # 234

265 David IV of Georgia  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:59:29pm

re: 225 Thor-Zone

re: #129 David IV of Georgia

A friend of mine with family in China is thinking of moving there:

They didn't bother with bailouts (except to finance ours).

Due to the worldwide financial problems, they have eliminated capital gains taxes and property taxes and have halved most other taxes for both citizens and businesses.


This is a strange world we live in. The commies have figured out how to minimize the financial crisis in their country. Meanwhile our government does everything in their power to make it worse.

We thought it sounded like the Cold War interplay between the US and the USSR where we bankrupted them—except in this scenario, China is bankrupting us.

266 sillyquiet  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:59:41pm

I think Charles's point about Palin is that any Republican candidate, in the political reality of now, must be ironclad and clawproof against attacks of the 'religious test' variety, in order to keep and capture the fairly substantial socially-liberal yet otherwise 'conservative' middle spectrum of voters in this country. Creationism and other non-scientific claptrap is a taint that, besides being indicative of a lack of critical thinking skills or a serious intellectual disingenuousness, turns those voter (like me) completely OFF.

267 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 5:59:48pm
268 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:00:09pm

And remove any WEB site info

269 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:00:14pm
270 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:00:40pm

re: #159 Dr. Shalit

OK Charles -

I will state my opinion again. Belief in a Creator G-d and Evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. A creator G-d can be thought of as being "the uncaused cause" - the spark, if you will that set it all in motion. We as mere humans can only guess at rationale, and are probably wasting time doing so. A G-d who/ which can create can also allow creation to evolve which is my belief of what happened. In the early 1900's we had the Scopes Trial, at a time when "Creationism" was the only allowed curriculum, at least in Tennessee. Today we are, I hope about 100 years wiser. Evolution as a "Theory" has been for all intents and purposes been vindicated by the fossil record. Let us be wiser and allow that "Creationism" is an alternative view, and just that - without persecution, prosecution, OR PROOF in Science as we understand it. For what it is worth, as far as a One Zone Bus Ticket can get you, I believe I am echoing the thoughts of the late Prof. Albert Einstein of Princeton University.

-S-

But without supporting empirical evidence, it cannot be considered to be science, and as such, it does not belong in public high school science class, as Judge John Jones so correctly and wisely ruled.

271 jones  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:00:43pm

re: #250 Steve_NO

It is Charles' site.

272 Bloodnok  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:00:44pm

re: #266 sillyquiet

I think Charles's point about Palin is that any Republican candidate, in the political reality of now, must be ironclad and clawproof against attacks of the 'religious test' variety, in order to keep and capture the fairly substantial socially-liberal yet otherwise 'conservative' middle spectrum of voters in this country. Creationism and other non-scientific claptrap is a taint that, besides being indicative of a lack of critical thinking skills or a serious intellectual disingenuousness, turns those voter (like me) completely OFF.

Good post.

273 Summer Seale  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:01:12pm

re: #252 bluetick3

You may not. I disagree. But it's obvious you didn't accurately read my initial comment, where I made it quite clear about the Constitution and creationism. comment #224 is in essence making the same point that I made.

No, I disagree. You basically excused it as not such a big deal. It is a big deal. But if you wanna keep insisting that Charles and everyone else shouldn't make such a "fuss" about it...it's your account - not mine. =)

274 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:01:25pm

re: #253 devil in baggy pants

I think it's a states' rights issue, myself. Let each state figure it out.

1) The states are beholden to uphold the Constitution, and 2) Creationism was ruled unconstitutional in 1987.

275 devil in baggy pants  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:01:30pm

re: #251 Sharmuta

It's simple- real conservatives don't push their religion down other people's throats! These creationists and those who want to make excuses for them better back the fuck off, because I will not have them teaching any child of mine that they're going to hell if they don't read Genesis literally. How dare they! If that's what you think "conservatism" means, you are whacked out.

You can have your religion, but don't you dare infringe on my right to have mine.


Please show me where I said or inferred that.

276 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:01:57pm

re: #269 Iron Fist

In response, I'd say that after my experiences with public education in this country that it would be a cold day in Hell before I'd let any child of mine attend public school. I wouldn't have my nieces and nephew in it, but that's not a choice I can make.

Public schools are run locally and the variations are extreme. We researched the district we live in and I am very pleased so far. My children that have made the effort made the grades and LEARNED. In the other case, not so much!

277 USA  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:02:04pm

re: #262 Summer

Are you kidding? It was a national joke that Palin was a Creationist.

No, I am not kidding. Please point me to a national poll that shows a causal connection between her view on this issue and the Republicans' defeat.

278 Racer X  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:02:12pm

A Republican with strong connections to a racist preacher, a tax cheat, and a domestic terrorist wouldn't even get a second sniff.

Yet here we are.

279 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:02:15pm

re: #243 winston06

test

You have to have you email in the email box, the "show email" box clicked and NOTHING in the URL web site text box.

That will set up you name with a special link to Charles' safe email procedure, in which a Lizard can email you.

280 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:02:25pm

re: #124 USA

This was a non-issue in 2008 election.

Shouldn't you be at GCP? Never mind, I'll make it easy for you.

281 itellu3times  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:02:35pm

re: #250 Steve_NO

This is apparently the disease of our time. Complete nutjobs quote freedom of X to spout nonsense, about science, religion, morality, economics, whatever.

The true dharma is not defeated by the false dharma, but is burried.
/there is some eastern cliche more or less like that

282 Nemesis6  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:02:40pm

Toot-toot. All aboard the Republican fail-train! :)

283 jones  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:02:41pm

re: #259 Salamantis

Versus Obama?

284 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:02:42pm

re: #172 dentate

What "people" are you talking about? No sane person believes that scratches on the abyssal plain of the Atlantic are Atlantis. And you are typifying the ID argument which always boils down to, "I personally don't understand how it could have occurred, therefore it couldn't have occurred."

Yep. Argument from a combination of ignorance and incredulity. Sadly classic.

285 Boxy_brown  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:03:24pm

re: #256 Maximu§


If I may, Louisiana has a Christian majority and their Man is Bobby Jindal.


That's the thing, he is elected not inspite of creationism but partially because of it.

Charles, you aren't just frustrated with political stupidity but with stupidity itself. You are bound to be frustrated because humans can be aggravating, self defeating idiots. (Not me of course. ;-)

286 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:03:48pm
287 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:03:56pm

BTW, aren't the lines in the Atlantic from mapping programs, rather than physically on the ocean floor? Or did I totally misread that article?

288 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:04:09pm

re: #275 devil in baggy pants

Please show me where I said or inferred that.

What makes you think that comment was directed at you? It's not all about you, you know.

289 burntjohn  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:04:13pm

This is what happens when you let the biblethumpers take over the party.

290 gclaghorn  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:04:26pm

re: #287 SanFranciscoZionist

BTW, aren't the lines in the Atlantic from mapping programs, rather than physically on the ocean floor? Or did I totally misread that article?

Yep. It was the paths of the boats used to map the bottom of the ocean.

291 Fat Jolly Penguin  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:04:34pm

re: #280 Charles

Shouldn't you be at GCP? Never mind, I'll make it easy for you.

What is GCP?

292 pink freud  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:04:36pm

re: #227 winston06

Sorry Winston, I just saw this. Do a post in-thread, here. Ask the member you want to contact to blue their nick for you. (Make sure they're here at that time.) Once you see it blue, click on it and follow the prompts to contact them.

293 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:04:37pm

re: #287 SanFranciscoZionist

BTW, aren't the lines in the Atlantic from mapping programs, rather than physically on the ocean floor? Or did I totally misread that article?

You didn't miss anything. That's how stunningly ignorant the comment was.

294 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:04:46pm
295 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:04:49pm

re: #223 SanFranciscoZionist

Things are better than they used to be. When my father was young, there were still people who believed we have horns.

(There's actually a story for this, but it's long.)

296 Shug  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:05:06pm

what is GCP ?

297 MJ  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:05:26pm

Well, obviously much will depend on issues such as the economy and the war on terror as to who is electable in 2012.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan ran as someone who was sympathetic to creationism:

"In reference to the theory of evolution Reagan declared, "I have a great many questions about it. It is a theory, it is a scientific theory only. And in recent years it has been challenged in the world of science and is not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was. I think that recent discoveries down through the years have pointed up great flaws in it." He then added that if the theory of evolution is to be taught in public schools, so should the Biblical version of the origin of human life."

[Link: ncseweb.org...]

However, that stand did cost Reagan in the polls, at least according Lou Cannon though it's not clear if that or other mis-steps were the reason for the slip in the polls:

[Link: books.google.com...]

298 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:05:28pm

re: #269 Iron Fist

In response, I'd say that after my experiences with public education in this country that it would be a cold day in Hell before I'd let any child of mine attend public school. I wouldn't have my nieces and nephew in it, but that's not a choice I can make.

I wouldn't send any child of mine to a public school either. That's not the point though. The kids who do get sent to public schools have the right to not be indoctrinated against their parents' and their rights.

299 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:05:28pm

I'm sick to death of this idoltarian, media driven political environment where principle is for sale and my vote is scoffed...patriotism and citizenship are all I know...these assholes that want to fuck around with the Constitution are my sworn enemies...the feds and the media are my enemies...lunatics are at the helm and I aint goin down with the ship...I'll fight it out here locally in NM...it's all I can do...if some 'party' wants me then they will court my vote...

300 Gus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:05:30pm

Uh oh. Any validity to Geert Wilders showing up at CPAC?

301 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:06:12pm

re: #296 Shug

what is GCP ?

gulf coast pundit. Blog of infamous banned LGFers who hate Charles.

302 Killian Bundy  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:06:40pm

re: #274 Sharmuta

1) The states are beholden to uphold the Constitution

/you might want to read the 10th Amendment and it's history

303 bluetick3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:06:47pm

re: #273 Summer

No, I disagree. You basically excused it as not such a big deal. It is a big deal. But if you wanna keep insisting that Charles and everyone else shouldn't make such a "fuss" about it...it's your account - not mine. =)

I never said anyone shouldn't make a fuss about it. I simply said I do not understand the fuss.

304 Kreuzueber Halbmond  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:07:16pm

Note to Michael Steele - perhaps we can get Karel Gott a birth certificate before 2012..

305 Fat Jolly Penguin  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:07:17pm

re: #301 Sharmuta

gulf coast pundit. Blog of infamous banned LGFers who hate Charles.

Another stalker blog?! FFS.

306 devil in baggy pants  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:07:30pm

re: #288 Sharmuta

What makes you think that comment was directed at you? It's not all about you, you know.


My apologies. You had asked me about what I think "real conservative" is and it seemed like your post was referencing my answer to you.

Sorry for the misread.

307 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:08:02pm

re: #295 EmmmieG

Things are better than they used to be. When my father was young, there were still people who believed we have horns.

(There's actually a story for this, but it's long.)

Good grief.

308 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:08:31pm

re: #306 devil in baggy pants

It was directed at those who seem to think a "real conservative" is a Christian fundamentalist and nothing more.

309 LynnfromNZ  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:08:48pm

re: #244 Walter L. Newton

I personally like them, yes.

310 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:09:02pm

re: #303 bluetick3

I never said anyone shouldn't make a fuss about it. I simply said I do not understand the fuss.

Fuss.

The GOP is loosing votes because they insist on supporting social conservative issues like teaching creationism in science class, as one example.

What is hard about understand the fuss?

311 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:09:05pm

re: #300 Gus 802

Uh oh. Any validity to Geert Wilders showing up at CPAC?

Sure, why not have a book-banner at CPAC? They're already hosting Mike Huckabee, Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, and Ron Paul.

The more the merrier.

312 cowbellallen  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:09:25pm

re: #217 Walter L. Newton

Then go some place else. Start your own blog. Go to a gym. Take country and western dance lessons. But leave.

I actually have a blog on blogspot, heh. Better yet, I have a 14-piece Nautilus set in my garage, so I have no need to go to a gym and run on a treadmill. :)

I just thought it was kind of early to talk about it considering the current POTUS has been in office for less than a month. But if you want to, that's fine and I'll certainly be entertained by it.

I personally care more about fiscal responsibility, less government, national security, and liberty than I do about creationism. I think all of these are more important. I did vote for McCain, unfortunately, but thats only because he picked Sarah Palin, and it didn't have anything to do with her religion.

Would have preferred it if Fred Thompson got the nomination, kinda think he's gonna be a bit old for that in a few years, though. I think Palin is going to have some trouble getting past the primaries.

313 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:09:27pm

re: #242 Racer X

I disagree with you there. McCain was going nowhere until he picked Palin. He would have lost by a far worse margin had he picked another moderate Republican. IMO

RacerX -

IMHO - No Kidding. Follow the polling. From just after Labor Day until about September 16, McCain was ahead or within statistical variation. His actions during the debate about "Bailout 1" were probably his undoing. Gov. Palin was a net PLUS to "rank and file" Republican/Conservative voters. The Bailout/Meltdown", at least in my mind, happened "Very Conveniently" thereafter.

-S-

314 Killian Bundy  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:09:38pm

re: #289 burntjohn

This is what happens when you let the biblethumpers take over the party.

/all 60 million of them, run for your lives!

315 Shug  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:09:46pm

re: #301 Sharmuta

gulf coast pundit. Blog of infamous banned LGFers who hate Charles.


wow. I went and looked at the member list. It's like a who's who of mental illness

316 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:09:58pm

re: #309 LynnfromNZ

I personally like them, yes.

Palin, Hillary or boobs?

317 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:10:01pm

re: #256 Maximu§

If I may, Louisiana has a Christian majority and their Man is Bobby Jindal. He speaks for them, not us and who the hell are we on the left-coast to question what their business is? A few words from the Good Book never hurt anyone and by the looks of these kids I see now-a-days, they could use it.

You're for violating the Constitution?

318 Gus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:10:18pm

re: #311 Charles

Sure, why not have a book-banner at CPAC? They're already hosting Mike Huckabee, Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, and Ron Paul.

The more the merrier.

Right. Amazing. Now we sit and wait to see who'll open their big mouth during the conference. Coulter is a sure bet.

319 lostlakehiker  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:10:28pm

And right on schedule, the refutation appears. another missing link: omnivore dino Can't make this stuff up.

320 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:11:11pm

re: #192 bluetick3

Maybe a creationist would be certain to lose in 2012, but personally I'd take an otherwise right-thinking creationist who sticks to the Constitution over a crypto-marxist pathological liar.

No, he simply worships a God who must have systematically lied in the Book of Nature in order for his belief to be true. And pushing that dogmatic conception into public high school science class is most defi9nitely not sticking to the Constitution.

I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the Constitution that requires or allows the federal government to force creationism down the country's throat. I think it's silly for these Governor;s to cling to this creationist nonsense (and pretend to do so in the name of science). At least they presumably aren't clinging to beliefs that nonbelievers of their respective religions should be exploded.

No, they're just unconstitutionally arrogating to themselves the illegitimate prerogative to indoctrinate other peoples' kids in sectarian religious dogmas in public high school science classes - including kids whose own religious faiths are contradicted by it.

I am dubious that any candidate would be perfect, but all the umbrage over creationism seems overblown to me, when examined in the context of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. I also don't get the umbrage against the "religious right" (Christians). They've never done anything to me.

Give them a chance, though, and they'll do it to your kids. And they're busting a gut trying to seize the capacity to do precisely that. Which is why our concerns are not overblown at all.

Maybe I am missing something?

I'd say you're missing a lot.

321 Desert Dog  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:11:13pm

re: #316 Walter L. Newton

Palin, Hillary or boobs?

One vote for boobs here

322 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:11:14pm

re: #318 Gus 802

Right. Amazing. Now we sit and wait to see who'll open their big mouth during the conference. Coulter is a sure bet.

It IS in her job description, after all.

Luap Nor, OTOH, is a nut for practically free.

323 bluetick3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:11:34pm

re: #273 Summer

No, I disagree. You basically excused it as not such a big deal. It is a big deal. But if you wanna keep insisting that Charles and everyone else shouldn't make such a "fuss" about it...it's your account - not mine. =)

Moreover, I suggested I'd take my chances with an otherwise right-thinking Creationist over a crypto-marxist pathological liar. That does not mean I condone Creationism, or believe it's Constitutional, or support any of these Creationist as a primary candidate. But feel free to keep making up stuff and attributuing it erroneously to me.

324 sphincter  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:11:38pm

re: #275 devil in baggy pants

1/504th? Delta here. Oohrah

325 HelloDare  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:12:00pm

re: #315 Shug

wow. I went and looked at the member list. It's like a who's who of mental illness

Their logo is a straightjacket.

326 cronus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:12:15pm

re: #266 sillyquiet

I think Charles's point about Palin is that any Republican candidate, in the political reality of now, must be ironclad and clawproof against attacks of the 'religious test' variety, in order to keep and capture the fairly substantial socially-liberal yet otherwise 'conservative' middle spectrum of voters in this country. Creationism and other non-scientific claptrap is a taint that, besides being indicative of a lack of critical thinking skills or a serious intellectual disingenuousness, turns those voter (like me) completely OFF.

Well put. Bottom-line is that if any one of these guys does take the presidential leap they'll have to pretty quickly rectify their position or they'll be dogged by this (at least by reporters if not voters). 2012 is not 2000. The Republican anti-science meme (deserved or overblown) is too well established within the MSM. But all three of these guys will have created a completely needless news cycle around this and both their current stated position as well as their inevitable "clarification" later on will be very helpful to Democrats who will use both to create the caricature they want of the Republican nominee.

327 LynnfromNZ  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:12:15pm

re: #316 Walter L. Newton

Numbers one and three. Not necessarily in that order or combination.

328 Gus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:12:15pm

re: #322 OldLineTexan

It IS in her job description, after all.

Luap Nor, OTOH, is a nut for practically free.

Lupa Nor? lol Took me a minute. I know.

329 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:12:33pm
330 Racer X  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:12:38pm

I belong to no political party. I vote the way I want, on things that make sense to me personally. I detest the whole concept of "toe the party line".

331 Obsidiandog  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:12:40pm

It looks like the Republican Party had better prepare for a long time in the wilderness if this is the best they can field.This is downright embarrassing and very depressing.

332 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:12:44pm

re: #315 Shug

wow. I went and looked at the member list. It's like a who's who of mental illness

You ain't just whistlin' Dixie.

333 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:12:55pm

re: #312 cowbellallen

I actually have a blog on blogspot, heh. Better yet, I have a 14-piece Nautilus set in my garage, so I have no need to go to a gym and run on a treadmill. :)

I just thought it was kind of early to talk about it considering the current POTUS has been in office for less than a month. But if you want to, that's fine and I'll certainly be entertained by it.

I personally care more about fiscal responsibility, less government, national security, and liberty than I do about creationism. I think all of these are more important. I did vote for McCain, unfortunately, but thats only because he picked Sarah Palin, and it didn't have anything to do with her religion.

Would have preferred it if Fred Thompson got the nomination, kinda think he's gonna be a bit old for that in a few years, though. I think Palin is going to have some trouble getting past the primaries.

Guess what? Even you say above has nothing to do with your original comment and my answer to you.

This is Charles' blog. He can post ANY subject that he wants to post. You are an invited guest.

You don't come in here and ask why he does what he wants to do with his house.

Charles' will block your account if you keep harping on what he wants as topics on HIS blog.

Got that?

334 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:12:57pm

re: #244 Walter L. Newton

The world so loves a boob.


Indeed.

335 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:13:12pm

re: #328 Gus 802

Lupa Nor? lol Took me a minute. I know.

Luap Nor is a joke I picked up here. I like it. ;)

336 Silvergirl  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:13:28pm

re: #244 Walter L. Newton

Of course it's true. So many people were drooling over Palin JUST BECAUSE of that "countryfied" slop she put on. Well, what in the hell does that tell you about the electorate.

Why did Hillary shift dialects faster than a con man on the run as she pandered to the folks in different parts of the country.

Because a lot of folk out there don't have the smarts to understand the implications of all this.

The world so loves a boob.

I read the bio on Sarah Palin before she came on the scene. I followed the draft palin for vp blog, so had a feeling she was going to burst on the scene and surprise everyone. From what I knew, and what I believe, Palin doesn't put on slop. She is who she is, and her speech patterns aren't put on. I do agree that Hillary shifted dialects and threw back shots, and even as Obama put it, was acting like Annie Oakley.

337 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:13:28pm

re: #328 Gus 802

Lupa Nor? lol Took me a minute. I know.

I think they're afraid to say his name three times looking in a mirror.

338 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:14:42pm

re: #337 SanFranciscoZionist

I think they're afraid to say his name three times looking in a mirror.

I won't do that with "Biggie Smalls" either, as I consider South Park a more accurate source of information than the MSM.

339 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:14:50pm

re: #312 cowbellallen

I actually have a blog on blogspot, heh. Better yet, I have a 14-piece Nautilus set in my garage, so I have no need to go to a gym and run on a treadmill. :)

I just thought it was kind of early to talk about it considering the current POTUS has been in office for less than a month. But if you want to, that's fine and I'll certainly be entertained by it.

I personally care more about fiscal responsibility, less government, national security, and liberty than I do about creationism. I think all of these are more important. I did vote for McCain, unfortunately, but thats only because he picked Sarah Palin, and it didn't have anything to do with her religion.

Would have preferred it if Fred Thompson got the nomination, kinda think he's gonna be a bit old for that in a few years, though. I think Palin is going to have some trouble getting past the primaries.

all of that blather has been posted here a thousand times...so Creationism is not that important to you?...how do you reconcile defending the Constitution then?...are you connecting the dots?...blah blah...Creationism IS about liberty....

340 Gus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:14:50pm

re: #337 SanFranciscoZionist

I think they're afraid to say his name three times looking in a mirror.

Then throw salt over their shoulders. Used to be something like that.

341 pink freud  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:15:04pm

re: #321 Desert Dog

How'd you and your son fare in the pinewood derby?

342 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:15:21pm

re: #302 Killian Bundy

/you might want to read the 10th Amendment and it's history

The tenth amendment doesn't give states the right to usurp the constitutional rights of anyone.

And I ask that you please not comment to me again. Thank you.

343 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:15:37pm

re: #208 cornerback

re: #172 dentate

All I am pointing out is that those who believe in evolution will never think rationally of the complete absurdity of their theory. It will make perfect sense that chicken scratches on an ocean floor can't be random, but the peptide chain can be.

Another creationist canard: the false assertion that evolution is entirely random, here once again, for the umpty-umpth time, rears its uncomprehending head. Genetic mutation is random, but environmental selection is NOT random. What I find absurd is that creationists lovingly hoard their willful ignorance on this point even after having been informed of their error beaucoup times.

344 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:16:20pm

re: #336 Silvergirl

I read the bio on Sarah Palin before she came on the scene. I followed the draft palin for vp blog, so had a feeling she was going to burst on the scene and surprise everyone. From what I knew, and what I believe, Palin doesn't put on slop. She is who she is, and her speech patterns aren't put on. I do agree that Hillary shifted dialects and threw back shots, and even as Obama put it, was acting like Annie Oakley.

Then that's even worst. She is countryfied, as per your comment. Then that is even more reason for me not to like her. She is not a smart woman, what more a keen politician.

345 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:16:29pm

re: #244 Walter L. Newton

Of course it's true. So many people were drooling over Palin JUST BECAUSE of that "countryfied" slop she put on. Well, what in the hell does that tell you about the electorate.

Why did Hillary shift dialects faster than a con man on the run as she pandered to the folks in different parts of the country.

Because a lot of folk out there don't have the smarts to understand the implications of all this.

The world so loves a boob.

Walter -

Have to respectfully disagree here. Gov. Palin for what I could observe put on little if any "slop." She is/was who she is. I am a "NY Area" kind of fellow.
I have also lived a bit around our large nation and know that my life experience is not universal. Love her, tolerate her or hate her, she speaks for a large part of this nation.

-S-

346 Thor-Zone  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:16:38pm

OT
Just listening to the new My Morning Jacket LP. It is called Evil Urges, and so far I think it is their best record yet.

Just sayin'

347 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:17:24pm
348 Desert Dog  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:17:27pm

re: #341 pink freud

How'd you and your son fare in the pinewood derby?


He finished 8th in the Pack....not bad!

349 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:17:39pm

re: #192 bluetick3

Maybe a creationist would be certain to lose in 2012, but personally I'd take an otherwise right-thinking creationist who sticks to the Constitution over a crypto-marxist pathological liar.

There's no difference.

Creationists do not "stick to the Constitution." Every one of the creationists quoted above wants to teach religious pseudo-science in public schools.

350 Sheepdogess  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:17:45pm

re: #212 devil in baggy pants

Sorry, I lost track of your post... didn't mean to dodge the question.

Real conservative, in my opinion:

1) smaller (national) government
2) strong national defense/military
3) belief in the individual to accomplish
4) free market economy/supply side economics
5) Constitutional purist-- no monkeying around with it
5a) strong supporter of 2nd Amendment rights especially

Those are my top 5.


Agree.

I would add one more.

6) Traditional family, two parents, a mom and a dad.

351 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:18:18pm

re: #345 Dr. Shalit

Walter -

Have to respectfully disagree here. Gov. Palin for what I could observe put on little if any "slop." She is/was who she is. I am a "NY Area" kind of fellow.
I have also lived a bit around our large nation and know that my life experience is not universal. Love her, tolerate her or hate her, she speaks for a large part of this nation.

-S-

Sir, you made my point, I was hoping someone would go where you went. You are the second person. If she is what the conservative voter is looking for, were are sunk. Scary, isn't it?

352 pink freud  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:18:42pm

re: #348 Desert Dog

He finished 8th in the Pack....not bad!

Congratulations!

353 Silvergirl  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:18:51pm

re: #344 Walter L. Newton

Then that's even worst. She is countryfied, as per your comment. Then that is even more reason for me not to like her. She is not a smart woman, what more a keen politician.

That's fine, Walter, don't like her. Different strokes, all that. My post was to state that she's not put on.

354 DaShox  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:18:54pm

Every head and knee shall bow...

355 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:19:16pm
356 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:19:28pm

re: #348 Desert Dog

He finished 8th in the Pack....not bad!

Good. I was in scouting for as long as they let you stick around. It's good for a kid.

357 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:19:28pm
358 David IV of Georgia  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:19:30pm

re: #338 OldLineTexan

I won't do that with "Biggie Smalls" either, as I consider South Park a more accurate source of information than the MSM.

I somewhat detest South Park for the profanity and the low-brow humor. I watch it anyway because usually their take on current issues actually makes sense.

359 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:19:44pm

I am not going to stand for insults. Use my software to post an insult and I will use my software to take away your account.

360 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:20:01pm

re: #354 DaShox

And you shall go...

361 cowbellallen  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:20:09pm

re: #333 Walter L. Newton

Guess what? Even you say above has nothing to do with your original comment and my answer to you.

This is Charles' blog. He can post ANY subject that he wants to post. You are an invited guest.

You don't come in here and ask why he does what he wants to do with his house.

Charles' will block your account if you keep harping on what he wants as topics on HIS blog.

Got that?

I'm not harping about what he wants to post and didn't question why he is posting about stuff like this. Clearly it means a lot to him. I've been reading this website for a couple years now and haven't once complained about his blog (although from the way I said it initally that it could seem confusing).

362 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:20:44pm

re: #350 Sheepdogess

Agree.

I would add one more.

6) Traditional family, two parents, a mom and a dad.

So a hard working single mom or dad doing the best they can to support themselves and their kid(s) isn't welcome?!

363 bluetick3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:20:58pm

re: #349 Charles

There's no difference.

Creationists do not "stick to the Constitution." Every one of the ones quoted above wants to teach religious pseudo-science in public schools.

Wanting to and accomplishing same are two different things. I'll have to take your word for it and deduce that this would continue be their position as President. I do not know enough about the three of them to draw that conclusion on my own.

I'll concede they're nuts, though.

364 Killian Bundy  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:21:06pm

re: #342 Sharmuta

The tenth amendment doesn't give states the right to usurp the constitutional rights of anyone.

You have little idea what you're talking about with that statement.

/and I'll comment to who I please, scroll away if you don't like it

365 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:21:07pm

boom 357...

366 LynnfromNZ  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:21:10pm

re: #344 Walter L. Newton

Sorry, I hope I'm not misunderstanding you -- you're saying if Palin's countrified that she's not a smart person? Country hicks are stupid?

367 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:21:38pm

re: #234 LynnfromNZ

There are things the President can do something about, and things the President can't do anything about. Forget what candidates say about things they can't do anything about as President, and focus on what they say about things they might have some ability to enact as President.

Lots of times candidates simply throw red meat out to galvanize the base -- abortion! Same-sex unions! Creationism! End the Iraq War! -- but all it is, in the end, is bluster designed to confuse the simple-minded who never stop to think "Wait a second, the President doesn't have any control over that issue..."

I'd rather have a president who thinks every American should become a Wiccan who promises to lower my taxes and get government out of the business of business than a president disinterested in personal religious beliefs who thinks we need more government in our lives, because a President can do something about taxes and the size of government, but can't do a thing about my religious practices.

A shitload of creationist bills flooding state legislatures belie your premise. I care about what a candidate will try to DO as Prez - and we've already seen what Jindal actually DID as Gov. That's more than enough for me.

368 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:21:43pm

re: #361 cowbellallen

I'm not harping about what he wants to post and didn't question why he is posting about stuff like this. Clearly it means a lot to him. I've been reading this website for a couple years now and haven't once complained about his blog (although from the way I said it initally that it could seem confusing).

Yep, or else I wouldn't have been chatting with you for the last half hour. Yep, it sounded like you were harping on what he wants to post. And if you have been reading this blog for a couple of years now, then you know it pays to be very clear on a heated subject like this.

369 avanti  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:21:49pm

re: #17 Phil.

Charles, I have no problem with you pointing to creationists who I think are rather silly myself (children living side by side with dinosaurs?)

But let's not forget that both parties distort science to their own ends. I don't know your stance on anthropogenic global warming, but the global temperature trends are down for the past several years now and it's not like there isn't precedent for the global warming environmentalists to be completely wrong about temperature creating global catastrophe (global cooling in the 70's anyone?)


Temperatures have spiked up and down over the last 100 years, but te trend has always been upward. The often cited 1999 cooling year was just in comparison with record warm years and was still in the top 10 warmest in the last 100.
We can debate how large a effect man has had, and if we can fix it and at what cost, but to just label it a political conspiracy makes the argument against ID weak.

link.

370 devil in baggy pants  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:22:04pm

re: #324 sphincter

1/504th? Delta here. Oohrah


3rd... now defunct. =(

371 Honorary Yooper  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:22:13pm

re: #24 Killgore Trout

Wow. I Checked his Wiki and he has an MBA. All of these guys sound like they never made it past 10th grade.

I did a survey for a class in college regarding the religions and majors of those who support YEC and those who support evolutionary theory. The YECs tended to hail from majors such as computer science and programming. The supporters of evolutionary theory had their bases of support in biology, geology, and related sciences and engineering. The mechanical and electrical engineering types tended to be split more by religious preferences. I had no business majors from which to sample, but based on the survey I did, I would suspect that given the distance they are from the harder sciences, they may have a larger proportion of YECs.

372 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:22:21pm

re: #358 David IV of Georgia

I somewhat detest South Park for the profanity and the low-brow humor. I watch it anyway because usually their take on current issues actually makes sense.

I don't detest it. It is a nasty veneer over some (usually) insightful commentary. I find it refreshing, as cartoons are capable of going over-the-top to make a point, and they certainly do. Some of the shows are throwaways, but some are jewels.

373 Boxy_brown  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:22:24pm

re: #345 Dr. Shalit

Love her, tolerate her or hate her, she speaks for a large part of this nation.

Right. These people don't spring up from a vacuum. They are elected in part because they have constituents that agree with their positions. That is just the case.

374 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:22:42pm

re: #366 LynnfromNZ

Sorry, I hope I'm not misunderstanding you -- you're saying if Palin's countrified that she's not a smart person? Country hicks are stupid?

I'm saying she is not a very smart person in my opinion.

375 FrogMarch  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:22:47pm

re: #355 Iron Fist

You are not alone, my friend.

[Link: brain-terminal.com...]

376 Desert Dog  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:22:50pm

re: #352 pink freud

Congratulations!

The proudest moment of his life so far

377 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:23:02pm

re: #363 bluetick3

Wanting to and accomplishing same are two different things. I'll have to take your word for it and deduce that this would continue be their position as President. I do not know enough about the three of them to draw that conclusion on my own.

I'll concede they're nuts, though.

Bobby Jindal HAS accomplished it.

Try to keep up.

378 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:23:18pm

re: #373 Boxy_brown

Right. These people don't spring up from a vacuum. They are elected in part because they have constituents that agree with their positions. That is just the case.

We're fucked then.

379 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:23:28pm

re: #238 godfrey

Who were the swing voters, and was creationism a significant factor in their vote?

They were the independents, moderates, and centrists, and unlike the socons, a majority of them accept evolution as the good solid science that it is.

380 TheMatrix31  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:23:32pm

Just a question because I have no idea about any of this stuff and stay away from these threads;

If it's infringing on the Constitution to do these stealth bills or whatever, then wouldn't they be struck down as unconstitutional anyway?

381 itellu3times  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:23:47pm

re: #212 devil in baggy pants

Sorry, I lost track of your post... didn't mean to dodge the question.

Real conservative, in my opinion:

1) smaller (national) government
2) strong national defense/military
3) belief in the individual to accomplish
4) free market economy/supply side economics
5) Constitutional purist-- no monkeying around with it
5a) strong supporter of 2nd Amendment rights especially

Those are my top 5.

I agree, and suggest some more wording here and there.

1. Principle of minimal government
2. Principle of national defense - as opposed to one-worldism or defeatism
3. Freedom-of rather than freedom-from.
4. Monetarism/markets rather than command, centralized economics.
5. Rule of written law rather than judicial activism, personal overrides.
6. Right of individual to bear arms.

382 Boxy_brown  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:24:07pm

re: #351 Walter L. Newton

If she is what the conservative voter is looking for, were are sunk.

Well, on a lot of "conservative" forums she is EXACTLY what they were looking for.

383 LynnfromNZ  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:24:20pm

re: #367 Salamantis

Right. Presidents introduce bills to state legislatures.

My earlier judgment that you're either not very smart or not very honest, or a bad combination of the two, is confirmed.

384 venomX  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:24:27pm

re: #351 Walter L. Newton

Ummm while the rest of the country is broke,alaska is in the black.Sorry,ill take someone with basic common sense,over someone with mega-degrees form Harvard,Yale,etc,etc. In fact ive found some of the most"educated"people i know,are some of the dumbest.Look at our new president.He can take a simple yes/no answer and turn it into a 13 minute blah blah session.Words dont impress me,actions do.

385 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:25:01pm

re: #380 TheMatrix31

Just a question because I have no idea about any of this stuff and stay away from these threads;

If it's infringing on the Constitution to do these stealth bills or whatever, then wouldn't they be struck down as unconstitutional anyway?

who would trust the SC?...not me

386 cowbellallen  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:25:12pm

re: #368 Walter L. Newton

Yep, or else I wouldn't have been chatting with you for the last half hour. Yep, it sounded like you were harping on what he wants to post. And if you have been reading this blog for a couple of years now, then you know it pays to be very clear on a heated subject like this.

I enjoy reading the stories on the Discovery Institute and enjoy reading this website. I believe that Charles is free to write whatever he wants. I disagree with how important creationism is in schools, even though I would prefer if it were not.

Hopefully, this is clear now. Yep.

387 Boxy_brown  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:25:28pm

re: #378 Walter L. Newton

We're fucked then

Either way. Probably.

Still, Ill go down swinging.

388 Kronocide  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:25:28pm

This is bad. Very bad.

389 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:25:37pm
390 pink freud  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:25:51pm

re: #376 Desert Dog

The proudest moment of his life so far

Major kudos to your father'ship', Desert Dog! :-)

391 jaunte  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:26:02pm

re: #380 TheMatrix31

Just a question because I have no idea about any of this stuff and stay away from these threads;

If it's infringing on the Constitution to do these stealth bills or whatever, then wouldn't they be struck down as unconstitutional anyway?

Short version: The openly unconstitutional activity has now been masked (Intelligent design, "teaching the weaknesses in existing theories") and has made a comeback.
The local school districts will foot the bill when the lawsuits start. Waste of money and time, bad educational policy.

392 lobo91  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:26:06pm

re: #355 Iron Fist

The problem is that the only time the Courts and the Media actually believe this is when the indoctrination is coming from a Religious, or a Right-wing perspective. I had a number of teachers over the years who thought their primary mission as teachers was to turn out properly indoctrinated Leftist drones.

If you do a little research into the NEA (such as the topics of panel discussions held during their national conventions), you'll find that turning out "properly indoctrinated Leftist drones" is actually the goal of the whole public education system today.

I wouldn't allow a member of the NEA to teach my Sheltie to fetch, much less allow any children of mine to attend a public school in this country today.

393 burntjohn  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:26:38pm

re: #314 Killian Bundy

Those also include whitey hating "goddammm" America biblethumpers.
It's a big crowd, and they vote both ways.

394 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:26:55pm

re: #380 TheMatrix31

Just a question because I have no idea about any of this stuff and stay away from these threads;

If it's infringing on the Constitution to do these stealth bills or whatever, then wouldn't they be struck down as unconstitutional anyway?

Yes. These bills will cost the taxpayers enormous amounts of money in court fees and lawyers. They will lose and embarrass the Republicans who enact them. Huckabee has a plan around this; to change the constitution to reflect god's will.

395 TheMatrix31  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:27:03pm

re: #391 jaunte

Short version: The openly unconstitutional activity has now been masked (Intelligent design, "teaching the weaknesses in existing theories") and has made a comeback.
The local school districts will foot the bill when the lawsuits start. Waste of money and time, bad educational policy.

Thanks for the response.

396 pink freud  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:27:06pm

re: #378 Walter L. Newton

We're fucked then.

Natural extension of the dumbing down of the public school education.

397 sleepyone  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:27:10pm

Well, I'm no political analyst but I'd have to say creationism was a non issue in this recent election. I don't think that was even one of the reasons why Obama won. In my own layman's thoughts he won because he had the numbers. A lot of first-time voters who normally would not even vote just had to vote for him since he represented "change" and they really hated Bush, ya know. A lot of minority voters who traditionally aren't well represented at the polls and we know why they voted for Obama. Frankly, short of some crazy Obama scandal, I don't think the Republicans stood a chance against Obama. This is not to say they wouldn't have stood a chance against nearly any other Democrat. It was the power of Obama and his "magical aura" or whatever that convinced the masses to vote for him. I know otherwise sane, rational individuals that voted for Obama based on no investigative thinking.

And after my comments above I'm sure you can tell that I'm no political analyst and should probably stick to my day job but it's how I see things.

398 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:27:16pm

re: #351 Walter L. Newton

Sir, you made my point, I was hoping someone would go where you went. You are the second person. If she is what the conservative voter is looking for, were are sunk. Scary, isn't it?

Walter -

OK, much the same "kerfluffle" was made about the Late Pres. Reagan, who began running for President in 1968, forget 1976. He was seen by folks on my coast and in my circles as the "devil incarnate" - a RUBE and a BOOB. I saw him that way myself until late in 1983.
Question - did you change in the same direction during that time? Just wondering?

-S-

399 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:27:19pm

re: #253 devil in baggy pants

I think it's a states' rights issue, myself. Let each state figure it out.

You're wrong; the 14th amendment applies the federal guarantees found in the Bill of Rights to the states.

400 Shug  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:27:40pm

re: #396 pink freud

Natural extension of the dumbing down of the public school education.

and teaching dinosaurs strolling arm in arm with Humans only makes it worse

401 Gus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:27:45pm

During the campaign and after reading and hearing about the reports on Palin I made a conscious decision not to watch the interviews she had with Couric and Gibson. Finally, I bit the bullet and watched them on You Tube. The first thing I experienced was a reflex of my jaw hitting my chest. This was followed by shallow breathing and a slight protrusion of my eyes.

402 MJ  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:27:49pm

re: #380 TheMatrix31

Just a question because I have no idea about any of this stuff and stay away from these threads;

If it's infringing on the Constitution to do these stealth bills or whatever, then wouldn't they be struck down as unconstitutional anyway?

Good question. Here are some answers though not necessarily Supreme Court decisions:

Evolution and Creationism in Public Schools

Index of Court Cases

[Link: atheism.about.com...]

403 bluetick3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:27:57pm

re: #377 Charles

Bobby Jindal HAS accomplished it.

Try to keep up.

I do my best to "keep up" but I do not follow Jinadal's every word. He accomplished it at the State level (although I do not know if it did or did not violated the state's constitution). I have never heard him say that it's his ambition for this be taught nationally and I do not know this would be his policy as a presidential candidate.

I certainly don't plan to vote for any of those three governors in the primary nonetheless.

404 Gus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:28:14pm

re: #393 burntjohn

Those also include whitey hating "goddammm" America biblethumpers.
It's a big crowd, and they vote both ways.

Creationists got Obama into office.

405 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:28:25pm

re: #397 sleepyone

Well, I'm no political analyst but I'd have to say creationism was a non issue in this recent election.

You're right, you're not a political analyst.

Google "Sarah Palin creationism" and then try to tell me it wasn't an issue in the election.

406 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:28:31pm

re: #256 Maximu§

If I may, Louisiana has a Christian majority and their Man is Bobby Jindal. He speaks for them, not us and who the hell are we on the left-coast to question what their business is? A few words from the Good Book never hurt anyone and by the looks of these kids I see now-a-days, they could use it.

Tyranny by a religious majority is no more acceptable in the US than it is in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

407 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:29:00pm

re: #400 Shug

and teaching dinosaurs strolling arm in arm with Humans only makes it worse

DAMN YOU FRED FLINTSTONE!

/

408 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:29:32pm

re: #386 cowbellallen

I enjoy reading the stories on the Discovery Institute and enjoy reading this website. I believe that Charles is free to write whatever he wants. I disagree with how important creationism is in schools, even though I would prefer if it were not.

Hopefully, this is clear now. Yep.

what is your ideal resolution to the 'Creationism in schools' situation?...where do you stand on the Constitutionality of the problem?...where do you stand on science and public education?...play your hand

409 burntjohn  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:29:33pm

re: #372 OldLineTexan

This country needs more SouthPark Republicans.

Now lets bust out the ole cancer kazoo and make a pretty song.

410 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:30:02pm

re: #382 Boxy_brown

Well, on a lot of "conservative" forums she is EXACTLY what they were looking for.

I got that.

I was initially excited about Palin. Then she managed to punch several buttons of mine almost immediately, and most of the ones she missed got punched by her fans.

I don't quite understand what makes her so appealing to some people, but I suspect it is closely linked to why she makes me so crazy.

411 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:30:06pm

Now up to 7 hate mails.

412 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:30:33pm

re: #389 Iron Fist

And the Edwards decision pretty much established that the states can't infringe upon the rights of Free Exercise and Establishment. Creationism is unconstitutional.

413 TheMatrix31  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:30:44pm

re: #402 MJ

Good question. Here are some answers though not necessarily Supreme Court decisions:

Evolution and Creationism in Public Schools

Index of Court Cases

[Link: atheism.about.com...]

Seemsl ike the rulings have been generally evolution-friendly?

414 Killian Bundy  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:30:49pm

re: #389 Iron Fist

Actually, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States at all.

Really?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That's the 10th Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights.

/or at least it was last time I checked

415 Kreuzueber Halbmond  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:30:59pm

Somewhere in this country is a kid with the brain potential to discover a cure for cancer. Now I ask, what are his/her chances of accomplishing this after being exposed to a less than truthful science education?

416 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:31:12pm
417 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:31:12pm

re: #409 burntjohn

This country needs more SouthPark Republicans.

Now lets bust out the ole cancer kazoo and make a pretty song.

You get the kazoo; I will thump a big Bible.

418 MJ  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:31:16pm

re: #394 Killgore Trout

Yes. These bills will cost the taxpayers enormous amounts of money in court fees and lawyers. They will lose and embarrass the Republicans who enact them. Huckabee has a plan around this; to change the constitution to reflect god's will.

Yes, you're right. That's the only was he'll get around the Establishment Clause.

419 rightwinger3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:31:17pm

Correct me if I'm wrong here. Anybody.

Anyone who comes to LGF can read any post and the comments at anytime. If they catch an open registration they can post comments. You can search for specific subjects and there is even a "tag cloud" to search specific subjects.

So why is every "creationist" thread that Charles posts we get people who signed up in 2004 spewing wacky shit as if it's the first thread Charles has posted on the subject?

Charles, Jimmah and I batted this idea around a few threads back:
Make it easy for people to get banned. Put a check box somewhere around the comment box that says "Avoid embarrassment, click here to get banned".

420 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:31:26pm

re: #384 venomX

Ummm while the rest of the country is broke,alaska is in the black.Sorry,ill take someone with basic common sense,over someone with mega-degrees form Harvard,Yale,etc,etc. In fact ive found some of the most"educated"people i know,are some of the dumbest.Look at our new president.He can take a simple yes/no answer and turn it into a 13 minute blah blah session.Words dont impress me,actions do.

Not going to argue with the virtue of common sense, but how much fiscal know-how does it take to keep a fuel-producing state with minimal population in the black? If I'm totally off, please explain, I don't know that much about Alaskan finances.

421 pink freud  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:31:38pm

re: #401 Gus 802

During the campaign and after reading and hearing about the reports on Palin I made a conscious decision not to watch the interviews she had with Couric and Gibson. Finally, I bit the bullet and watched them on You Tube. The first thing I experienced was a reflex of my jaw hitting my chest. This was followed by shallow breathing and a slight protrusion of my eyes.

Yet there were millions who said "Yep, there's my candidate!" Like Walter said, "we're fucked."

422 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:31:52pm

re: #398 Dr. Shalit

Walter -

OK, much the same "kerfluffle" was made about the Late Pres. Reagan, who began running for President in 1968, forget 1976. He was seen by folks on my coast and in my circles as the "devil incarnate" - a RUBE and a BOOB. I saw him that way myself until late in 1983.
Question - did you change in the same direction during that time? Just wondering?

-S-

I was partying my way through life, making a lot of money as a programmer and local entertainer, had a few marriages, living here, living there, a house here, a house there, vacations, collecting all kinds of ancient history, lots of toys and didn't give a shit about politics. And then Sept. 11 happened.

Got the picture?

423 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:31:53pm

"Sarah Palin creationism."

1,220,000 results.

424 burntjohn  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:32:14pm

re: #404 Gus 802

I guess that means creationism trumps abortion.

425 Achilles Tang  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:32:16pm

re: #21 Sharmuta

Draft Governor Jon Huntsman.

Because he's cute?

426 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:32:50pm

re: #283 jones

Versus Obama?

I'm not even remotely happy with him either; not for lack of intellect, but for lack of experience. And it is showing, more and more as time goes on.

427 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:32:56pm

re: #416 Iron Fist

that is essentially the mistake Bush made in regard to McCain-Feingold. That legislation was so clearly and obviously unconstitutional that it was almost inconceivable that the Supreme Court would allow it to stand. But they did.

Oops.

yup...Kelso as well, in my mind anyway

428 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:32:58pm
429 Boxy_brown  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:33:07pm

re: #410 SanFranciscoZionist

I was initially excited about Palin. Then she managed to punch several buttons of mine almost immediately, and most of the ones she missed got punched by her fans.

Agreed.

I don't quite understand what makes her so appealing to some people, but I suspect it is closely linked to why she makes me so crazy.

That whole "wanting to have a beer" with her thing as opposed to looking for a competent administrator who wont screw up.

430 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:33:13pm
431 venomX  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:33:19pm

re: #420 SanFranciscoZionist

Well,im sure a democrat would find a way to screw that up.

432 Thor-Zone  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:33:19pm

re: #384 venomX

Ummm while the rest of the country is broke,alaska is in the black.Sorry,ill take someone with basic common sense,over someone with mega-degrees form Harvard,Yale,etc,etc. In fact ive found some of the most"educated"people i know,are some of the dumbest.Look at our new president.He can take a simple yes/no answer and turn it into a 13 minute blah blah session.Words dont impress me,actions do.

We are not in the black anymore. This year we are facing the largest deficit in our history. At the risk of repeating myself, SP is no fiscal conservative.

433 Killian Bundy  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:33:20pm

re: #405 Charles

Google "Sarah Palin creationism" and then try to tell me it wasn't an issue in the election.

About 300K+ hits.

/13 on the "news" tab, although maybe that's date restricted

434 Gus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:33:21pm

re: #424 burntjohn

I guess that means creationism trumps abortion.

With the an urban Democratic electorate? For sure.

435 David IV of Georgia  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:33:31pm

re: #391 jaunte

Short version: The openly unconstitutional activity has now been masked (Intelligent design, "teaching the weaknesses in existing theories") and has made a comeback.
The local school districts will foot the bill when the lawsuits start. Waste of money and time, bad educational policy.

Teaching Creationism in public schools was deemed an unconstitutional way of promoting a religion. "Creationism" has been repackaged as "Intelligent Design" in an effort to thwart the Supreme Court ruling. Sooner or later the Supreme Court will get a case where they will say the two are the same.

436 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:33:49pm

re: #419 rightwinger3

Like a suicide booth?

437 Sheepdogess  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:33:57pm

re: #362 Sharmuta

So a hard working single mom or dad doing the best they can to support themselves and their kid(s) isn't welcome?!

Welcome? Of course! Optimal? No.

Would you prefer to have your child raised in a traditional and functional nuclear family, or in a single parent household?

438 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:34:00pm

re: #417 OldLineTexan

You get the kazoo; I will thump a big Bible.


Ever see the "My Name Is Earl" episode where the old lady has the Bible with the extra-extra large type? And slams him with it?

439 Bloodnok  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:34:15pm

re: #430 kyleb

Your taxi's here.

440 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:34:20pm

re: #430 kyleb

Get your own blog so we can come over and tell you what your priorities should be.

441 Honorary Yooper  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:34:25pm

re: #419 rightwinger3

Correct me if I'm wrong here. Anybody.

Anyone who comes to LGF can read any post and the comments at anytime. If they catch an open registration they can post comments. You can search for specific subjects and there is even a "tag cloud" to search specific subjects.

So why is every "creationist" thread that Charles posts we get people who signed up in 2004 spewing wacky shit as if it's the first thread Charles has posted on the subject?

Charles, Jimmah and I batted this idea around a few threads back:
Make it easy for people to get banned. Put a check box somewhere around the comment box that says "Avoid embarrassment, click here to get banned".

I have a strong suspicion that many of these commentors are sockpuppets that were registered by people who have already been banned. Charles uncovered some now-banned commentors who have had over ten different sockpuppets.

442 MJ  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:34:35pm

re: #413 TheMatrix31

Seemsl ike the rulings have been generally evolution-friendly?

Well, I wouldn't necessarily read it as "evolution-friendly" as it "no establishment of religion" friendly. The source of this list isn't exactly neutral...

443 Killian Bundy  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:34:48pm

re: #423 Charles

"Sarah Palin creationism."

1,220,000 results.

/okay, I didn't include sarah

444 rightwinger3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:34:51pm

re: #436 OldLineTexan

Like a suicide booth?

Exactly. Charles can even use the drop down boxes for specific insults.

445 cowbellallen  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:35:17pm

re: #408 albusteve

what is your ideal resolution to the 'Creationism in schools' situation?...where do you stand on the Constitutionality of the problem?...where do you stand on science and public education?...play your hand

Seems like it shouldn't be an issue for the federal government, so I'm going to say leave it up to the states to decide.

446 Boxy_brown  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:35:26pm

re: #436 OldLineTexan

Like a suicide booth?

Aaah yes, another adult who still watches cartons.

447 bluetick3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:35:30pm

re: #430 kyleb

I don't want creationism taught either, but compared to the leftist indoctrination camps our universities have become, the creationist threat is small potatoes. The country survived a couple hundred years of creationist teaching without becoming a theocracy; we have no such record for the teaching of Marxism.
I liked this site a whole lot more when it had its priorities straight.

Therein lies why I did not understand the fuss.

448 KingKenrod  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:35:40pm

The United States strong past support of Israel is significantly grounded in the religious right's belief that Canaan was promised to the Hebrews by God, a covenant that cannot be undone. This belief is obviously grounded in religious faith, not fact - no one can prove God made such a provision.

So on one hand, we need this motivated force to drive a political behavior we desire (strong support of Israel), but on the other hand we want to stop this motivated force because they are attacking our society and schools with nonsense.

So what friend does Israel have in the US besides the GOP, and in particular the fundamentalist Christians? If we start rejecting creationists, will support for Israel wane with it?

Of course support for Israel can be grounded in the secular - Jews have legal, political, historical right to the land of Israel, we have moral and legal obligation to protect them as a free democracy in a nasty part of the world. I'm not making the argument you can only support Israel on religious grounds.

449 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:35:49pm

The only people who seem to think this is a "non-issue," oddly enough, are ... creationists.

450 avanti  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:35:53pm

re: #384 venomX

Ummm while the rest of the country is broke,alaska is in the black.Sorry,ill take someone with basic common sense,over someone with mega-degrees form Harvard,Yale,etc,etc. In fact ive found some of the most"educated"people i know,are some of the dumbest.Look at our new president.He can take a simple yes/no answer and turn it into a 13 minute blah blah session.Words dont impress me,actions do.

I think Palin is bright enough, but Alaska is rich because of oil, not because of it's government. I think the rights demonetization of intellectuals is counter productive. Common sense alone might be great for some jobs, but I want the best and the brightest in my leaders. i.e. I might like Joe the Plumber to fix my water heater, but might choose a Harvard grad for elected office.

451 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:35:54pm

re: #378 Walter L. Newton

We're fucked then.

Walter -

Then is then - What about NOW? Never thought I would ever think of Hillary Rodham as a moderating influence. We crossed paths very tangentially in 1974 and she scared me.

-S-

452 rightwinger3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:35:59pm

re: #441 Honorary Yooper

I have a strong suspicion that many of these commentors are sockpuppets that were registered by people who have already been banned. Charles uncovered some now-banned commentors who have had over ten different sockpuppets.

People really don't have anything better to do. Wow.

453 jaunte  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:36:07pm

re: #441 Honorary Yooper

I have a strong suspicion that many of these commentors are sockpuppets that were registered by people who have already been banned. Charles uncovered some now-banned commentors who have had over ten different sockpuppets.

Good grief. Talk about time on your hands.

454 sleepyone  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:36:08pm

re: #405 Charles

You're right, you're not a political analyst.

Google "Sarah Palin creationism" and then try to tell me it wasn't an issue in the election.

Well, I know it was an issue to the media and to some but I can't see how it played a role in helping Obama win. Are you saying that because of her views some folks simply didn't vote at all or voted for Obama because of it?

455 Achilles Tang  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:36:27pm

re: #419 rightwinger3

It's a badge of honor in some circles. Kind of flattering for LGF really.

456 lobo91  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:36:37pm

re: #414 Killian Bundy

That's the 10th Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights.

/or at least it was last time I checked

You know, when I took Legislative Process in the late '90s, my professor was a former US Senator and one-time DNC chairman (and attorney).

He actually stated in class that the 10th Amendment was completely meaningless.

That's the sort of thinking we're up against these days from the other side.

457 Honorary Yooper  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:36:40pm

re: #426 Salamantis

I'm not even remotely happy with him either; not for lack of intellect, but for lack of experience. And it is showing, more and more as time goes on.

I find he has too much experience in some areas, and not enough where we need it. He has way too much experience in the pay for play corrupt Cook County system for my taste. That also shows in his cabinet picks (Holder, Emanuel, and LaHood come to mind). Anyway, HTF did we get on the subject of Obama?

458 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:36:57pm

re: #454 sleepyone

Are you saying that because of her views some folks simply didn't vote at all or voted for Obama because of it?

There is absolutely no doubt about that.

459 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:37:10pm

re: #422 Walter L. Newton

Walter -

"YUP!"

-S-

460 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:37:17pm

re: #438 SanFranciscoZionist

Ever see the "My Name Is Earl" episode where the old lady has the Bible with the extra-extra large type? And slams him with it?

No, I haven't followed that show. It's not like I don't watch any TV, but I watch remarkably little network-type stuff these days. I am about to start watching "Lost" on DVD, though, since my daughter has purchased the available seasons.

But that sounds somewhat painful. ;)

461 venomX  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:37:30pm

re: #432 Thor-Zone

Ill take your word for it,but i was of the understanding that Alaska has billions of dollars in reserve.

462 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:38:06pm

re: #445 cowbellallen

Seems like it shouldn't be an issue for the federal government, so I'm going to say leave it up to the states to decide.

the Constitution IS the federal govt...you bitch but you offer no solution...I'm pretty stupid and you seem even more stupid than me and that's really pathetic...

463 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:38:14pm

re: #423 Charles

"Sarah Palin creationism."

1,220,000 results.

1,820,000 for gop republicans creationism.

464 rightwinger3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:38:21pm

re: #455 Naso Tang

It's a badge of honor in some circles. Kind of flattering for LGF really.

Like the NRA blacklist. Some people...

465 burntjohn  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:38:26pm

re: #435 David IV of Georgia

Intelligent Design is very different from creationism.
Both equally nutty, but different.

466 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:38:49pm

re: #437 Sheepdogess

Welcome? Of course! Optimal? No.

Would you prefer to have your child raised in a traditional and functional nuclear family, or in a single parent household?

I was raised in a single parent household. And just because a family has two parents doesn't make it any better or worse than a single parent household- it depends on the individual(s) involved.

Sorry, but my first step-mother was a bitch, and my dad and I were better off without her. So perhaps you should re-examine what you think is in a child's best interests, because it's not a carbon-copy process.

467 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:38:52pm

re: #446 Boxy_brown

Aaah yes, another adult who still watches cartons.

Real life sucks sometimes, and I needs mah sanity.

/

Plus I learned a hell of a lot of culture from Bugs Bunny!

468 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:38:55pm

re: #429 Boxy_brown

That whole "wanting to have a beer" with her thing as opposed to looking for a competent administrator who wont screw up.

I can't imagine wanting to have a beer with Palin, though. McCain, Bush, sure, I'd accept an invitation in a heartbeat. They come across as genuinely pleasant people.

I loved her kids, though. I would have voted for Piper.

469 Thor-Zone  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:39:02pm

re: #420 SanFranciscoZionist

Not going to argue with the virtue of common sense, but how much fiscal know-how does it take to keep a fuel-producing state with minimal population in the black? If I'm totally off, please explain, I don't know that much about Alaskan finances.

Alaska gets about 85% - 90% of its revenues from oil production on the north slope. Since Sarah Palin became the governor we have the highest tax costs of any oil producing province in the world. If you have any specific questions...fire away and I'll do my best to answer them for you.

470 Silvergirl  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:39:07pm

re: #397 sleepyone

Well, I'm no political analyst but I'd have to say creationism was a non issue in this recent election. I don't think that was even one of the reasons why Obama won. In my own layman's thoughts he won because he had the numbers. A lot of first-time voters who normally would not even vote just had to vote for him since he represented "change" and they really hated Bush, ya know. A lot of minority voters who traditionally aren't well represented at the polls and we know why they voted for Obama. Frankly, short of some crazy Obama scandal, I don't think the Republicans stood a chance against Obama. This is not to say they wouldn't have stood a chance against nearly any other Democrat. It was the power of Obama and his "magical aura" or whatever that convinced the masses to vote for him. I know otherwise sane, rational individuals that voted for Obama based on no investigative thinking.

And after my comments above I'm sure you can tell that I'm no political analyst and should probably stick to my day job but it's how I see things.

I believe creationism and many other isms were issues in the past election. We'll just never know the degree of importance they held, though we each have our opinions. Much of the rest of what you wrote I agree with, especially the part about Obama's magical aura. I felt it myself when I heard him speaking at the dem's 04 convention. I stopped what I was doing and stared at the TV and thought, this guy is on his way somewhere. I didn't believe it would be so soon, and I'm sorry it happened at all. I knew the press would elevate him, and once again did not believe the extent until I saw it, and I never believed for a second all the talk, "We're too racist to elect him. If he loses it's because we're still a prejudiced nation."

471 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:39:13pm

re: #423 Charles

"Sarah Palin creationism."

1,220,000 results.

380,000 for democrats creationism.

472 Gus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:39:15pm

If CPAC is any indication and from the rumblings out of congress and the blogs I have no doubt that the GOP will take a turn to the far right in a final attempt to take back the White House.

473 Desert Dog  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:39:19pm

Well, we can chose our poison then.....do we want to join with the people on the right that share most of our fiscal and national security goals, but lose us on this forcing religion on the schools thing...OR, do we want to give up and take the Blue pill and join up with the KOSKIDS, MoveON, HuffPo, Make Love Not War types that are currently rah-rah-ing our mad rush to socialism? We cannot obtain national power with a coalition excluding the religious right. It would be great if reason prevailed and these Governors toned down the creationists stuff. But, If getting the White House is the goal, breaking into little groups because we do not like what they believe is another sure way to stay out of power forever.

If we want to stay true to our beliefs, we will not be seeing the White House, ever. The last election showed that even with 100% of the religious right voting for McCain, we still came up short.....

Perhaps we do need a third party to challenge the loonies on the left and the nuts on the right? Right now, I am deeply depressed about the entire state of politics in the USA.

474 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:39:42pm

re: #454 sleepyone

Well, I know it was an issue to the media and to some but I can't see how it played a role in helping Obama win. Are you saying that because of her views some folks simply didn't vote at all or voted for Obama because of it?

Ya think?!

475 Honorary Yooper  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:39:46pm

re: #440 Sharmuta

Get your own blog so we can come over and tell you what your priorities should be.

That makes what, six or seven meltdowns already in this thread?

476 avanti  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:39:47pm

re: #405 Charles

You're right, you're not a political analyst.

Google "Sarah Palin creationism" and then try to tell me it wasn't an issue in the election.

Her choice was a deal breaker for me, and that was part of it, but basically, I saw it as transparent pandering to the religious right. Could anyone say with a straight face that she was the most qualified candidate to be President if the worst happened ?

477 Boxy_brown  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:39:51pm

re: #467 OldLineTexan

Plus I learned a hell of a lot of culture from Bugs Bunny!


You should see my ACME rocket sled.

478 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:40:09pm

re: #450 avanti

I think Palin is bright enough, but Alaska is rich because of oil, not because of it's government. I think the rights demonetization of intellectuals is counter productive. Common sense alone might be great for some jobs, but I want the best and the brightest in my leaders. i.e. I might like Joe the Plumber to fix my water heater, but might choose a Harvard grad for elected office.

But not Yale, because Bush graduated from there and we ALL know he's an idiot.

479 venomX  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:40:13pm

re: #450 avanti

True,but you play with the hand you are dealt.You can screw it up,or not. Im not demonizing Intellectuals,but it seems like theres plenty of the reverse going on(not here in particular).Also,the harvard and yale grads have done an excellent job governing so far,havent they?

480 sleepyone  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:40:43pm

re: #458 Charles

There is absolutely no doubt about that.

I'll take your word for it but it never occurred to me that it's an issue. Especially when faced with the possibility of an Obama administration.

481 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:40:47pm

re: #454 sleepyone

Are you saying that because of her views some folks simply didn't vote at all or voted for Obama because of it?


Yes, that's what I was saying before the election. People found her views and simple mindedness spooky. My mom cast her first ever Dem vote because of Palin and yes her creationism was in the list of causes. I've talked with others since who did the same thing. Read Hitchens' and Buckley's reasons for not voting because of Palin. I know many people thought Hitch and other pundits should leave the party anyways. A lot of people were turned off by Palin. It's a fact.

482 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:41:12pm

re: #437 Sheepdogess

Welcome? Of course! Optimal? No.

Would you prefer to have your child raised in a traditional and functional nuclear family, or in a single parent household?

I'll go for the first, for many reasons, but I'd rather the functional single-parent (or two, separated, parents) household than the dysfunctional two-parent one.

483 Killian Bundy  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:41:12pm

re: #456 lobo91

You know, when I took Legislative Process in the late '90s, my professor was a former US Senator and one-time DNC chairman (and attorney).

He actually stated in class that the 10th Amendment was completely meaningless.

That's the sort of thinking we're up against these days from the other side.

/well, if you look at what Congress actually does nowadays, very little of it is authorized in the Constitution, but after 200+ years, the mission creep probably can't be reeled back in any more

484 Shug  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:41:25pm

re: #463 Walter L. Newton

1,820,000 for gop republicans creationism.

2,190,000 for Sarah Palin's Hair.
617,000 for Joe Biden's Hair

I guess he has a lot less

485 cowbellallen  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:41:26pm

re: #462 albusteve

the Constitution IS the federal govt...you bitch but you offer no solution...I'm pretty stupid and you seem even more stupid than me and that's really pathetic...

If it makes you feel any better I'm only 18 years old and still in high school. Please educate me as to why it's a bad idea to leave this issue to states, I'd like to know.

486 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:41:35pm

re: #474 Sharmuta

Ya think?!


good lord...pass the bong

487 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:41:56pm

re: #476 avanti

Her choice was a deal breaker for me, and that was part of it, but basically, I saw it as transparent pandering to the religious right. Could anyone say with a straight face that she was the most qualified candidate to be President if the worst happened ?

No, that was certainly Obama. No doubt there; every Dem in the country voted for him because of his massive EXPERIENCE.

488 Kronocide  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:42:04pm

re: #422 Walter L. Newton

My moment was GW1. The world got suddenly smaller.

489 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:42:09pm

And now the hate mail's getting ugly.

490 Honorary Yooper  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:42:13pm

re: #455 Naso Tang

It's a badge of honor in some circles. Kind of flattering for LGF really.

Yeah, they openly boast about it on a few of the sites. Of course, these sites tend to have a lot of pro-eurofascist sentiment as well.

491 Achilles Tang  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:42:18pm

re: #464 rightwinger3

Like the NRA blacklist. Some people...

Heh. I had to Google that.

492 LynnfromNZ  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:42:19pm

re: #374 Walter L. Newton

Oh I see, that's your opinion about her, that's fine. It ticked me off during the election when the MSM took the position that any country girl from Alaska was by definition stupid.

493 jaunte  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:42:33pm

re: #489 Charles

Which circle of hell did Dante reserve for the Constitutionalists?

494 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:42:34pm

re: #480 sleepyone

I'll take your word for it but it never occurred to me that it's an issue. Especially when faced with the possibility of an Obama administration.

You don't have to take my word for it. Google it.

495 lostlakehiker  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:42:43pm

re: #258 snowcrash

I think Palins problem was more the anti-abortion stance. She walked the walk and had Trig. Unthinkable for many women. Her young unwed daughter had the baby too. This isn't lip service about being pro-life. Put many women voters off. Independents and Republicans. Abortion is a toxic political issue and she brought it to the forefront of the discussion. Too bad.

How is it a political issue if someone makes the personal choice to carry a pregnancy to term and then care for a raise the baby?

There's folk who would have chosen differently in Sarah's shoes. {A lot of us, probably.} Others who would have chosen differently in Bristol's shoes. {And that would be a shame, because her baby will probably grow into a fine, effective, badly needed adult.} But that's just our own opinions and beliefs. The Palins aren't out to force it on the country.

496 _RememberTonyC  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:42:43pm

does anyone know Michael Steele's feelings on creationism/evolution?

497 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:43:01pm
498 Gus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:43:05pm

re: #496 _RememberTonyC

does anyone know Michael Steele's feelings on creationism/evolution?

I can guess.

499 gclaghorn  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:43:22pm

re: #489 Charles

And now the hate mail's getting ugly.

I've never heard of pretty hate mail before. :)

500 burntjohn  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:43:31pm

re: #486 albusteve

Bonghits?
On a Sunday night?

501 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:43:38pm

re: #469 Thor-Zone

Thor-Zone -

OK, question ONE - Absent the tax structure, is Alaska competitive in extraction costs per barrel of oil. If the answer is yes, I presume Gov. Palin is doing the same as the King of "Saudi" Arabia in trying to maximize return. If she goes too far, oil companies will go elsewhere.

-S-

502 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:43:41pm

re: #460 OldLineTexan

No, I haven't followed that show. It's not like I don't watch any TV, but I watch remarkably little network-type stuff these days. I am about to start watching "Lost" on DVD, though, since my daughter has purchased the available seasons.

But that sounds somewhat painful. ;)

Well, he had it coming. I was on her side. But it was an extremely large Bible to get hit in the head with.

503 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:43:53pm

re: #459 Dr. Shalit

Walter -

"YUP!"

-S-

In regards to your question "who now," I don't know. No one I've seen yet. If you have paid any attention to my postings, I firmly believe that the whole system is REALLY broke, and we have all the pieces of a kleptocracy and plutocracy in place right now, so, I don't think we have the actual structure in place to chance anything right now.

504 Silvergirl  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:44:14pm

re: #476 avanti

Her choice was a deal breaker for me, and that was part of it, but basically, I saw it as transparent pandering to the religious right. Could anyone say with a straight face that she was the most qualified candidate to be President if the worst happened ?

Truthfully, how straight is your face if you were to say Biden is qualified right now if the worst happened?

505 Honorary Yooper  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:44:17pm

re: #489 Charles

And now the hate mail's getting ugly.

I'll bet. There seem to have been some serious meltdowns between last night and this current thread.

506 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:44:21pm

Email from Louisiana:

exactly what I meant about evolution fanatics.....no dissent tolerated

are you a Muslim or something?

507 snowcrash  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:44:27pm

Are we considering other candidates? What about Linda Lingle Gov Hawaii ? She gave a very good address to the (R) convention describing what executive experience means when being a governor. She spoke about budgets and Natl Guard unit deployment and other state issues. Plain looking but really clear thinker/speaker. Too bad that much of her speech was preempted by the talking heads at Fox but carried in its entirety on CSPAN. So, any potential?

508 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:44:30pm

Sarah Palin's War on Science

The GOP ticket's appalling contempt for knowledge and learning.
By Christopher Hitchens

509 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:44:56pm

re: #506 Charles

That's ironic!

510 gclaghorn  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:45:01pm

re: #506 Charles

Email from Lousiana:

Oh noes! They've figured you out!

ROFL

511 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:45:03pm

re: #476 avanti

Her choice was a deal breaker for me, and that was part of it, but basically, I saw it as transparent pandering to the religious right. Could anyone say with a straight face that she was the most qualified candidate to be President if the worst happened ?

I didn't like her either, but I will say she had much more experience than Obama. Seriously.

512 pink freud  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:45:03pm

re: #476 avanti

Her choice was a deal breaker for me, and that was part of it, but basically, I saw it as transparent pandering to the religious right. Could anyone say with a straight face that she was the most qualified candidate to be President if the worst happened ?

Can anyone say with a straight face that 0bama is even marginally qualified to be President? At that point, what difference did it make? A vote for a VP candidate who was at least the Governor of a state, or the zero? Come on.

513 Desert Dog  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:45:07pm

re: #499 gclaghorn

I've never heard of pretty hate mail before. :)

How about a Pretty Hate Machine?

514 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:45:13pm
515 Dragonwolf  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:45:20pm

re: #128 Charles

Wow. Four hate mails already! The creationists are all stirred up out there.

But, but....that's how they were designed to be, weren't they?

Or is it that survival of the fittest has somehow been replaced by survival of the fit and the flakey?

516 lobo91  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:45:20pm

re: #476 avanti

Her choice was a deal breaker for me, and that was part of it, but basically, I saw it as transparent pandering to the religious right. Could anyone say with a straight face that she was the most qualified candidate to be President if the worst happened ?

I'd rather have her than the current early-stage dementia victim we have in that postion now.

517 _RememberTonyC  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:45:30pm

re: #498 Gus 802

I can guess.

if steele buys into the creationism camp, that is not good news.

518 Honorary Yooper  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:45:32pm

re: #497 buzzsawmonkey

Isn't hate mail ugly by definition?

Sometimes. Sometimes it's more amusing because of all the spelling and grammatical errors in it.

519 rightwinger3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:45:34pm

re: #476 avanti

Her choice was a deal breaker for me, and that was part of it, but basically, I saw it as transparent pandering to the religious right. Could anyone say with a straight face that she was the most qualified candidate to be President if the worst happened ?

Get off it. Maybe you want to use the word "experienced". There is only 2 qualifications as far as I know. Oh and Obama's experience was as a community organizer.

520 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:45:44pm

re: #506 Charles

Email from Lousiana:

exactly what I meant about evolution fanatics.....no dissent tolerated

are you a Muslim or something?

That makes absolutely no sense.

521 Boxy_brown  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:45:45pm

re: #468 SanFranciscoZionist

I can't imagine wanting to have a beer with Palin, though.

I can just picture having to buy round after round for her husband.

522 MJ  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:45:49pm

re: #448 KingKenrod

The United States strong past support of Israel is significantly grounded in the religious right's belief that Canaan was promised to the Hebrews by God, a covenant that cannot be undone. This belief is obviously grounded in religious faith, not fact - no one can prove God made such a provision.

So on one hand, we need this motivated force to drive a political behavior we desire (strong support of Israel), but on the other hand we want to stop this motivated force because they are attacking our society and schools with nonsense.

So what friend does Israel have in the US besides the GOP, and in particular the fundamentalist Christians? If we start rejecting creationists, will support for Israel wane with it?

Of course support for Israel can be grounded in the secular - Jews have legal, political, historical right to the land of Israel, we have moral and legal obligation to protect them as a free democracy in a nasty part of the world. I'm not making the argument you can only support Israel on religious grounds.

Well, I don't believe that historical support for Israel was the sole providence of the Religious Right in the US. Historically, the "Old Christan Right" was about as antisemitic and anti-Israel as your everyday member of the SS. Folks such as Gerald L. K. Smith were viciously antisemitic. Could I recommend a good book on support for the Establishment of the State of Israel? Peter Grose traced it in Israel in the Mind of America.

Support of Israel crosses party lines. Let's not forget that Truman was a Democrat and the first president to sell weapons to Israel was JFK. LBJ was was perhaps the most pro-Israel president till Bush.

523 Thor-Zone  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:45:52pm

re: #461 venomX

Ill take your word for it,but i was of the understanding that Alaska has billions of dollars in reserve.

In 1974 we created something called the Permanant Fund. The idea was to take oil revenues and put it in a savings account to fund state government when the oil ran out. Of course now days, that is not what most people think it is. Currently there is about 28 billion in that account.

Basically what we tried to do was to take a non-renewable resource and make it a renewable resource by having the earnings of the permanant fund pay for government.

524 Honorary Yooper  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:46:09pm

re: #506 Charles

Heh. Obviously that one missed about 50-60% of the posts here.

525 Kronocide  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:46:40pm

re: #463 Walter L. Newton

Even more disturbing:

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,690,000 for bush chimp. (0.09 seconds)

I suppose the Creationism issue is going to continue to build for some time.

526 UberInfidel67  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:46:52pm

re: #519 rightwinger3
BUT JESUS WAS A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER!

/Saranwrap off

527 legalpad  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:47:04pm

re: #449 Charles

The only people who seem to think this is a "non-issue," oddly enough, are ... creationists.

Well, I think it was an irrelevant issue. The economy and the wars gave the Republican no chance, in my opinion, unless they came up with some serious dazzle. They didn't. Having a creationist as VP candidate didn't help, but it was far from being a decisive factor. I could be wrong, but I think immigration issues lost the Republicans more votes than creationism. But neither really mattered in the final analysis. It was the economy first, and second, another protracted war where our troops had one hand tied behind them.

528 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:47:08pm

re: #485 cowbellallen

If it makes you feel any better I'm only 18 years old and still in high school. Please educate me as to why it's a bad idea to leave this issue to states, I'd like to know.

Anything in the constitution applies to the entire nation. No state can decide it isn't going to have the right to free speech, for example.

There's a clause in the constitution called the Establishment clause. Basically, the government does not regulate, restrict, or promote any one religion. If you teach religion in the schools, you would have to pick one to teach.

Imagine you're a Baptist who lives in Utah. Imagine you're a Jew in South Carolina. Imagine you're a Hindu in Iowa. The constitution protects your right to the free exercise of your own religion, and that includes the right to teach your children the family religion.

529 Desert Dog  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:47:21pm

re: #512 pink freud

Can anyone say with a straight face that 0bama is even marginally qualified to be President? At that point, what difference did it make? A vote for a VP candidate who was at least the Governor of a state, or the zero? Come on.

Hey now...Obama gave give a speech like no other.....isn't that enough for you? And, Joe Biden can tie his shoes (but not while chewing gum at the same time).

Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin

That is the best we can do in this country? If it is....we are all screwed!

530 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:47:25pm

re: #524 Honorary Yooper

Heh. Obviously that one missed about 50-60% of the posts here.

Hasn't heard of Harun Yahya or islamic creationism, apparently.

531 Hard Right  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:47:30pm

re: #92 Charles

I suspect Rudy Giuliani's heart wasn't in the campaign because he got the word early on that the GOP wasn't going to stand for him as the nominee.

1) Not a creationist.

2) Not hardcore anti-abortion.

3) Not hardcore pro-gun rights.

4) Divorced.

5) Not in the pocket of the religious right.

6) Not a Washington insider. (Probably most important.)

So how did McCain wind up as the nominee? Your theory doesn't seem to hold up on first glance.

re: #289 burntjohn

This is what happens when you let the biblethumpers take over the party.


Way to show what a bigotted jackass you are. I've worked for "Bible thumpers" who don't belive in ID or in forcing their beliefs on others.

532 pink freud  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:47:32pm

re: #485 cowbellallen

If it makes you feel any better I'm only 18 years old and still in high school. Please educate me as to why it's a bad idea to leave this issue to states, I'd like to know.

I applaud your willingness to learn and your presence here. Hang tough.

533 Boxy_brown  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:47:46pm

re: #525 BigPapa

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,690,000 for bush chimp. (0.09 seconds)

Sort of proves evolutionism right there.

534 Kronocide  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:48:19pm

re: #496 _RememberTonyC

Honestly, I'm afraid to ask at this point.

535 venomX  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:48:23pm

re: #523 Thor-Zone

Well thats a good thing.At least one state is smart(no im not giving all credit to palin).How does it go about getting "dipped"into?the Governers call?or legislature ,or both?

536 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:48:23pm

re: #380 TheMatrix31

Just a question because I have no idea about any of this stuff and stay away from these threads;

If it's infringing on the Constitution to do these stealth bills or whatever, then wouldn't they be struck down as unconstitutional anyway?

Yeah...after bankrupting state governments or school boards that shell out to defend them...while the Disco Institute shills laugh all the way to the bank on the money they make off the scam from selling them their unusable creationist crapola 'teaching' materials and demanding fat fees as 'expert' witnesses, and schools, teachers, and students lose, and the taxpayers are left footing the fucking bill.

537 Shug  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:48:47pm

re: #476 avanti

Her choice was a deal breaker for me, and that was part of it, but basically, I saw it as transparent pandering to the religious right. Could anyone say with a straight face that she was the most qualified candidate to be President if the worst happened ?


she was as unqualified as Obama

538 freetoken  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:48:55pm

re: #508 Killgore Trout

Sadly, I've concluded that this (GOP vs. science/knowledge) is good for at least another generation of politics... 20 years? 30 years? The evolution=satanism horse is no where close to being put out to pasture.

539 Thor-Zone  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:48:57pm

re: #476 avanti

Could anyone say with a straight face that she was the most qualified candidate to be President if the worst happened ?

I thought about that at the time and I was scared sh*&less

540 J.D.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:49:00pm

re: #496 _RememberTonyC

does anyone know Michael Steele's feelings on creationism/evolution?

I would be totally amazed if he was a creationist.

541 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:49:11pm

re: #530 Sharmuta

Hasn't heard of Harun Yahya or islamic creationism, apparently.

I doubt the overwhelming majority of those who would teach creationism in public schools have heard of either, especially the former's link to DI.

542 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:49:12pm

re: #531 Hard Right

So how did McCain wind up as the nominee? Your theory doesn't seem to hold up on first glance.

See point #6.

543 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:49:13pm

re: #497 buzzsawmonkey

Isn't hate mail ugly by definition?

No, no, no.

PLEASE NOTE: SARCASM FOLLOWS. IF YOU ARE SARCASM IMPAIRED, CONSIDERING BECOMING SARCASM IMPAIRED, OR HAVE HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE INCURRED BY FREQUENT HANDLE-FLYING-OFF, PLEASE DISCONTINUE READING AND SEE YOUR HUMORIST.

Dear Mr. Johnson,

I have had the pleasure of perusing your blog for a number of months now, and have come to the conclusion that you are a vacuous ninnyhammer with several minor obsessions that would be more suited to navel-gazing than political activism. However, I find your technical innovations to be most inspiring, and look forward to seeing many more. Oh, and please die soon if at all possible.

Looking forward to seeing you at dinner next Saturday. Oh, and please die.

Best Regards,
A fan


///////

544 jorline  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:49:37pm

re: #471 Walter L. Newton

380,000 for democrats creationism.

884,000 for Ron Paul creationism.

Hell, what's a poll with Ron Paul?

545 avanti  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:49:45pm

re: #504 Silvergirl

Truthfully, how straight is your face if you were to say Biden is qualified right now if the worst happened?

If anything, he more qualified from the experience standpoint then the POTUS, not the case with Palin over Mccain. Potentially having Palin as POTUS scared the crap out of me on many levels.

546 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:50:17pm

re: #538 freetoken

I think it will happen a little bit sooner than that. Maybe a couple more loses, 8-12 years and they'll start to figure it out.

547 Boxy_brown  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:50:29pm

re: #531 Hard Right

re: #533 Boxy_brown

Should read "evolution".

548 Honorary Yooper  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:50:36pm

re: #530 Sharmuta

Hasn't heard of Harun Yahya or islamic creationism, apparently.

It's amazing to watch as you confront them with this. Some of the YECs have no idea what to do.

We were debating the issue of islamic creationism in the usenet group talk.origins about a decade ago. The resident YECs did not like us bringing it up.

549 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:51:22pm

re: #383 LynnfromNZ

Right. Presidents introduce bills to state legislatures.

My earlier judgment that you're either not very smart or not very honest, or a bad combination of the two, is confirmed.

No, Jindal signed a stealth creationist bill into law that his allies passed in the Louisiana state legislature. Just like a President could do with a compliant Congress.

My judgment is that your own judgment is as flawed as are your knowledge base and logical acumen.

550 itellu3times  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:51:26pm

Transitional architecture found.

Lost and found: palace of Robert the Bruce
Paul Kelbie
The Observer, Sunday 22 February 2009
Historians and archaeologists claim to have found the remains of King Robert the Bruce's palace, lost for more than 700 years.

551 Thor-Zone  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:51:38pm

re: #489 Charles

And now the hate mail's getting ugly.

Don't worry Charles....be happy

(channeling Bobby McFarren)

552 rightwinger3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:51:41pm

re: #545 avanti

If anything, he more qualified from the experience standpoint then the POTUS, not the case with Palin over Mccain. Potentially having Palin as POTUS scared the crap out of me on many levels.

And your pants were clean after you voted for Obama? Good for you.

553 burntjohn  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:51:56pm

re: #531 Hard Right

I work with plenty of them, plus I was raised by one.
Still do not get the whole pure religious identity thing.
It always leads to extremism.

Sort of like lashing out at me without a clue.

554 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:52:17pm

re: #506 Charles

Email from Louisiana:

Oh, crap.
It wasn't from me.

555 Shug  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:52:37pm

re: #545 avanti

If anything, he more qualified from the experience standpoint then the POTUS, not the case with Palin over Mccain. Potentially having Palin as POTUS scared the crap out of me on many levels.


I'll trade Palin for Obama right now. No questions asked.

556 Hard Right  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:52:37pm

re: #542 Charles

See point #6.

True, but the other things you said really didn't apply to him.
So you are saying being an insider is the most important thing?

557 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:52:48pm

re: #543 OldLineTexan

No, no, no.

PLEASE NOTE: SARCASM FOLLOWS. IF YOU ARE SARCASM IMPAIRED, CONSIDERING BECOMING SARCASM IMPAIRED, OR HAVE HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE INCURRED BY FREQUENT HANDLE-FLYING-OFF, PLEASE DISCONTINUE READING AND SEE YOUR HUMORIST.

Dear Mr. Johnson,

I have had the pleasure of perusing your blog for a number of months now, and have come to the conclusion that you are a vacuous ninnyhammer with several minor obsessions that would be more suited to navel-gazing than political activism. However, I find your technical innovations to be most inspiring, and look forward to seeing many more. Oh, and please die soon if at all possible.

Looking forward to seeing you at dinner next Saturday. Oh, and please die.

Best Regards,
A fan

///////

And how do we know that this comment is sarcasm? You say it's sarcasm, but, what if you are actually passive-aggressive, and this is your way of "kidding" with Charles while at the same time you are truthfully hoping that you can strangle him.

Ha... you have been found out!

/

558 KingKenrod  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:52:56pm

re: #508 Killgore Trout

Sarah Palin's War on Science

The GOP ticket's appalling contempt for knowledge and learning.
By Christopher Hitchens

I really like Hitchens and don't care for Palin, but that article is really an unfair hit piece. I kind of think it is Hitchens attempt to goad Palin into making public statements about her religious beliefs, something she should never have to do if she chooses not to. All religious people believe things that don't hold up to inquiry; let's judge her on her public record. Hitchens is really letting his prejudice get the best of him.

559 Desert Dog  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:52:57pm

re: #536 Salamantis

Yeah...after bankrupting state governments or school boards that shell out to defend them...while the Disco Institute shills laugh all the way to the bank on the money they make off the scam from selling them their unusable creationist crapola 'teaching' materials and demanding fat fees as 'expert' witnesses, and schools, teachers, and students lose, and the taxpayers are left footing the fucking bill.

They appear to be using the same grass roots methods that got many of the leftist policies in the schools that we all dislike. The people on the fringes are more dedicated to their cause and will take the time to go to school board meetings and run candidates on the local level that have direct influence on educational matters. Most people do not care or don't notice until one day little Johnny comes with a condom on a banana or a text book with cavemen riding dinosaurs.....

Man, I am in a cynical mood today...I think I need a Guiness (or two or three)

560 LynnfromNZ  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:52:58pm

re: #467 OldLineTexan
Oh yeah. To this day I hum "Kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit!" whenever hear the Ride of the Valkyries, and of course I can't attend the Barber of Seville without singing the Bugs Bunny version under my breath.

561 lostlakehiker  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:53:02pm

re: #442 MJ

Well, I wouldn't necessarily read it as "evolution-friendly" as it "no establishment of religion" friendly. The source of this list isn't exactly neutral...

The Kitzmiller case began with DI gloating that the judge was a conservative Christian republican and victory was assured.

The judge, unfortunately for them, was a conservative Christian republican. As such, he took his oath of office and his duties as a judge seriously. He studied the evidence and the case law and precedent. And then he wrote a careful, well reasoned opinion. They lost. They lost because they lied; they lost because they had no case, and they lost because the constitution didn't include a clause making Pat Roberts head of the Church of America.

562 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:53:11pm
563 jorline  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:53:12pm

re: #544 jorline

884,000 for Ron Paul creationism.

Hell, what's a poll without Ron Paul?

my bad

564 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:53:25pm

re: #386 cowbellallen

I enjoy reading the stories on the Discovery Institute and enjoy reading this website. I believe that Charles is free to write whatever he wants. I disagree with how important creationism is in schools, even though I would prefer if it were not.

Hopefully, this is clear now. Yep.

People tend to enjoy reading propaganda that confirms their personal biases.

565 pjaicomo  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:53:29pm

I will not vote for any of these men.

No exceptions.

566 saberry0530  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:53:36pm

re: #554 reine.de.tout

Oh, crap.
It wasn't from me.

Nor from ME!

567 TheMatrix31  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:54:08pm

re: #545 avanti

If anything, he more qualified from the experience standpoint then the POTUS, not the case with Palin over Mccain. Potentially having Palin as POTUS scared the crap out of me on many levels.

Well, good thing you dont have to worry about that now then, right?!?

568 Shug  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:54:27pm

re: #562 buzzsawmonkey

I agree with that

569 Boxy_brown  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:54:28pm

re: #555 Shug


"I'll trade Palin for Obama right now. No questions asked."

Me too, that's just how bad I think Obama is.

570 Ward Cleaver  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:54:36pm

re: #2 MandyManners

Not Pawlenty! That name is enough to drive me over the edge.

I got ahold of some bad Pawlenty one time; I had the runs for three days.

571 Kronocide  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:54:41pm

re: #544 jorline

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,840,000 for Ron Paul polls. (0.20 seconds)

The One With Most Polls!

572 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:55:19pm

OT -

are we going to have a live blogging of the Oscars?

573 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:55:21pm

re: #566 saberry0530

Nor from ME!

Nor from Pink Freud either, I'm sure.

574 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:55:21pm

re: #558 KingKenrod

I really like Hitchens and don't care for Palin, but that article is really an unfair hit piece. I kind of think it is Hitchens attempt to goad Palin into making public statements about her religious beliefs, something she should never have to do if she chooses not to. All religious people believe things that don't hold up to inquiry; let's judge her on her public record. Hitchens is really letting his prejudice get the best of him.

It's not unfair at all. I agree with Hitch on this.

575 Thor-Zone  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:55:29pm

re: #501 Dr. Shalit

Thor-Zone -

OK, question ONE - Absent the tax structure, is Alaska competitive in extraction costs per barrel of oil. If the answer is yes, I presume Gov. Palin is doing the same as the King of "Saudi" Arabia in trying to maximize return. If she goes too far, oil companies will go elsewhere.

-S-

Before the huge tax hikes, Alaska was barely competetive because the cost of operating on the North Slope is so high. Over the last year or two the oil companies have been cancelling a lot of projects, becasue with the cost of doing business, plus the highest taxes on the face of the earth, very few projects are viable at this point.

The only new project I have heard about is a new gas processing plant that will be used by the Denali Project.

576 Desert Dog  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:55:44pm

let's put Google in perspective:

Results 1 - 10 of about 17,400,000 for big boobs. (0.11 seconds)

577 gclaghorn  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:55:46pm

Who's this LC LOGHEAD power-tripper? He/she/it has been downdinging posts all night.

578 Honorary Yooper  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:55:48pm

re: #564 Salamantis

People tend to enjoy reading propaganda that confirms their personal biases.

All too true. How many Democrats listen to Mike Savage? How many Republicans to NPR? Just two cases in point, but they do show that people like to listen to those who fit what they think.

579 HelloDare  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:56:06pm

re: #555 Shug

I'll trade Palin for Obama right now. No questions asked.

I'd even take two Palin's for Obama.

580 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:56:15pm

re: #554 reine.de.tout

Oh, crap.
It wasn't from me.

BTW, I bought a cookbook, so you can stop throwing things at me now. ;)

581 Taqyia2Me  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:56:30pm

re: #381 itellu3times

I agree, and suggest some more wording here and there.

1. Principle of minimal government
2. Principle of national defense - as opposed to one-worldism or defeatism
3. Freedom-of rather than freedom-from.
4. Monetarism/markets rather than command, centralized economics.
5. Rule of written law rather than judicial activism, personal overrides.
6. Right of individual to bear arms.

Wish I could upding that to infinity.

582 avanti  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:56:39pm

re: #537 Shug

she was as unqualified as Obama

I'll grant that neither were as experienced as their running mates, but Palin just did not impress me with her interviews or at the debate to be polite. Had she have done better, I'd still be scared because of her far right religious views.

583 Kosh's Shadow  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:56:41pm

re: #579 HelloDare

I'd even take two Palin's for Obama.

How about 2 Palins for 0bama and Biden?

584 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:56:51pm

re: #485 cowbellallen

If it makes you feel any better I'm only 18 years old and still in high school. Please educate me as to why it's a bad idea to leave this issue to states, I'd like to know.

well I really stepped in the shit then didnt I?...I apologize for my aggression... the takeover of science in public education by creationists and their Discovery Institute is well documented here at LGF...it quickly transcends state politics because it is no more or less than an attack on the Constitutions supposed freedom from religion...creationism is not scientific theory but the DI insists that it should be taught as an alternative to Darwinism and evolution which is indeed scientific fact as equal science...it is wrong and they are very aggressive and it is a growing problem

585 Shug  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:56:51pm

I'll trade Trig Palin for Obama. No questions asked

586 Kreuzueber Halbmond  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:56:58pm

Do you attend church in a sports stadium? Then you might be a creationist. Free your mind of the little guy with bulletproof hair, pounding the lectern, and become closer to the truth of things physical and spiritual.

587 jorline  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:57:02pm

re: #571 BigPapa

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,840,000 for Ron Paul polls. (0.20 seconds)

The One With Most Polls!

He had potential.
//////

588 Honorary Yooper  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:57:04pm

re: #577 gclaghorn

Who's this LC LOGHEAD power-tripper? He/she/it has been downdinging posts all night.

A chickenshit, IMHO. Come out to play, LC LOGHEAD!

589 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:57:06pm

re: #507 snowcrash

Are we considering other candidates? What about Linda Lingle Gov Hawaii ? She gave a very good address to the (R) convention describing what executive experience means when being a governor. She spoke about budgets and Natl Guard unit deployment and other state issues. Plain looking but really clear thinker/speaker. Too bad that much of her speech was preempted by the talking heads at Fox but carried in its entirety on CSPAN. So, any potential?

snowcrash -

You are new, good! Gov. Lingle's name came up as a possible VP Candidate in 2008. Going back to my comment at the time, I saw Gov. Palin as Linda Lingle with less baggage for the Republican Base. Gov. Lingle, among other things is divorced (no big deal), Jewish, as am I, (medium sized deal - see: ROMNEY), and Gay (Who Knows?). And if she were to move to NJ, establish residence, and run for Governor this year - I would vote for her in a "NY Minute."
Thinking about it, with a bit of luck, our next US Senator might just be State Senator Jennifer Beck of Red Bank, NJ. "Search Engine" her, think you will like most of what you see.

-S-

590 Desert Dog  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:57:18pm

re: #580 OldLineTexan

BTW, I bought a cookbook, so you can stop throwing things at me now. ;)

I have seen posts about this cookbook....what and where is it? LFG Cookbook?

591 sleepyone  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:57:26pm

re: #494 Charles

You don't have to take my word for it. Google it.

I've looked at a few of the hits from the search and while they are all about Palin and her views I couldn't find anything that attempted to determine if this caused voters to turn away from her. Like I said, I know this was an issue with some but I just can't see that it had a big effect on the outcome of the election. Obama was destined to win against McCain and there was nothing the GOP could do about it. The timing and political climate were right and the Republicans had nominated someone who turned off his base.

592 mich-again  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:57:33pm

Charles wrote..

This is wrong, and it’s one reason why the Democrats now control both houses of Congress. If this anti-scientific insanity continues, the Democrats will be in power for the next 20 years.

Agreed. To me, this whole debate reminds me of something Kurt Vonnegut mentioned in Cat's Cradle. The shape of the stack of cannonballs is determined by the very first layer. I don't see how the GOP can start out by denying facts and reason and hope to build on that foundation to formulate rational solutions for all the challenges we face.

It can't work and it won't.

593 gclaghorn  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:57:48pm

re: #590 Desert Dog

I have seen posts about this cookbook....what and where is it? LFG Cookbook?

The LFG Cookbook

594 pink freud  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:57:49pm

re: #573 reine.de.tout

Nor from Pink Freud either, I'm sure.

Nor from ME!

Hiya reine :-)

How's the cookbook sales numbers so far?

595 Ward Cleaver  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:58:06pm

re: #544 jorline

884,000 for Ron Paul creationism.

Hell, what's a poll with Ron Paul?

I was at Home Depot last night, and I parked next to a big Ford Club Wagon 15-passenger van with a Ron Paul Revolution sticker on it.

596 avanti  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:58:12pm

re: #552 rightwinger3

And your pants were clean after you voted for Obama? Good for you.

Yep, still happy with my choice compared to what the right offered this trip.

597 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:58:39pm

re: #557 Walter L. Newton

And how do we know that this comment is sarcasm? You say it's sarcasm, but, what if you are actually passive-aggressive, and this is your way of "kidding" with Charles while at the same time you are truthfully hoping that you can strangle him.

Ha... you have been found out!

/

Gawdammit Walter, you know that in Texas we only believe in aggressive aggression!

/

598 Randall Gross  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:58:53pm

Charles:
Great job, keep the high beams on. We need definitive statements from anyone seeking presidential nomination on this. Yes, I propose a litmus test, sauce for the gander and all.

(wish I'd been here earlier for this thread, it looks like a fun one from the third I've read.)

599 saberry0530  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:58:58pm

Great NAscar ace on. Kennseth and Gordon in a last 10 lap battle.

600 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:58:59pm

re: #586 Kreuzueber Halbmond

Do you attend church in a sports stadium? Then you might be a creationist. Free your mind of the little guy with bulletproof hair, pounding the lectern, and become closer to the truth of things physical and spiritual.

Occasionally in a gym. My school doesn't have a chapel big enough to fit all the students in.

But Father's hair is not bulletproof. I think he may cut it himself, but there's no product involved.

601 Aviator  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:59:04pm

re: #562 buzzsawmonkey

I would say less unqualified than Obama--not that that is a huge endorsement. But Palin, unlike Obama, did have some executive experience and had stayed with a job longer than he had. Yes, she showed a weak grasp of some geographic realities, but so did Obama--and her weakness in this area would not have been the immediate issue that Obama's is.

Both party tickets had weakness, but it is preferable to have the weakness at the bottom rather than the top; unfortunately, the nation chose the ticket with the weakness top to bottom.

FIFY

602 nyc redneck  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:59:05pm

re: #555 Shug

I'll trade Palin for Obama right now. No questions asked.

me too, in a heart beat.

603 Hard Right  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:59:05pm

re: #577 gclaghorn

Who's this LC LOGHEAD power-tripper? He/she/it has been downdinging posts all night.

And Winston 06. I've been updinging every post they dowdinged. Damned dingbats.

604 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:59:10pm

re: #579 HelloDare

I'd even take two Palin's for Obama.

Are we trading Chocolate Frog Cards?

605 wolfie  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:59:18pm

re: #559 Desert Dog

Well said.
It is a sad fact that extremists on all sides can COUNT on citizens not paying attention to local school board activity.

606 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:59:42pm

re: #580 OldLineTexan

BTW, I bought a cookbook, so you can stop throwing things at me now. ;)

OK.
Though it's Carnival time and throwing things is sort of expected.

607 Shug  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:59:47pm

re: #586 Kreuzueber Halbmond

Do you attend church in a sports stadium? Then you might be a creationist. Free your mind of the little guy with bulletproof hair, pounding the lectern, and become closer to the truth of things physical and spiritual.


A buddy of mine almost got into a fist fight with an Angry man in a " Promise keepers " hat.

I don't know what provoked the promise keeper, but boy did he get pissed.

Me laughing at his hat shamed him into moving on.
( that and he noticed that there were several of us ready to stand up for my friend )_

608 Boxy_brown  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:59:52pm

re: #593 gclaghorn


The LFG Cookbook

To serve lizards...

609 Desert Dog  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 6:59:58pm

re: #593 gclaghorn

The LFG Cookbook

Thanks!

610 jorline  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:00:05pm

re: #588 Honorary Yooper

A chickenshit, IMHO. Come out to play, LC LOGHEAD!

Another stealth d-der.

611 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:00:05pm

re: #601 Aviator

FIFY

Fifty-seven states trumps Africa, IMO.

612 Honorary Yooper  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:00:12pm

re: #595 Ward Cleaver

I was at Home Depot last night, and I parked next to a big Ford Club Wagon 15-passenger van with a Ron Paul Revolution sticker on it.

I see a lot of vehicles that still have Ron Paul stickers on them. There was a house in town that had the Ron Paul 2008 campaign signs up until November 5th. These folks do freak me out, and I suspect we haven't seen the last of Ron Paul.

613 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:00:22pm

re: #572 Walter L. Newton

OT -

are we going to have a live blogging of the Oscars?

no...that's a bunch of bologna...

614 gclaghorn  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:00:32pm

re: #609 Desert Dog

Thanks!

Any time.

615 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:00:33pm

re: #435 David IV of Georgia

Teaching Creationism in public schools was deemed an unconstitutional way of promoting a religion. "Creationism" has been repackaged as "Intelligent Design" in an effort to thwart the Supreme Court ruling. Sooner or later the Supreme Court will get a case where they will say the two are the same.

They already have; the Dover case.

616 Thor-Zone  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:00:44pm

re: #535 venomX

Well thats a good thing.At least one state is smart(no im not giving all credit to palin).How does it go about getting "dipped"into?the Governers call?or legislature ,or both?


It takes a 2/3's vote of the legislature with approval by the Governor. To date the legislature has not dipped into it. There is something called the permanant fund dividend that is paid out to the people. If the legislature raided the permanant fund, there would be a reveloution here.

On one hand that is good because it keeps the fund from being wasted. On the other hand it is bad because it has become a huge entitlement program, which was not the entended function of the fund.

617 rightwinger3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:00:44pm

re: #596 avanti

Yep, still happy with my choice compared to what the right offered this trip.

Like I said, Good for you.
/You wouldn't have voted for the right regardless.

618 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:01:01pm

re: #606 reine.de.tout

OK.
Though it's Carnival time and throwing things is sort of expected.

My bare chest will not draw any beads, I promise you.

619 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:01:36pm

re: #594 pink freud

Nor from ME!

Hiya reine :-)

How's the cookbook sales numbers so far?

76 sold, $380 to split - they'll move the Feb money to the fund account on April 1st.

620 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:01:38pm

re: #615 Salamantis

They already have; the Dover case.

That didn't make it to SCOTUS, though.

621 jorline  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:01:46pm

re: #590 Desert Dog

I have seen posts about this cookbook....what and where is it? LFG Cookbook?

Meet the VP of Sales... Oh Reine.

622 freetoken  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:02:11pm

Let me reiterate something very basic but very important: I, like many Americans I believe, have no problem with any elected leader following his/her religion. In this last national election, I had no problem with the lapsed Catholicism of several candidates, the Mormonism of Romney, the generic evangelicalism of Huckabee's beliefs, Obama attending a classic black liberation church... none of it. Everyone has their own set of beliefs and I fully expect any politician to have theirs.

What it comes down to is... if as a matter of policy the prospective leader wants to turn American society backwards, and very particularly if they want to ditch the important knowledge that has been gained by our society through the long process of scientific discovery, then that leader will be attempting (with intent or not) to harm America in the long run. We cannot go back, no one ever can...

None of those pandering politicians who so want to court the anti-science (really, anti-knowledge) bloc will get my vote. I'm a pretty centrist person (and on political nature tests normally end up as a slightly conservative, slightly libertarian person), and I suspect my instincts here are in accord with a large segment of the US electorate.

623 Boxy_brown  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:02:29pm

re: #617 rightwinger3

Like I said, Good for you.
/You wouldn't have voted for the right regardless.

Obama is going to screw things up to the point where even Avanti's kool-aid will wear off.

624 Honorary Yooper  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:02:36pm

re: #606 reine.de.tout

OK.
Though it's Carnival time and throwing things is sort of expected.

Heh. Catch any beads or doubloons?
I have more than a few from the two I went to ('78 and '79). They love to give that stuff out to the little kids. :-)

625 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:02:36pm

re: #590 Desert Dog

I have seen posts about this cookbook....what and where is it? LFG Cookbook?

WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN!
Click my nic.

626 venomX  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:02:41pm

re: #616 Thor-Zone
Ok thanks for the info.Interesting.

627 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:02:49pm

re: #587 jorline

He had potential.
//////

Poll-tential!

628 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:02:53pm

re: #597 OldLineTexan

Gawdammit Walter, you know that in Texas we only believe in aggressive aggression!

/

I lived there from 1974 to 1989 and I knew two kinds of people, friendly and scary. There was no in between. Be careful of the scary, although they could be on your side, but there wasn't a better bunch of friendly I've ever known.

629 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:03:01pm

re: #575 Thor-Zone

Before the huge tax hikes, Alaska was barely competetive because the cost of operating on the North Slope is so high. Over the last year or two the oil companies have been cancelling a lot of projects, becasue with the cost of doing business, plus the highest taxes on the face of the earth, very few projects are viable at this point.

The only new project I have heard about is a new gas processing plant that will be used by the Denali Project.

Thor-Zone -

Thanks, a straight answer to a straight question is refreshing to say the least.

-S-

630 Kronocide  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:03:02pm

re: #543 OldLineTexan

'Vacuous Ninnyhammer?' That'll show em! Ding.

631 zombie  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:03:18pm

Somewhere online I just saw that the Oscars are happening now. Like, right now.

Is that true? Damn, am I clueless or what.

If so -- and I don't know how far along it is, nor do I know what has won what yet, if anything, but:

Has "Milk" finished winning every category it was nominated in yet?

I was over in the Castro District yesterday and the general consensus was: it's a done deal. "Milk" has a lock on all the Oscars.

Seems to be an accurate prediction, because in the hierarchy of PC topics, "gayness" trumps them all -- even "prostitute with a heart of gold" and "Nazis," both of which generally are hard to beat.

632 Desert Dog  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:03:25pm

re: #625 reine.de.tout

WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN!
Click my nic.

I got the site now, I will be ordering one!

633 MAredneck  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:03:33pm

Kim interesting an on topic, approx.

634 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:03:45pm

And the hate mail pours in from people who think they have the right to insult me at my own blog:

Sorry you can accept only fawning agreement. You're getting more and more like BHO every day - clear the playing field of any who might disagree. Good luck with your little fascist fiefdom.

635 cowbellallen  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:03:57pm

re: #564 Salamantis

People tend to enjoy reading propaganda that confirms their personal biases.

Man, do I just have some sort of problem communicating my views or something? The Discovery Institute is laughable.

636 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:04:00pm

re: #618 OldLineTexan

My bare chest will not draw any beads, I promise you.

Nor mine, anymore.
*sigh*
those were the days.

637 rightwinger3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:04:09pm

re: #623 Boxy_brown

Obama is going to screw things up to the point where even Avanti's kool-aid will wear off.

Boxy, that's a nice sentiment, but I doubt it.

638 pink freud  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:04:17pm

re: #619 reine.de.tout

Not bad for starters. Looks like there's a lot of interest in Volume Deux.

639 Hard Right  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:04:29pm

re: #612 Honorary Yooper

I see a lot of vehicles that still have Ron Paul stickers on them. There was a house in town that had the Ron Paul 2008 campaign signs up until November 5th. These folks do freak me out, and I suspect we haven't seen the last of Ron Paul.

There is a used tire store across from a gas station I've been to. The owner must be a RP loon. He has a sheets with stuff painted on them like "The Fed did it!"

BTW Charles, your theory on Giuliani is just wrong for the most part.

640 wolfie  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:04:32pm

re: #611 OldLineTexan

My personal favorite was Obama's statement that Iran was a "tiny country" that was "no threat to anyone."

641 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:04:40pm

re: #628 Walter L. Newton

I lived there from 1974 to 1989 and I knew two kinds of people, friendly and scary. There was no in between. Be careful of the scary, although they could be on your side, but there wasn't a better bunch of friendly I've ever known.

Personally, I stay the hell out of parts of East Texas. In Columbus' time, they would have been black spots on the maps.

642 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:04:43pm

re: #638 pink freud

Not bad for starters. Looks like there's a lot of interest in Volume Deux.

Yes, we'll do it in a couple of months.

643 Randall Gross  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:04:46pm

Those of you talking of running off the whig party - that's exactly what DI wants you to do because it gives them more control. They don't care if the party is large or small as long as they have control.

I'm staying here until the 2012 candidate is selected to fight.

Before you jump ship, answer a few questions:

Where does the Whig party get its money?

Are they aligned with any think tanks or foundations?

If so which?

I think you ought to know at least that much before you join a party on bare web site statements.

644 Shug  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:04:58pm

re: #631 zombie

I assume it's about Harvey Milk?

Shows how closely I follow hollywood. I don't even know what's playing or what's nominated.

645 Desert Dog  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:05:02pm

re: #636 reine.de.tout

Nor mine, anymore.
*sigh*
those were the days.

I think if we took a vote, you would beat Old Line by a very large margin...not offense to you, OLT.

646 J.D.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:05:07pm

Penelope Cruz beat out Marisa Tomei for supporting actress.

How's that for live blogging?

647 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:05:13pm

re: #596 avanti

Yep, still happy with my choice compared to what the right offered this trip.

you would never have voted for any conservative or Republican...drooler

648 Hard Right  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:05:30pm

re: #617 rightwinger3

Like I said, Good for you.
/You wouldn't have voted for the right regardless.

You mean he/she wouldn't have voted intelligently.

649 Sheepdogess  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:05:39pm

re: #466 Sharmuta

Sharmuta -- the operative words are "traditional and functional". The data is overwhelming that this construct is optimal. Congrats on beating the odds.

650 avanti  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:05:40pm

re: #602 nyc redneck

me too, in a heart beat.

`````````re: #585 Shug

I'll trade Trig Palin for Obama. No questions asked

And that says a lot about how far you are out of touch with the electorate. It'll take more then a energized base to win.

651 Honorary Yooper  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:05:50pm
Sorry you can accept only fawning agreement. You're getting more and more like BHO every day - clear the playing field of any who might disagree. Good luck with your little fascist fiefdom.

Fascist? Since when did it become acceptable decorum on blogs to insult the owner of the blog and shit on his front room rug?

652 zombie  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:06:13pm

re: #634 Charles

Good luck with your little fascist fiefdom.

Wow, blog-owners have dictatorial powers to control society? Damn. I must have been not paying attention when Dictatorship was doled out to bloggers.

653 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:06:23pm

re: #639 Hard Right

BTW Charles, your theory on Giuliani is just wrong for the most part.

Thank you for sharing.

654 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:06:25pm

re: #631 zombie

zombie -

Think that around here tonight the answer of most "Lizardim" is "WHO CARES?"

-S-

655 bluetick3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:06:27pm

re: #635 cowbellallen

Man, do I just have some sort of problem communicating my views or something? The Discovery Institute is laughable.

I apparently am plagued with the same problem this evening, based on responses to my comments.

Think these ID/Creationist people are fruitcakes.

656 Boxy_brown  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:06:33pm

re: #637 rightwinger3

Boxy, that's a nice sentiment, but I doubt it.

Yeah, you're right; no brain/no pain. :-D

657 Summer Seale  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:06:40pm

I"m really busy modeling a Formula 1 car in Maya at the moment...I lost track of this entire thread because it's sort of on a deadline at the moment.

However...

I'm posting this just to piss off the Young Earth Creationists:

=)

658 Honorary Yooper  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:07:00pm

re: #644 Shug

I assume it's about Harvey Milk?

Shows how closely I follow hollywood. I don't even know what's playing or what's nominated.

Who the hell is/was Harvey Milk? Never heard of him until they advertised the movie.

659 avanti  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:07:07pm

re: #617 rightwinger3

Like I said, Good for you.
/You wouldn't have voted for the right regardless.

Maybe not, but I was a early McCain supporter.

660 bluetick3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:07:08pm

re: #655 bluetick3

I apparently am plagued with the same problem this evening, based on responses to my comments.

Think these ID/Creationist people are fruitcakes.

I* think. . .

661 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:07:26pm

I finally started looking at the rating bloc at the top of the page. It's amazing. We have down dingers whom I've never seen post a comment, the names are that unfamiliar. Chicken shits.

662 zombie  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:07:30pm

re: #644 Shug

I assume it's about Harvey Milk?

Shows how closely I follow hollywood. I don't even know what's playing or what's nominated.

Yeah, historical revisionism about Harvey Milk. With Sean Penn, who had a blank space on his mantle for another statuette.

663 Hard Right  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:07:40pm

re: #650 avanti

And that says a lot about how far you are out of touch with the electorate. It'll take more then a energized base to win.

You have no business calling anyone out of touch. Project much?

664 Kronocide  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:07:40pm

re: #631 zombie

I'd be shocked if Milk didn't win something. Reading SFGate, it's probably a better movie than Citizen Kane, Apocalypse Now, and all three Godfather movies. Combined.

665 Thor-Zone  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:07:55pm

re: #634 Charles

And the hate mail pours in from people who think they have the right to insult me at my own blog:

Charles....don't let it bring you down, its only castles burning.

channeling Neil Young

666 ErnieG  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:07:56pm

re: #220 abolitionist

The anonymity thing could be more of a problem with the vetting process than it was for Obama. Or maybe not.

We know more about Zombie than we ever knew about Obama.

667 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:07:57pm

re: #645 Desert Dog

I think if we took a vote, you would beat Old Line by a very large margin...not offense to you, OLT.

Good Lord, none taken.

668 Desert Dog  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:08:02pm

re: #654 Dr. Shalit

zombie -

Think that around here tonight the answer of most "Lizardim" is "WHO CARES?"

-S-

Gran Torino was not nominated for anything, so I am not watching. But, I hope Slumdog cleans up, that was a good movie.

669 wolfie  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:08:05pm

re: #646 J.D.

Excellent. Her dress was FAR superior.
(All I care about is the outfits!)

670 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:08:06pm

re: #635 cowbellallen

Man, do I just have some sort of problem communicating my views or something? The Discovery Institute is laughable.

Yes you do. This is the second time you have asked that question. Your original comment "I enjoy reading the stories on the Discovery Institute and enjoy reading this website." certainly sounded like you found something positive in the DI.

How would you take you own statement? We are talking about the dishonesty of positions like taken by the the DI, and you say you enjoy reading their stories.

Put down the booze.

671 Ward Cleaver  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:08:21pm

re: #612 Honorary Yooper

I see a lot of vehicles that still have Ron Paul stickers on them. There was a house in town that had the Ron Paul 2008 campaign signs up until November 5th. These folks do freak me out, and I suspect we haven't seen the last of Ron Paul.

Oh, far from it. I think he'll be the new Harold Stassen.

672 nyc redneck  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:08:24pm

re: #650 avanti

And that says a lot about how far you are out of touch with the electorate. It'll take more then a energized base to win.

oh, so you would rather have this commie who is determined to destroy our country? and making great progress in just one month.
bullshit.

673 Randall Gross  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:08:25pm

re: #634 Charles

And the hate mail pours in from people who think they have the right to insult me at my own blog:

I remember disagreeing with you two days ago, it turned out I was even correct. I thought you took it rather graciously.

Charles doesn't mind fact based and non acrimonius disagreement, I've called him on other things as well.

674 brookly red  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:08:29pm

re: #607 Shug

Q: what is a "promise keeper"? (I am in NYC & have no idea...)

675 Bloodnok  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:09:04pm

re: #644 Shug

I assume it's about Harvey Milk?

Shows how closely I follow hollywood. I don't even know what's playing or what's nominated.

The last three movies I saw in the theaters were the 3 LOTR films as they were released. Throw in Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz and those are the last 5 mainstream films I've seen. There are too many films from the 30's and 40's I have yet to see.

676 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:09:08pm

re: #650 avanti

And that says a lot about how far you are out of touch with the electorate. It'll take more then a energized base to win.

the electorate are uninformed, lack any knowledge of history and even primitive economics, sworn to the fucking MSM and drool all over each other and you call us out of touch?....you are a bonified idiot

677 KingKenrod  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:09:12pm

re: #574 Charles

It's not unfair at all. I agree with Hitch on this.

If you apply the religious belief test to public office, no one passes except people who have no belief.

For instance, Catholics believe the Eucharist is the actual body of Christ. Hitchens could just as easily make the point that your average Catholic or a Mormon or a Methodist is just as deranged as Palin. I take the article to mean religious belief makes you unfit for office, something he argues at length in his recent book.

The important thing is how a person allows their belief to influence their public service. Hitchens doesn't come close to making that argument about Palin. It's pure guilt by association, not a credible tactic. I think it is quite possible that Palin has no interest in using her office to further religion. Once again, I'm not a supporter.

678 venomX  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:09:14pm

re: #659 avanti

Im still wondering what obama believes.....about anything.

679 Honorary Yooper  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:09:24pm

re: #662 zombie

Yeah, historical revisionism about Harvey Milk. With Sean Penn, who had a blank space on his mantle for another statuette.

I've never heard of Harvey Milk until the ads came out. Who the heck is/was he?

680 Kronocide  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:09:25pm

re: #634 Charles

'Fascist feifdom.' I'm sure that really hurts, coming from somebody who doesn't know a thing about fascism.

681 avanti  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:09:29pm

re: #663 Hard Right

You have no business calling anyone out of touch. Project much?

Come on, Trig Palin, really ?

682 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:09:49pm
683 Hard Right  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:09:50pm

re: #653 Charles

Thank you for sharing.

I asked you and you said see number six. I asked you another question and you didn't answer. Soooo, I will ask you again.
You are saying being an insider carries more weight than the other reasons? They didn't strictly apply to McCain.

BTW, I'm not defending Giuliani.

684 J.D.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:09:55pm

re: #669 wolfie

Excellent. Her dress was FAR superior.
(All I care about is the outfits!)

Well, good for her!
I didn't see her movie, though, did you?

685 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:10:23pm

re: #634 Charles

little fascist fiefdom

That would make an excellent rotating title.

686 rightwinger3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:10:24pm

re: #659 avanti

Maybe not, but I was a early McCain supporter.

John McCain, I'm sure, thanks you. You are a great American avanti.

687 Ward Cleaver  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:10:34pm

re: #646 J.D.

Penelope Cruz beat out Marisa Tomei for supporting actress.

How's that for live blogging?

Penelope is definitely hotter.

J.D.!

688 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:10:48pm

re: #658 Honorary Yooper

Who the hell is/was Harvey Milk? Never heard of him until they advertised the movie.

San Francisco city politician, trailblazer as an openly gay man in politics, murdered along with the then mayor of SF in 1978. Now played by Sean Penn in biopic that Zombie believes will win Oscars tonight.

Or may already have. My TV is not on.

689 Desert Dog  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:10:59pm

re: #662 zombie

Yeah, historical revisionism about Harvey Milk. With Sean Penn, who had a blank space on his mantle for another statuette.

Don't you mean Saint Harvey the Pious? He was the greatest man that ever lived.....well, maybe the second greatest, the first place belongs to Che.

/

Not to minimize the brutal murder of another human being, but that movie (Milk) is nothing but leftist propaganda.

690 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:11:10pm

re: #662 zombie

Yeah, historical revisionism about Harvey Milk. With Sean Penn, who had a blank space on his mantle for another statuette.

I thought that movie was a documentary on the "have you seen this child" campaign?

691 zombie  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:11:15pm

re: #658 Honorary Yooper

Who the hell is/was Harvey Milk? Never heard of him until they advertised the movie.

He was the first openly gay politician (or among the first.) Murdered back in the '70s by a mentally ill fellow politician who has resigned his position, then couldn't get it back. A sort of pivotal moment in San Francisco history.

692 lobo91  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:11:25pm

re: #676 albusteve

the electorate are uninformed, lack any knowledge of history and even primitive economics, sworn to the fucking MSM and drool all over each other and you call us out of touch?....you are a bonified idiot

Well, to be fair, that pretty well describes the current majority in Congress, as well...

693 Hard Right  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:11:34pm

re: #681 avanti

Come on, Trig Palin, really ?

Where did I say that? Nice straw man.

694 Osama Bin Porkchop  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:11:45pm

This whole "creationism vs. evolution" argument, does absolutely nothing for me when it comes to politics. Bigger fish to fry, in terms of issues, at least to me....

695 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:12:00pm

re: #674 brookly red

Q: what is a "promise keeper"? (I am in NYC & have no idea...)

[Link: www.promisekeepers.org...]

696 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:12:01pm

re: #677 KingKenrod

I take the article to mean religious belief makes you unfit for office, something he argues at length in his recent book.

I'm reading the book right now. About 3/4 through. So far I haven't read anything that even comes close to saying that. Is that in the last quarter somewhere?

697 cronus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:12:09pm

re: #634 Charles

Fascist fiefdom? Aren't these people familiar with the tab feature of the latest whiz bang browsers. You just click right next to the existing window and POW! -- you can get a different opinion or express your own. You don't even have to go to the hard work of opening a new browser window anymore...

698 Shug  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:12:31pm

re: #650 avanti

And that says a lot about how far you are out of touch with the electorate. It'll take more then a energized base to win.


Obama is dangerous. I'd rather have an infant in the Oval office than a dangerous radical

699 J.D.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:12:33pm

re: #687 Ward Cleaver

Penelope is definitely hotter.

J.D.!



WARD!

Did you see her movie?
I only heard one person comment on it and they weren't enthusiastic about it...

700 devil in baggy pants  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:12:39pm

Heath Ledger won Best Supporting Actor for "Dark Night"

701 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:12:48pm

re: #681 avanti

Come on, Trig Palin, really ?

grasp...these people you mock only certifies your shallow humanity...you have exposed yourself for what you are...you have not won anything

702 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:13:08pm

re: #649 Sheepdogess

Sharmuta -- the operative words are "traditional and functional". The data is overwhelming that this construct is optimal. Congrats on beating the odds.

I am so infuriated by your comments, I don't even know what to say at the moment. Single mothers (and fathers!) are just as capable of producing well adjusted offspring as anyone else. And "traditional families" are just as capable of producing sociopaths as anyone else. Parents are human and capable of doing well or poor by their children regardless of their circumstances, m'kay?!

703 Gus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:13:23pm

re: #688 SanFranciscoZionist

San Francisco city politician, trailblazer as an openly gay man in politics, murdered along with the then mayor of SF in 1978. Now played by Sean Penn in biopic that Zombie believes will win Oscars tonight.

Or may already have. My TV is not on.

Shot by SF supervisor Dan White. Who's defense was made famous: The Twinkie Defense.

704 wolfie  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:13:28pm

re: #684 J.D.

The movie? Uh........Er, no.
But I saw their dresses!

705 David IV of Georgia  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:13:37pm

re: #640 wolfie

My personal favorite was Obama's statement that Iran was a "tiny country" that was "no threat to anyone."

Tiny countries are not problems if you are willing to use unconventional, unlimited warfare on them. Sane people won't go that far.

I think Obama left off the end of his sentence: Iran was a "tiny country" that was "no threat to anyone" like me.

706 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:13:43pm

re: #679 Honorary Yooper
Was a San Francisco city councilman. Openly gay. Gunned down by a nutbar who used the infamous Twinky defense. Too much sugar from the twinky was the reason for murder.

707 Ward Cleaver  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:13:44pm

re: #699 J.D.


WARD!

Did you see her movie?
I only heard one person comment on it and they weren't enthusiastic about it...

No, I just think she's hot.

708 Aye Pod  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:13:53pm

There should be a creationisthatemail.com. As far as I can tell there isn't one at the moment. Once word got round to creationists about the site, it would start generating it's own supply of material.

709 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:14:18pm

re: #658 Honorary Yooper

Who the hell is/was Harvey Milk? Never heard of him until they advertised the movie.

Yoop -

Harvey Milk was a San Fransisco City Councilman. He WAS Gay, He WAS a Democrat, He WAS the owner of a Small Business (A Photography Shop) and in his own way a Libertarian. He ALSO was killed for no good reason, along with the SF Mayor. The Political ultimate result is Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

-S-

710 wolfie  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:14:32pm

re: #690 Walter L. Newton

:O !

711 sillyquiet  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:14:48pm

re: #675 Bloodnok

Upding for Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz.

By the power of GRAYSKULL.

712 Desert Dog  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:15:07pm

re: #674 brookly red

Q: what is a "promise keeper"? (I am in NYC & have no idea...)

Back when I actually went to Church, I was dragged to a Promise Keepers meeting in Tucson. It was not what I expected. That was 15 years ago, so maybe they are different now (are they even still around?). Anyway, it was basically a "pep rally" to be a good father using your Christian faith as a guide.....I would describe it as a totally positive experience. I am not very Religious, so some of it was lost to me, but the main message was be the best father you can be. If every father acted like the ideal that they espoused, our society would be much, much better off.

713 mich-again  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:15:18pm

re: #643 Thanos

Those of you talking of running off the whig party - that's exactly what DI wants you to do because it gives them more control. They don't care if the party is large or small as long as they have control.

I'm staying here until the 2012 candidate is selected to fight.

Absolutely. Like it or not the USA electoral laws favor a 2-Party system. Any doubters should read up on how the tie-breakers work when no Presidential candidate wins a majority of electoral votes.

And that is how it should be in my opinion. The 2-Party system forces the parties to attract from the center. The Multi-party system most Nations employ promotes pulling support from the edges.

And why should rational people have to leave the GOP because fanatics make so much noise. I say we fight for the party and make them go start their own 3rd Party.

714 Opilio  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:15:20pm

As long as we're citing Google hits:

Biden idiot: 787,000 hits
Palin idiot: 1,910,000 hits
McCain idiot: 3,730,000 hits
Obama idiot: 8,880,000 hits

Draw your own conclusions.

715 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:15:20pm
716 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:15:28pm

A quote from Hitchens' article: The GOP ticket's appalling contempt for science and learning.

...it didn't seem possible that things could go any lower or get any dumber. But they did last Friday, when, at a speech in Pittsburgh, Gov. Sarah Palin denounced wasteful expenditure on fruit-fly research, adding for good xenophobic and anti-elitist measure that some of this research took place "in Paris, France" and winding up with a folksy "I kid you not."

It was in 1933 that Thomas Hunt Morgan won a Nobel Prize for showing that genes are passed on by way of chromosomes. The experimental creature that he employed in the making of this great discovery was the Drosophila melanogaster, or fruit fly. Scientists of various sorts continue to find it a very useful resource, since it can be easily and plentifully "cultured" in a laboratory, has a very short generation time, and displays a great variety of mutation. This makes it useful in studying disease, and since Gov. Palin was in Pittsburgh to talk about her signature "issue" of disability and special needs, she might even have had some researcher tell her that there is a Drosophila-based center for research into autism at the University of North Carolina. The fruit fly can also be a menace to American agriculture, so any financing of research into its habits and mutations is money well-spent. It's especially ridiculous and unfortunate that the governor chose to make such a fool of herself in Pittsburgh, a great city that remade itself after the decline of coal and steel into a center of high-tech medical research.

This is right on the mark. I was extremely unhappy about this Palin populist nonsense too, and said so at the time.

717 USBeast  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:15:29pm

re: #678 venomX

Im still wondering what obama believes.....about anything.

Obama believes in Obama...and he's wrong.

718 UberInfidel67  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:15:42pm

re: #670 Walter L. Newton
Walter...he/she already admitted that they were only 18 years old. The booze remark was uncalled for. And just because he/she enjoys reading the articles at DI...you find something wrong with learning both sides of an argument and then forming an opinion?

719 J.D.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:15:48pm

re: #704 wolfie

The movie? Uh........Er, no.
But I saw their dresses!

I'll watch the recap to catch them.

I haven't watched the Oscars in years.

720 avanti  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:16:06pm

re: #672 nyc redneck

oh, so you would rather have this commie who is determined to destroy our country? and making great progress in just one month.
bullshit.

Ah yes, the famous Commie naming of the POTUS again, that scores points on the fringes.

721 Hard Right  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:16:29pm

re: #709 Dr. Shalit

Yoop -

Harvey Milk was a San Fransisco City Councilman. He WAS Gay, He WAS a Democrat, He WAS the owner of a Small Business (A Photography Shop) and in his own way a Libertarian. He ALSO was killed for no good reason, along with the SF Mayor. The Political ultimate result is Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

-S-


Talk about unintended consequences.

722 Gus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:16:44pm

re: #716 Charles

A quote from Hitchens' article: The GOP ticket's appalling contempt for science and learning.

This is right on the mark. I was extremely unhappy about this Palin populist nonsense too, and said so at the time.

Oh brudder. I remember that. Almost as dumb as when McCain brings up the bear/DNA research.

723 CynicalConservative  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:16:56pm

re: #719 J.D.

I'll watch the recap to catch them.

I haven't watched the Oscars in years.

I haven't cared about the oscars..... ever.

724 Ward Cleaver  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:17:11pm

re: #712 Desert Dog

Back when I actually went to Church, I was dragged to a Promise Keepers meeting in Tucson. It was not what I expected. That was 15 years ago, so maybe they are different now (are they even still around?). Anyway, it was basically a "pep rally" to be a good father using your Christian faith as a guide.....I would describe it as a totally positive experience. I am not very Religious, so some of it was lost to me, but the main message was be the best father you can be. If every father acted like the ideal that they espoused, our society would be much, much better off.

There's also a Catholic iteration called St. Joseph's Covenant Keepers.

725 brookly red  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:17:23pm

re: #695 Walter L. Newton

Thank you.

726 Kronocide  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:17:31pm

re: #694 Osama Bin Porkchop

Several states have legislation that will authorize or enable the teaching of 'alternates to evolution' or allows ID to be 'taught' along side evolution.

You don't think that's pretty high up there?

727 J.D.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:17:36pm

re: #707 Ward Cleaver

No, I just think she's hot.

Well I heard her dress was better...

728 wolfie  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:17:50pm

re: #714 Opilio

Opiliofacts™ !

729 lobo91  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:17:52pm

re: #709 Dr. Shalit

Yoop -

Harvey Milk was a San Fransisco City Councilman. He WAS Gay, He WAS a Democrat, He WAS the owner of a Small Business (A Photography Shop) and in his own way a Libertarian. He ALSO was killed for no good reason, along with the SF Mayor. The Political ultimate result is Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

-S-

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to mention that.

730 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:17:55pm

re: #718 UberInfidel67

Walter...he/she already admitted that they were only 18 years old. The booze remark was uncalled for. And just because he/she enjoys reading the articles at DI...you find something wrong with learning both sides of an argument and then forming an opinion?

Sorry, I didn't see the post about the age. But I already went around and around with this person up thread, only to be told, many posts later, oops, that's not what I meant to say.

Like I say, I apologize, it was getting fustrating, and I jumped.

731 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:18:00pm

re: #720 avanti

Ah yes, the famous Commie naming of the POTUS again, that scores points on the fringes.

explain how BO is not a commie...express yourself...give me an argument and some links...and hurry up

732 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:18:02pm
733 Desert Dog  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:18:28pm

re: #724 Ward Cleaver

There's also a Catholic iteration called St. Joseph's Covenant Keepers.

There is nothing I saw in that rally that would make me not recommend it to other fathers.....especially ones "not taking care of business"

734 theheat  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:18:31pm

What's worse, it isn't just these three governors. It's senators and people on other political levels that are supporting this horseshit, not to mention the religious pundits that support those individuals. It's the 'conservative' dumbasses on Fox news and talk radio, and groups like the Disco Institute.

If it were only these three assholes (Sanford, Pawlenty, Jindal), I wouldn't be as horrified, but these represent a fraction of the rightwing nutjobs that think their effed up theocracy is the answer, that we all need more God - Christianity - in every nook and cranny of our lives and schools. God for everyone, God 24/7, Jesus, the Bible, and then some more God.

They're handing the Democrats votes on a silver platter, and they're too delusional and self-righteous to take responsibility. More than that, it's a monumental effort to stir the so-called conservative pot, and bring more in their fold. Watch as more people you may have thought were reasonable join these invigorated sanctimonious sonsabitches, because more are coming. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

Epic fail.

735 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:19:02pm

re: #730 Walter L. Newton

Sorry, I didn't see the post about the age. But I already went around and around with this person up thread, only to be told, many posts later, oops, that's not what I meant to say.

Like I say, I apologize, it was getting fustrating, and I jumped.

so was I....if that means anything

736 SpaceJesus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:19:18pm

the only way I will ever vote for a republican for president nest time is if newt gingrich runs

737 J.D.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:19:28pm

Benjamin Button won for makeup.

I'd say that's fair.

738 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:19:33pm

re: #712 Desert Dog

Back when I actually went to Church, I was dragged to a Promise Keepers meeting in Tucson. It was not what I expected. That was 15 years ago, so maybe they are different now (are they even still around?). Anyway, it was basically a "pep rally" to be a good father using your Christian faith as a guide.....I would describe it as a totally positive experience. I am not very Religious, so some of it was lost to me, but the main message was be the best father you can be. If every father acted like the ideal that they espoused, our society would be much, much better off.

One of my ex-bosses was part of that. A good guy, I have no idea if he was typical of the group, but he certainly left me with a positive view of it.

Of course, he was also the originator of what I believe to be the best line in Christian parenting: "Timmy, 'the devil made me do it' is not an acceptable defense in this family."

739 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:19:36pm
740 Sheepdogess  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:19:39pm

re: #702 Sharmuta

Well, since you don't know what to say, answer this: What do you wish for your child -- a committed, loving, healthy heterosexual marriage with children, or would you prefer that they raise a child alone? Just askin' . . .

741 avanti  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:19:43pm

re: #686 rightwinger3

John McCain, I'm sure, thanks you. You are a great American avanti.

I had the pleasure of meeting him at the Naval Academy back in the 70's and was very impressed. He took the time to do a meet and greet for a hour or two with my small division. Like his politics or not, a true American hero.

742 jorline  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:20:06pm

re: #631 zombie

Somewhere online I just saw that the Oscars are happening now. Like, right now.

Is that true? Damn, am I clueless or what.

If so -- and I don't know how far along it is, nor do I know what has won what yet, if anything, but:

Has "Milk" finished winning every category it was nominated in yet?

I was over in the Castro District yesterday and the general consensus was: it's a done deal. "Milk" has a lock on all the Oscars.

Seems to be an accurate prediction, because in the hierarchy of PC topics, "gayness" trumps them all -- even "prostitute with a heart of gold" and "Nazis," both of which generally are hard to beat.

Original screenplay "Milk," written by Dustin Lance Black.

He told young people to be proud of being gay.
He looked forward to getting married to his partner.
Finally...Federal action will make his dream come true soon.

743 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:20:21pm

re: #725 brookly red

Thank you.

Wanna join? It's a fine Colorado organization, keeping man in his place and putting woman in theirs. That's what's behind it. The "christian" idea of the proper balance of the family. Man head, woman, helper, kids hired help.

I know that sound cruel, but that's been the word on the street here for many years.

744 USBeast  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:20:23pm

re: #723 CynicalConservative

I haven't cared about the oscars..... ever.

John Wayne won his only Oscar as Best Actor for True Grit. He did not win one for The Shootist. This was truly a miscarriage of movie justice.

745 RedSoxNation  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:20:35pm

Two Points:

First, I can understand the frustration that people have with Republican politicians who are ignorant on evolution. But let's not call the Democrats the "Science" party just yet. Democrats have tried to kill any debate on Global Warming by arguing that there was a "census" within the Scientific community that ended the debate. That "census" position is as anti-Science as anything the Creationist have put forth.

Second, are the Republicans really going to endure endless in-fighting about this topic. At some point, Republicans on both sides of this issue are just going to have to let it go and realize that it is not that important politically. I agree that Charles is right, and it is an interesting issue. But we cannot let it be the defining political issue for Republicans. In fact, Republicans have to stop answering this stupid question because most of them have no idea what they are talking about. And the media loves this question because they know it will make them look ignorant to Blue State America.

746 rightwinger3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:20:37pm

re: #731 albusteve

explain how BO is not a commie...express yourself...give me an argument and some links...and hurry up

/Well, for starters he doesn't want to spread the weal...oh wait!

747 nyc redneck  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:20:58pm

re: #720 avanti

Ah yes, the famous Commie naming of the POTUS again, that scores points on the fringes.

b. hussein 'SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND' obama.

748 cronus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:21:08pm

re: #712 Desert Dog

Not sure if this was part of the stadium program, but they also held that God installed men as the head of the household and that they should have the final decision on all important matters and that wives should submit to that judgment. I think they're now defunct.

/Not sure why it never took off in the mainstream

749 Dragonwolf  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:21:08pm

re: #634 Charles

And the hate mail pours in from people who think they have the right to insult me at my own blog:

Wouldn't it be nice if this response to your verbal sword thrusts were the final death throes of an evolutionary dead-end?

750 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:21:21pm

Haven't watched the Oscars in years. Been watching NCIS, the race and Tora Tora Tora.

751 Ward Cleaver  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:21:26pm

re: #720 avanti

Ah yes, the famous Commie naming of the POTUS again, that scores points on the fringes.

His father was a commie, his mother was a commie, and most of the friends who most influenced him (like Ayers) are commies. Just facts.

752 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:21:48pm

re: #736 spacejesus

the only way I will ever vote for a republican for president nest time is if newt gingrich runs

He may be a supporter of Intelligent Design.

753 Honorary Yooper  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:21:54pm

re: #715 Iron Fist

I've also met a few of them as well, and they seem to be genuine. Of course, those folks have either no sockpuppets, or a sock that's meant solely for humorous purposes. But the folks who have five, ten, 15 socks, what the heck are they thinking?

754 brookly red  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:22:03pm

re: #712 Desert Dog
Thanks, that sounds kinda positive... I had never heard of them before.

755 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:22:10pm

re: #736 spacejesus

the only way I will ever vote for a republican for president nest time is if newt gingrich runs

Ok look, Space Junk is back. Let's have a down ding party, just cause he Jesus love us so.

756 Boxy_brown  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:22:17pm

re: #741 avanti

Like his politics or not, a true American hero.

Good thing you voted for someone with 20 years in the "Damn America" church versus 20 years in the USN...

757 UberInfidel67  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:22:22pm

re: #730 Walter L. Newton
No one should get into any argument without learning both sides. I give the kid props for wanting to know. Contrast that with those here who know nothing of the argument (myself included) but choose to piss and moan about it (NOT myself). Education is vital.

758 mich-again  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:22:38pm

re: #682 Iron Fist

That was one of the biggest reasons I held my nose and voted for McCain. Supreme Court Justices are too important to trust to a man like Obama.

That was precisely my reason for filling in the oval on the ballot for John McCain. I voted for Romney in the primary (in one of the few states Mitt won I might add). Heck, I wasn't even happy about that vote but at the time it was the best alternative. It reminded me of Hollywood Squares. I'll take Morey Amsterdam for the block..

759 cowbellallen  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:22:49pm

re: #670 Walter L. Newton

Yes you do. This is the second time you have asked that question. Your original comment "I enjoy reading the stories on the Discovery Institute and enjoy reading this website." certainly sounded like you found something positive in the DI.

How would you take you own statement? We are talking about the dishonesty of positions like taken by the the DI, and you say you enjoy reading their stories.

Put down the booze.

I enjoy reading them because they are ridiculous. I love watching videos of skateboarders racking themselves and people doing other stupid things, but I don't personally do that myself. I like reading stories about Obama because I educate myself, not because I like him.

I'm not old enough to drink and don't plan on it. From what I gather in this thread it makes you aggressive and seems to make it so you can't understand what people are saying.

760 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:22:56pm
761 Randall Gross  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:23:01pm

re: #743 Walter L. Newton

Wanna join? It's a fine Colorado organization, keeping man in his place and putting woman in theirs. That's what's behind it. The "christian" idea of the proper balance of the family. Man head, woman, helper, kids hired help.

I know that sound cruel, but that's been the word on the street here for many years.

It goes with a triad of governance... there's more to it than that. Family-Church- [what do you think is next?]

762 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:23:04pm

re: #747 nyc redneck

b. hussein 'SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND' obama.

avanti...show us how BO is not a communist...put something out there

763 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:24:05pm

re: #759 cowbellallen

I enjoy reading them because they are ridiculous. I love watching videos of skateboarders racking themselves and people doing other stupid things, but I don't personally do that myself. I like reading stories about Obama because I educate myself, not because I like him.

I'm not old enough to drink and don't plan on it. From what I gather in this thread it makes you aggressive and seems to make it so you can't understand what people are saying.

I didn't realize some things and I apologized for jumping on you.

764 SpaceJesus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:24:21pm

re: #752 Sharmuta

He may be a supporter of Intelligent Design.

newt echoes my sentiments that evolution should be taught in science class, and ID taught in an elective-type philosophy class.

I love this man.

765 Ward Cleaver  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:24:36pm

re: #739 Iron Fist

I'm asking a questiion, not trying to put words in your mouth, but are you really advocating euthanasia for children with Downs Syndrome? Because that is how it comes across. Sarah Palin had a choice, but she made the wrong one?

Is that what you really mean to convey?

I've read several places that at least 90% of children with Down's are aborted.

766 Hard Right  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:24:47pm

re: #745 RedSoxNation

Two Points:

First, I can understand the frustration that people have with Republican politicians who are ignorant on evolution. But let's not call the Democrats the "Science" party just yet. Democrats have tried to kill any debate on Global Warming by arguing that there was a "census" within the Scientific community that ended the debate. That "census" position is as anti-Science as anything the Creationist have put forth.

Second, are the Republicans really going to endure endless in-fighting about this topic. At some point, Republicans on both sides of this issue are just going to have to let it go and realize that it is not that important politically. I agree that Charles is right, and it is an interesting issue. But we cannot let it be the defining political issue for Republicans. In fact, Republicans have to stop answering this stupid question because most of them have no idea what they are talking about. And the media loves this question because they know it will make them look ignorant to Blue State America.

Lets not forget their unbiased reasearch on firearms. Oh wait.... How about their research on on how oil can be cheaply relaced with other sources of energy... Ooops...

767 Honorary Yooper  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:24:52pm

re: #750 pingjockey

Haven't watched the Oscars in years. Been watching NCIS, the race and Tora Tora Tora.

NCIS is good, IMHO. One of the better shows on TV right now.

768 avanti  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:25:17pm

re: #731 albusteve

explain how BO is not a commie...express yourself...give me an argument and some links...and hurry up

The Commie comment does not even deserve a reply, and is just as bad as the moon bats fascist comments about Bush. I have to believe that most on the right don't agree with that label, no matter how much they may disagree with his politics.

769 theheat  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:25:17pm

re: #745 RedSoxNation

At some point, Republicans on both sides of this issue are just going to have to let it go and realize that it is not that important politically. I agree that Charles is right, and it is an interesting issue. But we cannot let it be the defining political issue for Republicans. In fact, Republicans have to stop answering this stupid question because most of them have no idea what they are talking about. And the media loves this question because they know it will make them look ignorant to Blue State America.

I disagree. I want to know if their agendas include Creationist bullshit. And most Creationists argue they know exactly what they're talking about, and why, until they're blue in the face. In fact, they're pretty uppity about it.

770 hazzyday  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:25:25pm

I am skeptical of yec'rs being able to lead a community without some lieing and slippery slopeness going on. All three of these governors seem uninformed. And willing to make policy while being uninformed.

But is does fall back onto character. Are they any different then a Mormon, A catholic, an atheist?

771 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:25:44pm

avanti...how did BO become a true American hero?....give some examples

772 gclaghorn  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:25:54pm

re: #720 avanti

Ah yes, the famous Commie naming of the POTUS again, that scores points on the fringes.

What the hell? How is Obama NOT a Commie?

773 venomX  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:25:57pm

re: #734 theheat

I'll ask again.Is it just republicans taking this position?What about democrats?Have any prominent dem's been asked this question?For the record ,evolution is obvious to me.Im not defending I.D. or creationism.

774 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:26:06pm

re: #767 Honorary Yooper
My better half gets a kick out of Abby, the girl that works in the lab.

775 Desert Dog  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:26:09pm

re: #748 cronus

Not sure if this was part of the stadium program, but they also held that God installed men as the head of the household and that they should have the final decision on all important matters and that wives should submit to that judgment. I think they're now defunct.

/Not sure why it never took off in the mainstream

That was not mentioned in the one I attended. The meeting was exclusively dedicated being a better person and a better father. But, that is basically the teachings of many Christians, the man is in charge and the woman must follow. Nothing new there

776 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:26:48pm

re: #768 avanti

The Commie comment does not even deserve a reply, and is just as bad as the moon bats fascist comments about Bush. I have to believe that most on the right don't agree with that label, no matter how much they may disagree with his politics.

it's a simple question...answer it...how is BO NOT a commie?

777 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:27:06pm

re: #761 Thanos

It goes with a triad of governance... there's more to it than that. Family-Church- [what do you think is next?]

Is this a test? I've left this stuff behind years ago. I know how to treat a woman/wife/partner whatever. I know what a treasure children are (although I don't have any) and I am adult enough not to need some rah-rah group to teach me the obvious.

It sometimes amazes me how some people need these crutches, when common sense and decency would suffice.

778 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:27:12pm

re: #740 Sheepdogess

Well, since you don't know what to say, answer this: What do you wish for your child -- a committed, loving, healthy heterosexual marriage with children, or would you prefer that they raise a child alone? Just askin' . . .

I would wish for any child of mine to be in a loving relationship where mutual respect is given and received- where they won't be judged by the likes of you should that relationship not be "heterosexual", and if they should find themselves a single parent, they would still have family who loved them unconditionally and with support.

That is what I would wish for my children.

Would you disown your child for being gay, having a child out of wedlock, or for getting divorced?

779 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:27:17pm

re: #635 cowbellallen

Man, do I just have some sort of problem communicating my views or something? The Discovery Institute is laughable.

Okay, gotcha. There are two types of enjoyment possible here; enjoy to laugh at, and enjoy because you agree. You didn't state which was your particular mode of enjoyment.

780 brookly red  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:27:21pm

re: #743 Walter L. Newton

Wanna join? It's a fine Colorado organization, keeping man in his place and putting woman in theirs. That's what's behind it. The "christian" idea of the proper balance of the family. Man head, woman, helper, kids hired help.

I know that sound cruel, but that's been the word on the street here for many years.

Nawww, I don't do organizations... I can be F'ed up all by my self.

781 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:27:23pm
782 Dragonwolf  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:27:26pm

re: #685 MandyManners

That would make an excellent rotating title.

Or possibly "Lizard Fascist Fiefdom"?

783 J.D.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:27:32pm

re: #765 Ward Cleaver

I've read several places that at least 90% of children with Down's are aborted.

I wonder whether the test ever comes up wrong when it says the fetus is Down's. I know of one case where the test said it was not... and was wrong.

784 Randall Gross  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:27:37pm

re: #764 SpaceJesus

newt echoes my sentiments that evolution should be taught in science class, and ID taught in an elective-type philosophy class.

I love this man.

If they want to stick "ID" into comparative world religions, I"m fine with that, but with its own separate ID class I am not. That violates the constitution unless Harun Yahya, Shirley McClain, Tom Cruise, and the Reverend Moon get their own class as well.

785 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:27:48pm

re: #776 albusteve
Cause he doesn't have a map of the USSR on his head?!

786 lobo91  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:27:52pm

re: #762 albusteve

avanti...show us how BO is not a communist...put something out there

He's obviously a fiscal conservative, because he said so himself. He plans to cut the deficit in half by the first year of his second term.

Of course, that's after doubling it this year...

Hmm...maybe that was a bad example.

787 SpaceJesus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:28:09pm

re: #755 Walter L. Newton

Ok look, Space Junk is back. Let's have a down ding party, just cause he Jesus love us so.

sometimes i see so much anger and persecution on this blog that it makes me look down from outer space and cry

788 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:28:30pm

re: #764 SpaceJesus

newt echoes my sentiments that evolution should be taught in science class, and ID taught in an elective-type philosophy class.

I love this man.

Do you have some links that show Newt doesn't want ID in science classes? Because I've been looking for them.

789 Honorary Yooper  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:28:34pm

re: #758 mich-again

I voted for Romney in the primary as well. Felt he was the best candidate of the group. I was more than a little pissed off at the campaign I was waged by Huckabee against him. Voted for McCain in the general because I cannot trust a Democrat from Cook County who has been on the inside of the Machine.

790 JacksonTn  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:28:40pm

re: #768 avanti

The Commie comment does not even deserve a reply, and is just as bad as the moon bats fascist comments about Bush. I have to believe that most on the right don't agree with that label, no matter how much they may disagree with his politics.

Well, as a democrat until this past election ...count me in with the people who think he is ...so I am betting there are large amounts of people on the right who believe he is as close as you can get ...you will excuse ANYTHING Obama the fraud/empty suit/racist/marxist says or does ...and you know it ...you twirl things around and usually end your remarks with a slight twist to make it sound like you are not ....but having been a democrat for all my life ...I recognize what you are doing ...

791 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:28:57pm

re: #787 SpaceJesus

You do have a lightening rod on your house? Just asking.

792 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:29:08pm

avanti...we are looking at you as a spokesman for BO....how is he heroic?...how is he NOT a communists...show us your cred

793 dkorta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:29:37pm

What really annoyed me about the whole Palin thing was how the media just went bananas trying to find ways to smear her. I've heard the Couric interview was heavily edited to make Palin look bad. I didn't watch it, and won't. I'm pissed off enough at the partisan media without throwing more fuel on the fire.

Remember that whole schtick about "Oh, look how old McCain is. He could die any minute and then we'd have (gasp) Palin!" As governor of Alaska she had more executive experience than Obama, McCain or Biden.
And she sure as hell could have chosen a vice-president better than Biden had she been placed in that position.

As far as Palin being a creationist, I could not care less as long as she keeps it to herself, and I've seen no indication that she proseltizes. As far as her Down Syndrome child goes, that again was her personal choice. I'm sure she didn't choose to have the baby to make a statement. That her choice makes a statement that makes people uncomfortable is beside the point.

It's really nobody's damn business how she runs her personal life. She seems to be someone who is comfortable in her own skin and that's fine
with me.

An Ivy League education as a prerequisite for public office is also totally unimportant as far as I'm concerned. Just take a look at the fool at the helm now if you want a vivid example of the potential inadequacies of an ivy league education.

Just for the record, I think if people want their kids to get religious training, they ought to take them to church on a regular basis. And if kids want to pray in school, they have every right to as long as Big Brother hasn't perfected a mind-reading machine.

794 SpaceJesus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:29:41pm

re: #784 Thanos

If they want to stick "ID" into comparative world religions, I"m fine with that, but with its own separate ID class I am not. That violates the constitution unless Harun Yahya, Shirley McClain, Tom Cruise, and the Reverend Moon get their own class as well.


pretty sure newt just means a general philosophy class kids can take that includes ID in it somewhere, if the teacher even wants to of course.

795 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:29:47pm

re: #709 Dr. Shalit

Yoop -

Harvey Milk was a San Fransisco City Councilman. He WAS Gay, He WAS a Democrat, He WAS the owner of a Small Business (A Photography Shop) and in his own way a Libertarian. He ALSO was killed for no good reason, along with the SF Mayor. The Political ultimate result is Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

-S-

Who ended up carrying a gun while denying self-protection to others.

796 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:29:50pm
797 theheat  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:30:05pm

re: #773 venomX

Not that I'm aware of, but I'm sure there are a few under the radar. Certainly, they aren't filling up conventions and airwaves with them, like the GOPs. The GOP has whole herds of Creationists, and they're only getting louder.

798 Boxy_brown  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:30:19pm

re: #720 avanti

"Ah yes, the famous Commie naming of the POTUS again,"

How about this:


Main Entry:
so·cial·ism Listen to the pronunciation of socialism
Pronunciation:
ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm
Function:
noun
Date:
1837

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

799 Randall Gross  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:30:40pm

re: #777 Walter L. Newton

Is this a test? I've left this stuff behind years ago. I know how to treat a woman/wife/partner whatever. I know what a treasure children are (although I don't have any) and I am adult enough not to need some rah-rah group to teach me the obvious.

It sometimes amazes me how some people need these crutches, when common sense and decency would suffice.

No, no test Walter. It matches certain triadic tenets of reconstructionism, govern your family, your church, and your country by the bible.

800 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:30:52pm

Newt Gingrich has been trying to have it both ways for a long time -- working against science behind the scenes, but putting up a public front of being moderate.

801 Honorary Yooper  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:30:55pm

re: #789 Honorary Yooper

I voted for Romney in the primary as well. Felt he was the best candidate of the group. I was more than a little pissed off at the campaign I that was waged by Huckabee against him. Voted for McCain in the general because I cannot trust a Democrat from Cook County who has been on the inside of the Machine.

PIMF.

802 jaunte  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:31:08pm

It would be hard to teach a class in ID, when there's nothing to it but a grab-bag collection of debunked criticisms of evolutionary biology.

803 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:31:12pm

re: #787 SpaceJesus

sometimes i see so much anger and persecution on this blog that it makes me look down from outer space and cry

... and then I realize that I am really looking up my own ass, and I cry even harder.

804 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:31:19pm
805 MJ  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:31:47pm

re: #789 Honorary Yooper

I voted for Romney in the primary as well. Felt he was the best candidate of the group. I was more than a little pissed off at the campaign I was waged by Huckabee against him. Voted for McCain in the general because I cannot trust a Democrat from Cook County who has been on the inside of the Machine.

Are you sure you can trust a Democrat from Cook County who wasn't on the inside of the machine as well? Remember Alderman Larry Bloom?

806 gclaghorn  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:31:47pm

re: #803 Walter L. Newton

LOLOLOL!

807 SpaceJesus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:31:57pm

re: #788 Sharmuta

Do you have some links that show Newt doesn't want ID in science classes? Because I've been looking for them.


Where do you come down on teaching intelligent design in schools? Do you think the ruling in the Dover, Pennsylvania, case was appropriate?

"I believe evolution should be taught as science, and intelligent design should be taught as philosophy." -Newt


it's from a discovery magazine interview.

808 Ward Cleaver  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:32:10pm

re: #783 J.D.

I wonder whether the test ever comes up wrong when it says the fetus is Down's. I know of one case where the test said it was not... and was wrong.

It's possible. The test itself (amniocentesis) can cause a spontaneous abortion. We had three girls after the age of 39, and thanks be to God, no birth defects. There are telltale signs of Down's in a sonogram, mainly looking at the spine.

809 Aye Pod  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:32:21pm

re: #736 spacejesus

Hi spacejesus. My money's on Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Image: 2012.jpg

Image: change.jpg

810 Silvergirl  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:32:29pm

re: #545 avanti

If anything, he more qualified from the experience standpoint then the POTUS, not the case with Palin over Mccain. Potentially having Palin as POTUS scared the crap out of me on many levels.

What would have stopped Palin, had she become President (heartbeat away, all that) from choosing a VP that rounded out the ticket, gave it foreign policy experience, gravitas, etc. Wasn't Obama's objective to allay fears of his inexperience? Why couldn't Palin have done the same? Are you of the belief that Obama was/is fully qualified?

811 pink freud  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:32:30pm

re: #759 cowbellallen

I'm not old enough to drink and don't plan on it. From what I gather in this thread it makes you aggressive and seems to make it so you can't understand what people are saying.

Ouch. LOL

The young lizard bites.

812 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:32:59pm

re: #787 SpaceJesus

sometimes i see so much anger and persecution on this blog that it makes me look down from outer space and cry

I had a sneaking suspicion you were a Space Shot!

813 lobo91  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:33:09pm

re: #767 Honorary Yooper

NCIS is good, IMHO. One of the better shows on TV right now.

It's a pretty good show, but not exactly a realistic depiction of what NCIS agents actually do on a daily basis.

I read somewhere that more rounds were fired by the actors in the first episode than have been fired by all NCIS agents in the agency's entire history combined.

I believe the actual total to date has been 4, with none of them being a fatal shot.

I still watch every week, though...

814 Honorary Yooper  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:33:14pm

re: #805 MJ

Are you sure you can trust a Democrat from Cook County who wasn't on the inside of the machine as well? Remember Alderman Larry Bloom?

Good point. Glad I live in Will County.

815 Hard Right  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:33:25pm

re: #800 Charles

Newt Gingrich has been trying to have it both ways for a long time -- working against science behind the scenes, but putting up a public front of being moderate.

Just one of many reasons not to like him.

816 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:33:27pm

re: #807 SpaceJesus

I come down on the side that says ID is not science and shouldn't be in science classes. If people want to believe it like a Theistic evolutionary ideal- they can knock themselves out, but it's not science.

817 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:33:46pm

re: #740 Sheepdogess

Well, since you don't know what to say, answer this: What do you wish for your child -- a committed, loving, healthy heterosexual marriage with children, or would you prefer that they raise a child alone? Just askin' . . .

I don't care if the marriage is heterosexual, but sure I hope for my kids a loving marriage if that's what they choose. However, I realize that might not come along on the first try. My grandmother raised two children alone. She was almost done raising them when the man she was supposed to marry came along. They were together until he died, and loved each other deeply. Perfect? No, being a single mom in the 1950s was damn hard. But she made the right decisions for herself and her children, and she did live happily ever after.

People get widowed, and people get divorced, and people decide to start families alone, and people just do the best they can...and good people come out of every kind of family there is.

818 J.D.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:34:27pm

re: #808 Ward Cleaver

It's possible. The test itself (amniocentesis) can cause a spontaneous abortion. We had three girls after the age of 39, and thanks be to God, no birth defects. There are telltale signs of Down's in a sonogram, mainly looking at the spine.

Well congratulations! That's cutting it close!

819 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:34:41pm
820 mich-again  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:34:48pm

re: #773 venomX

What about democrats?Have any prominent dem's been asked this question?

That is a good point. I'm guessing there are more than a few Dem politicians currently holding office who dread being confronted with that question. Maybe not because of what they personally believe, but because of the political fallout from having to answer it.

There are plenty of very ardent Bible reading Christians in the Democrat voting bloc who would side with the Disco Institute in this debate. Heck, I'd bet if they took a poll at TUCC in Chicago where Obama was a member for some 20 years that Evolution would lose out bigtime to Creationism.

Fact is, the Dems have plenty of anti-science voters as well. But their politicians are smart enough to sit on their hands and watch the fireworks.

821 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:34:58pm

re: #813 lobo91
Oh yeah. The had to spice it up. They make NCIS look like the damn CIA/MI5 combined.

822 jcw46  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:35:03pm

I have to say that although I'm not in agreement with these governors or any other proponents of requiring faith based teaching in public classrooms, the REPUBLICAN PARTY LOST THE LAST 2 ELECTIONS for reasons other than the creationists.

Sorry Charles but I believe your statement is a little hyperbolic. I can understand the sentiment but the party has far greater problems than creationist governors.

As I said above, it doesn't help any but the REPS lost due to their surrender to the toxic environment of compromise and pragmatism in Wash. D.C. They became the majority in '94 on the basis of fiscal conservatism; reduced taxes and cut spending. They proceeded to do far less than promised and in the last 6 years went in the opposite direction. ( they're wrong IMO).

In fact they may think that embracing creationism will help them to maintain some semblance of relevance to the conservative Christians in light of their abject failure to bring fiscal and social conservativism to D.C.

In no way is my intent to downplay the lack of judgement shown by Republicans embrace of creationism. I just don't think that's why the Republicans lost the House, Senate and Presidency within a space of 2 years.

823 Noam Sayin'  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:35:37pm

IMDB has a running tally of the Oscars, if anyone's curious enough:


Academy Awards, USA: 2009
Just Announced...
Best Achievement in Sound
Winner: Slumdog Millionaire (2008) - Ian Tapp, Richard Pryke, Resul Pookutty

Best Achievement in Sound Editing
Winner: The Dark Knight (2008) - Richard King
Best Achievement in Visual Effects
Winner: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) - Eric Barba, Steve Preeg, Burt Dalton, Craig Barron
Best Documentary, Short Subjects
Winner: Smile Pinki (2008) - Megan Mylan
Best Documentary, Features
Winner: Man on Wire (2008) - James Marsh, Simon Chinn
Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
Winner: Heath Ledger for The Dark Knight (2008)
Best Short Film, Live Action
Winner: Spielzeugland (2007) - Jochen Alexander Freydank
Best Achievement in Cinematography
Winner: Slumdog Millionaire (2008) - Anthony Dod Mantle
Best Achievement in Makeup
Winner: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) - Greg Cannom
Best Achievement in Costume Design
Winner: The Duchess (2008) - Michael O'Connor
Best Achievement in Art Direction
Winner: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) - Donald Graham Burt, Victor J. Zolfo
Best Short Film, Animated
Winner: Maison en petits cubes, La (2008) - Kunio Katô
Best Animated Feature Film of the Year
Winner: WALL·E (2008) - Andrew Stanton
Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published
Winner: Slumdog Millionaire (2008) - Simon Beaufoy
Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen
Winner: Milk (2008/I) - Dustin Lance Black
Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Winner: Penélope Cruz for Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)
Best Motion Picture of the Year
Not yet announced
Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Not yet announced
Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
Not yet announced
Best Achievement in Directing
Not yet announced
Best Achievement in Editing
Not yet announced
Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score
Not yet announced
Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Song
Not yet announced
Best Foreign Language Film of the Year
Not yet announced

Not really concerned about it, myself. I was just looking up a movie over there, and I know some here are movie buffs.

824 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:35:50pm

avanti...help decsribe BOs experience so we can understand him better....how did BO win your heroism?...what gives?

825 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:36:18pm

re: #694 Osama Bin Porkchop

This whole "creationism vs. evolution" argument, does absolutely nothing for me when it comes to politics. Bigger fish to fry, in terms of issues, at least to me....

If it would stay out of politics, it wouldn't be an issue here. But the creationists insist on getting political about it, in state after state after state...and the miseducation of America's children is a hot button issue here, and deservedly so, for genuine patriots, for as go our children, so goes our country.

Go complain to the Disco Institute and tell them to knock it off. I wish you luck but doubt your success.

826 SpaceJesus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:36:23pm

re: #809 Jimmah


if only.

827 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:36:26pm

re: #767 Honorary Yooper

NCIS is good, IMHO. One of the better shows on TV right now.

NCIS is awesome. I need to go the grocery store. My husband wants cake.

828 Honorary Yooper  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:36:30pm

re: #821 pingjockey

Oh yeah. The had to spice it up. They make NCIS look like the damn CIA/MI5 combined.

Hey, it's fun, it's well acted, and it's got good characters. There's also no preachiness to it either.

829 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:36:45pm

re: #811 pink freud

Ouch. LOL

The young lizard bites.

he did....good for him

830 Hard Right  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:37:14pm

re: #822 jcw46

I have to say that although I'm not in agreement with these governors or any other proponents of requiring faith based teaching in public classrooms, the REPUBLICAN PARTY LOST THE LAST 2 ELECTIONS for reasons other than the creationists.

Sorry Charles but I believe your statement is a little hyperbolic. I can understand the sentiment but the party has far greater problems than creationist governors.

As I said above, it doesn't help any but the REPS lost due to their surrender to the toxic environment of compromise and pragmatism in Wash. D.C. They became the majority in '94 on the basis of fiscal conservatism; reduced taxes and cut spending. They proceeded to do far less than promised and in the last 6 years went in the opposite direction. ( they're wrong IMO).

In fact they may think that embracing creationism will help them to maintain some semblance of relevance to the conservative Christians in light of their abject failure to bring fiscal and social conservativism to D.C.

In no way is my intent to downplay the lack of judgement shown by Republicans embrace of creationism. I just don't think that's why the Republicans lost the House, Senate and Presidency within a space of 2 years.

Upding!

831 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:37:15pm

re: #822 jcw46

Sorry Charles but I believe your statement is a little hyperbolic.

What's "hyperbolic" about this?

This is wrong, and it’s one reason why the Democrats now control both houses of Congress.

Seriously. I deliberately qualified that statement to avoid being accused of "hyperbole," and you're the third or fourth person in this thread to accuse me of it anyway.

832 J.D.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:37:17pm

re: #823 Noam Sayin'

What some of us are most interested in are the clothes.
So... Any pics?

833 UberInfidel67  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:37:28pm

re: #824 albusteve
Steve, I think he was alluding to meeting McCain at some previous time...hence, the American Hero remark.

834 Shug  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:37:30pm

WWSJD

Who cares?

835 Randall Gross  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:37:32pm

re: #820 mich-again

That is a good point. I'm guessing there are more than a few Dem politicians currently holding office who dread being confronted with that question. Maybe not because of what they personally believe, but because of the political fallout from having to answer it.

There are plenty of very ardent Bible reading Christians in the Democrat voting bloc who would side with the Disco Institute in this debate. Heck, I'd bet if they took a poll at TUCC in Chicago where Obama was a member for some 20 years that Evolution would lose out bigtime to Creationism.

Fact is, the Dems have plenty of anti-science voters as well. But their politicians are smart enough to sit on their hands and watch the fireworks.

The Dems are dishonest by large part and it's unlikely they would out their own on this, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some Southern and Midwest Dems on the ID side of this debate. DI crosses some strange political boundaries for their main causes (note their ties to Russia and Greek Orthodox, or Melkite churches.)

836 Achilles Tang  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:37:40pm

re: #765 Ward Cleaver

I've read several places that at least 90% of children with Down's are aborted.

I think that may be of those that are diagnosed as such early enough.

However it doesn't answer the question of how many do the diagnosis.

I don't think all women do by any means, so it suggests that it is those who are prepared to abort to begin with. What percentage of the total that amounts to I don't know.

837 green_earth  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:37:45pm

This is becoming as commonplace on LGF as any other single topic of late (purley an anecdotal observance however).

I struggle with this issue - and not because I am a religious person who believes in Christ and his message. I have no issue with the theory of evolution, nor it being taught to my children. But I strain to see why we make this such a divisive issue amongst conservatives. Will it really be an issue to enthrone the democratic party for years to come? I think the passion behind this issue is no more than it is with other, more "low priority" topics which make for political fodder during campaigns. Some of you rank this as high as say, abortion, I should think. I confess I don't know much about the scientific theories of "creationism" and how damaging they might be to skulls full of mush. But help me folks, the public schools are a cesspool of liberal ideas in full swing, and have been for years. Why on earth to we focus like a laser beam on this issue to cause us to be divisive with one another? Do not our common ideas of economics, national defense, and notions of individual liberty within the conservative ranks sway us to a more unified front in elections? Is it really more damaging that a few select states in this nation have ID parodied at some level aside evolution, than the catastrophic effects of modern democratic policies which threaten the standard of living of nearly all of us? That threatens the very liberty our founders and successfully implanted in generations of Americans?

I would vote for a candidate whether or not he or she was an atheist, creationist, or agnostic as long as the core principles were there for me. And this subject of ID just isn't one I feel strongly about.

838 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:38:10pm

re: #828 Honorary Yooper
Oh yes, wonderful castwork. Great teamwork.

839 avanti  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:38:22pm

re: #746 rightwinger3

/Well, for starters he doesn't want to spread the weal...oh wait!

re: #776 albusteve

it's a simple question...answer it...how is BO NOT a commie?

You must be joking ? If that kind of name calling represents the main stream consecutive mind set, you are well and truly screwed as a political force.

re: #771 albusteve

avanti...how did BO become a true American hero?....give some examples

840 Ward Cleaver  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:38:29pm

re: #815 Hard Right

Just one of many reasons not to like him.

Newt's time has passed.

841 jcw46  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:39:07pm

re: #545 avanti

If anything, he more qualified from the experience standpoint then the POTUS, not the case with Palin over Mccain. Potentially having Palin as POTUS scared the crap out of me on many levels.


Oh and having Joe Biden doesn't? That's illogical in the the extreme. Joe Biden has shown amply (just by what the media has allowed out) to be a complete buffoon who was chosen solely to placate some group in the Dem party because he sure didn't assist the O in electoral votes.

842 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:39:07pm

re: #833 UberInfidel67

Steve, I think he was alluding to meeting McCain at some previous time...hence, the American Hero remark.

well then I'm confused...he should explain it to me

843 Sheepdogess  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:39:08pm

re: #778 Sharmuta

You have traveled far afield from the original thesis that simply said a traditional and functional nuclear family is optimal for raising children. This is not to suggest that single parents can't be great parents -- they are just bucking the odds. The data is overwhelming that this is the case. I'm not going to be drawn into your tangential arguments regarding gay marriage, illegitimacy and divorce. I applaud your father for beating the odds. Way to go! Imagine how nice it would have been to have a loving, caring mother too.

844 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:39:11pm

re: #822 jcw46

I don't disagree with what you touched on. The fiscal conservatives are pissed, but it's these social conservatives who seem to think the solution is even more social focus, thus alienating the fiscal-cons even more (and independents needed to win elections). They have screwed up priorities.

845 Hard Right  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:39:13pm

re: #824 albusteve

avanti...help decsribe BOs experience so we can understand him better....how did BO win your heroism?...what gives?

I think he meant McCain is a hero.
As far as his refusal to answer an "absurd" question, that is a standard liberal tactic. It keeps them from having to face reality. You know, that thing they run from like an olympic sprinter.

846 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:39:18pm

re: #837 green_earth

sarah palin creationism - Google Search.

1,220,000 results.

847 jorline  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:39:28pm

re: #812 sattv4u2

I had a sneaking suspicion you were a Space Shot Snot!

One small change...no tears just post nasal drip!

848 Randall Gross  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:39:29pm

re: #822 jcw46

Re read -- Charles said it was one of the reasons I think.

849 MAredneck  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:39:30pm

re: #716 Charles

The flip side of all this is appointing politicized 'scientists' like Hansen and other politicos from the AAAS to tell us all how to deal with global warming. Being in the sciences, I appreciate the respect given by this blog to the scientific disciplines, but I assure you a lot of that respect is misplaced.

850 Noam Sayin'  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:39:42pm

re: #832 J.D.

What some of us are most interested in are the clothes.
So... Any pics?

Natalie Portman looks lovely as ever. I also think Penelope Cruz is a total cutie.

851 venomX  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:39:54pm

re: #820 mich-again

Exactly.Im not saying its not worthy of debate,criticism,etc,etc.But i can see the media using this to drive a wedge,while similiarly ignoring the same type of divisive issues on the left.Perhaps we should all write our governors/senators(ive got specter/casey *retchhh*)and try to get them on the record.

852 Shug  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:40:04pm

re: #837 green_earth


why is it that people with only a few comments over large parts of time, always seem to post something critical of eliminating the ID pseudoscience?

853 NYCHardhat  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:40:11pm
854 Gus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:40:13pm

OK, I'm confused.

855 SpaceJesus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:40:15pm

hmmm, having a hard time coming up with anything about Newt supporting ID

856 UberInfidel67  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:40:30pm

#741 avanti :: Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 7:19:43 pm
re: #686 rightwinger3 John McCain, I'm sure, thanks you. You are a great American avanti. I had the pleasure of meeting him at the Naval Academy back in the 70's and was very impressed. He took the time to do a meet and greet for a ...

FOR YOU STEVE

857 Ojoe  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:40:32pm

re: #299 albusteve

I'm sick to death of this idoltarian, media driven political environment where principle is for sale and my vote is scoffed...

Me too. I feel taken for such a fool. All the media blitz & candidate's faces endlessly reprinted & rebroadcast. As If I can be swayed by that, and bought so cheaply. I hate it with a passion.

858 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:40:46pm

re: #839 avanti

communist is a historic and accepted idiology...it's ok...answer the question

859 Osama Bin Porkchop  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:40:47pm

re: #726 BigPapa
a
Like I said, it does absolutely nothing for me - tax cuts, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense, and gun rights issues are far more important to me then this set of issuess. I may be in the minority here on this blog with this particular issue, but that's just how I feel....

860 gclaghorn  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:40:47pm

re: #822 jcw46

Okay, seriously, do you completely lack literacy skills?

861 pink freud  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:40:52pm

re: #837 green_earth

When your kid is instructed in the Koranic versus on creationism in his science class, will you care then?

862 lobo91  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:40:56pm

re: #821 pingjockey

Oh yeah. The had to spice it up. They make NCIS look like the damn CIA/MI5 combined.

Not really a surprise, considering that it came from the same folks who gave us a Navy lawyer who flies F-14s when he's not busy conducting undercover investigations...

863 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:40:57pm

re: #839 avanti

Bush Lied, People Died

Chimpy McBushitler

/Democrat Party Platform Election 2008
/Dems, master of the name-calling attack

864 rightwinger3  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:40:59pm

re: #796 Iron Fist

...but then the Left discovered the joys of nick-jacking, so that all had to come to an end.

Now you know what happened to rightwinger1 and 2.

865 Hard Right  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:40:59pm

re: #831 Charles

Seriously. I deliberately qualified that statement to avoid being accused of "hyperbole," and you're the third or fourth person in this thread to accuse me of it anyway.

I don't think it's even one reason, myself. Most people don't even know what ID is. Ignorance of it is good and bad.

866 Achilles Tang  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:41:04pm

re: #772 gclaghorn

What the hell? How is Obama NOT a Commie?

No sarc tag suggests you are serious. By always making the worst insult that comes to mind, there is no room left for nuances and you end up the loser.

867 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:41:16pm

re: #740 Sheepdogess

Well, since you don't know what to say, answer this: What do you wish for your child -- a committed, loving, healthy heterosexual marriage with children, or would you prefer that they raise a child alone? Just askin' . . .

How about I would wish what ever works out the best. This is not a matter of preference. You never wish anything bad for your children (well, ok, if you had Rosemary's Baby maybe).

But you don't know until it happens, you really don't. Ask me when it happens. Ask me when a daughter calls me in the middle of the night and tells me her boyfriend is beating her and trying to take her baby from her.

Or ask me when a daughter calls me and tells me she is going to get married, even though she and her boyfriend don't have a pot to piss in, but she wants the baby to have a normal family.

Or ask me when a daughter calls me and tells me she is going to give up the baby to a orphanage because she feels that would be the best thing for the baby.

But DON'T ask me to stumble head long into a situation because someone tells me it's the ONLY way, because it's not the only way, and it's not always the best way.

868 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:41:38pm

re: #795 OldLineTexan

Who ended up carrying a gun while denying self-protection to others.

"OLT" -

Knew I forgot something, thanks!

-S-

869 Shug  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:41:43pm

re: #861 pink freud

When your kid is instructed in the Koranic versus on creationism in his science class, will you care then?


not as long as the core principles were intact

/

870 KingKenrod  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:41:47pm

re: #696 Charles

I'm reading the book right now. About 3/4 through. So far I haven't read anything that even comes close to saying that. Is that in the last quarter somewhere?

What do you think Hitchens meant by this statement (quoted at length for context, bold is the important part)?. The entire book centers on this thesis:

Thus the mildest criticism of religion is also the most radical and
the most devastating one. Religion is man-made. Even the men who
made it cannot agree on what their prophets or redeemers or gurus
actually said or did. Still less can they hope to tell us the "meaning"
of later discoveries and developments which were, when they began,
either obstructed by their religions or denounced by them. And
yet—the believers still claim to know! Not just to know, but to know
everything. Not just to know that god exists, and that he created and
supervised the whole enterprise, but also to know what "he" demands
of us—from our diet to our observances to our sexual morality. In
other words, in a vast and complicated discussion where we know
more and more about less and less, yet can still hope tor some enlightenment
as we proceed, one faction—itself composed of mutually
warring factions—has the sheer arrogance to tell us that we already
have all the essential information we need. Such stupidity, combined
with such pride, should be enough on its own to exclude "belief" from
the debate. The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant
for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. It may be
a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be
protracted.

871 Ward Cleaver  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:41:47pm

re: #823 Noam Sayin'

I'm glad that Man on Wire won for documentary. It was about Philippe Petit and his 1974 tightrope walk between WTC 1 and 2.

872 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:42:12pm

re: #865 Hard Right

I don't think it's even one reason, myself. Most people don't even know what ID is. Ignorance of it is good and bad.

Thanks for posting comment #865 to tell me this topic doesn't matter.

873 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:42:26pm
874 Osama Bin Porkchop  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:42:26pm

re: #837 green_earth

You said it better then I did......

875 devil in baggy pants  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:42:27pm

re: #825 Salamantis

If it would stay out of politics, it wouldn't be an issue here. But the creationists insist on getting political about it, in state after state after state...and the miseducation of America's children is a hot button issue here, and deservedly so, for genuine patriots, for as go our children, so goes our country.


I would be interested to see how many threads here at LGF NOT about ID vs. Evolution concern the miseducation of America's children.

876 Randall Gross  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:42:31pm

re: #837 green_earth

Some of us don't vote by "feel", some of us think. The agenda of the Discovery Institute goes far beyond just teaching ID in the classroom, if you think it small potatoes you need to do more reading and less drinking of Weyrich's Kool-aid.

877 mich-again  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:42:39pm

re: #765 Ward Cleaver

I've read several places that at least 90% of children with Down's are aborted.

We have a friend of the family (My wife's maid of honor from years back) who was told her first child was Down's and the doctor recommended abortion. She was from a very Catholic family and that wasn't an option. The child was born completely normal and will be starting College next year. A beautiful young lady she is.

878 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:42:46pm

re: #862 lobo91
Hah! Forgot about that one.

879 MAredneck  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:43:00pm

re: #846 Charles

Some of that is malicious misattribution, as you well know: Sick example.

880 J.D.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:43:11pm

re: #850 Noam Sayin'

Natalie Portman looks lovely as ever. I also think Penelope Cruz is a total cutie.

Thanks, Noam!

Natalie does look good and Penelope Cruz's dress is fabulous.

881 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:43:20pm

re: #837 green_earth

This is becoming as commonplace on LGF as any other single topic of late (purley an anecdotal observance however).

Oh, so yours is an purely anecdotal attempt at telling Charles what to post on his blog?

882 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:43:28pm

re: #856 UberInfidel67

#741 avanti :: Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 7:19:43 pm
re: #686 rightwinger3 John McCain, I'm sure, thanks you. You are a great American avanti. I had the pleasure of meeting him at the Naval Academy back in the 70's and was very impressed. He took the time to do a meet and greet for a ...

FOR YOU STEVE

ok thanks...

883 brookly red  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:43:36pm

re: #861 pink freud

When your kid is instructed in the Koranic versus on creationism in his science class, will you care then?

Ouch,

884 jorline  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:43:48pm

re: #854 Gus 802

OK, I'm confused.

What is there to be confused about?
Your avatar has what appears to be a "66" Shelby GT and a P-51 Mustang...both top of the class.

885 MAredneck  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:43:59pm

re: #853 NYCHardhat

Oh no. Not another Major Speech.

886 UberInfidel67  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:44:00pm

re: #858 albusteve
sTEVE DID YOU SEE MY #856? hOPE IT CLEARS IT UP FOR YOU.

/damn caps lock lol

887 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:44:22pm

re: #870 KingKenrod

That quote doesn't contain a single word that backs up your contention that Hitchens said "religious belief makes you unfit for office."

888 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:44:25pm

re: #837 green_earth

It's an issue because it's the creationists who have decided to make it so. This has nothing to do with conservative principles, yet here we are with the top dogs in the party all toeing this line. Why? Why is this a part of our platforms in various states? What does this have to do with limited government or improving education? This shouldn't be an issue but it is because they made it that way. So you'll have to excuse some of us if we don't appreciate it because this has nothing to do with being conservative and they're not going to figure out it's not appreciated if we stay silent on this issue.

889 KingKenrod  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:44:50pm

re: #716 Charles

A quote from Hitchens' article: The GOP ticket's appalling contempt for science and learning.

This is right on the mark. I was extremely unhappy about this Palin populist nonsense too, and said so at the time.

Hitchens tries to connect this stand to her religion, when it should be (as you correctly point out) her populism about government waste.

890 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:44:54pm

re: #859 Osama Bin Porkchop

a
Like I said, it does absolutely nothing for me - tax cuts, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense, and gun rights issues are far more important to me then this set of issuess. I may be in the minority here on this blog with this particular issue, but that's just how I feel....

join the club...let's look into alternatives

891 Gus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:45:08pm

re: #884 jorline

What is there to be confused about?
Your avatar has what appears to be a "66" Shelby GT and a P-51 Mustang...both top of the class.

Oh, was just following the background topic and saw someone being called a liberal and all that. Was just confusing.

892 OldLineTexan  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:45:13pm

re: #868 Dr. Shalit

"OLT" -

Knew I forgot something, thanks!

-S-

No, not at all. DiFi is one of my "favorite" politicians.

893 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:45:24pm

re: #879 MAredneck

Some of that is malicious misattribution, as you well know: Sick example.

Non sequitur.

894 avanti  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:45:26pm

re: #845 Hard Right

I think he meant McCain is a hero.
As far as his refusal to answer an "absurd" question, that is a standard liberal tactic. It keeps them from having to face reality. You know, that thing they run from like an olympic sprinter.

It's a stupid question in my opinion, if that's your reality, I can't change it. It's like me calling a LGF poster a ass hole and telling you to prove he's not. Name calling with extreme comments does not further your cause except on the fringes.

895 Dragonwolf  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:46:23pm

re: #740 Sheepdogess

Well, since you don't know what to say, answer this: What do you wish for your child -- a committed, loving, healthy heterosexual marriage with children, or would you prefer that they raise a child alone? Just askin' . . .

I would be very curious to find out what percentage of heterosexual marriages are truly "committed, loving, healthy". The current divorce rate disqualifies the first and the third is not quantifiable. Therefore your first option is just wishful thinking, which invalidates your seemingly 'obvious' choice.

I was raised by a single mom and am now in a long term marriage with three children. I do not believe they have had it better or worse than I did. It depends on the parent(s).

896 UberInfidel67  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:46:39pm

re: #882 albusteve
No problem

897 lobo91  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:46:45pm

re: #841 jcw46

Oh and having Joe Biden doesn't? That's illogical in the the extreme. Joe Biden has shown amply (just by what the media has allowed out) to be a complete buffoon who was chosen solely to placate some group in the Dem party because he sure didn't assist the O in electoral votes.

I'm fairly certain that Biden suffered significant brain damage as the result of the strokes he's had in he past.

The possibility of him becoming president scares the hell out of me.

898 songbird  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:47:10pm

re: #880 J.D.

Thanks, Noam!

Natalie does look good and Penelope Cruz's dress is fabulous.

She's rather Audrey Hepburn-esque

899 jcw46  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:47:13pm

re: #545 avanti
Why do you comment here? Surely you understand that your opinion is mostly in the minority? Do you enjoy baiting others to try to get intemperate responses? Do you like verbal/written abuse? Do you think for one minute anything you say is not at least smirked about if not met with uproarious laughter? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you don't have a right to comment here, I'm just curious as to WHY, WHAT'S THE POINT? I don't bother posting at the daily kos (lgf does not compare but what liberal site does) or any other site infested with liberal non-thoughts expressed poorly and inadequately. Why tease them? It serves no purpose. I suppose I could do so for reasons of feeling smugly superior while I peruse their inane chatter but I'm a bigger person than that and have other things more useful to do. I also don't need my ego stroked. Is that what it is with you? You get your rocks off posting your liberal droolings here?
Just askin'.

900 nyc redneck  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:47:13pm

O is probably proud of his commie proclivities.
he doesn't see it as a negative.
look how readily he said 'spread the wealth around' to someone he didn't even know.
he must have been quite confident he would impress joe the plumber.
i'm sure he didn't expect the back lash.

901 Sheepdogess  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:47:15pm

re: #867 Walter

Do you have kids Walter?

902 Hard Right  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:47:22pm

re: #839 avanti

re: #872 Charles

Thanks for posting comment #865 to tell me this topic doesn't matter.

Now you're reading something into what I said, rather dishonestly I might add.
I didn't say it didn't matter. I DID say it wasn't a reason why the GOP lost. I was pretty clear about that.

903 avanti  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:47:30pm

re: #833 UberInfidel67

Steve, I think he was alluding to meeting McCain at some previous time...hence, the American Hero remark.

Yep, McCain, quite a impressive vet.

904 cronus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:48:02pm

re: #822 jcw46

In fact they may think that embracing creationism will help them to maintain some semblance of relevance to the conservative Christians in light of their abject failure to bring fiscal and social conservativism to D.C.
.

Having trouble following this. I thought we were talking about Governors? And if you believe the Republicans failed to advance the social conservative agenda over the last 8 years what exactly would you consider success?

905 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:48:05pm

I never had the tests in any of my five pregnancies. I wouldn't have aborted, so I didn't want the stress.

906 David IV of Georgia  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:48:15pm

re: #822 jcw46

the REPS lost due to their surrender to the toxic environment of compromise and pragmatism in Wash. D.C. They became the majority in '94 on the basis of fiscal conservatism; reduced taxes and cut spending. They proceeded to do far less than promised and in the last 6 years went in the opposite direction.

After the momentum caused by Ronald Reagan and the "Contract With America" the Republicans failed to follow through. This caused their support to erode away.

907 HelloDare  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:48:19pm

re: #716 Charles

I've defended Hitchens here many times but I think he is a little hyperbolic in the case of the fruit flies. Palin was ignorant of fruit flies. It doesn't mean she's dumb as Hitchens said.

I doubt if Palin is against the experiment now that she knows how fruit flies are used in genetic research?

Sure, she or somebody on her staff should have checked with a scientist about how fruit flies are used in science. But they didn't. Does this make her dumb?

There are a lot of really stupid science studies. Hot Air posts a couple every week. Palin probably thought it was another one of these.

The disturbing thing is that creationists aren't dumb.

Smart, talented people like Jindal believe in creationism. That the real problem. If only they were dumb.

908 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:48:24pm

re: #901 Sheepdogess

Do you have kids Walter?

No. Next question.

909 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:48:40pm

re: #902 Hard Right

Now you're reading something into what I said, rather dishonestly I might add.
I didn't say it didn't matter. I DID say it wasn't a reason why the GOP lost. I was pretty clear about that.

And you are wrong.

910 UberInfidel67  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:49:21pm

re: #903 avanti
I agree. And I like your avatar...my Dad was Navy.

911 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:50:04pm

re: #901 Sheepdogess

Do you have kids Walter?

Would you reject one of your children if they were gay?

912 Sheepdogess  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:50:04pm

re: #908 Walter L. Newton

No. Next question.

That's what I thought....

913 jorline  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:50:10pm

re: #891 Gus 802

Oh, was just following the background topic and saw someone being called a liberal and all that. Was just confusing.

That was probably avanti and he is a liberal. What's confusing about that?

914 Boxy_brown  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:50:17pm

re: #903 avanti

Yep, McCain, quite a impressive vet.

So you went for the "quite impressive":

community organizer...

State senator

Senator

Bullshit artist.

915 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:50:30pm

re: #894 avanti

It's a stupid question in my opinion, if that's your reality, I can't change it. It's like me calling a LGF poster a ass hole and telling you to prove he's not. Name calling with extreme comments does not further your cause except on the fringes.

why is the question stupid?....millions of people must be asking how can you explain that BO is NOT a communists...if the answer is so simple then just say the answer...pretend I'm stupid and you need to set the record straight...it's easy...just do it

916 mich-again  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:50:41pm

re: #863 OldLineTexan

Chimpy McBushitler

"Chimpy" was a perfectly acceptable insult for Dems to hurl at GWB for years and years. But you'll have to pick out a different animal to compare to the current President or else!

Ostrich? Rat? Dung Beetle? Unicorn? Not sure what works best.

917 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:50:48pm

re: #907 HelloDare

I've defended Hitchens here many times but I think he is a little hyperbolic in the case of the fruit flies. Palin was ignorant of fruit flies. It doesn't mean she's dumb as Hitchens said.

Well, that's your opinion. I'm telling you that I heard Sarah Palin say that live, when it happened, and I was greatly appalled.

It was ignorant and uninformed, and pandering to the very worst elements of the anti-science right.

918 gclaghorn  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:51:33pm

re: #894 avanti

You're just dancing around the issue. How about actually addressing a single point being brought up now, or actually answering the question?

919 Killian Bundy  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:51:39pm

So, who's an acceptable Republican?

/we seem to be running out of real estate here

920 Dr. Shalit  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:51:45pm

re: #853 NYCHardhat

I am truly depressed.

NYCHardhat -

That Joint Session will bring to mind films of a Joint Session of the SUPREME SOVIET.

-S-

921 Gus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:52:00pm

re: #913 jorline

That was probably avanti and he is a liberal. What's confusing about that?

I'm still basically new here so I don't have the background and he didn't seem that way here -- so I was confused by that.

922 venomX  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:52:00pm

re: #916 mich-again

Fruitfly!

923 JacksonTn  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:52:04pm

re: #894 avanti

It's a stupid question in my opinion, if that's your reality, I can't change it. It's like me calling a LGF poster a ass hole and telling you to prove he's not. Name calling with extreme comments does not further your cause except on the fringes.

It's like going over the whole campaign again with your making excuses for Obama ...I guess it does not bother you in the least that ..if nothing else ...he wants to change this country towards socialism ...and he has surrounded himself with marxist and racist all his life ...give him enough power with the votes he has with his friggin Pelosi and Reid and you see just how far down the socialist hole he wants to take this country ...by G-d he and his buddy Rev. Wright, et al will get their reparations one way or another ...you are a fool if you base your feelings about Obama on the books you read ...that he wrote (made up) ...WARM YOU HANDS AT THE FIRE WITH MARXISTS ...do you think he didn't absorb that crap ...you are blinded by love ....

I recognize you ...I can so clearly read between the lines of what you post about Obama ...I respect your service to our country but that is it ...done posting about Obama to you because you sir ...are in love ...

924 Gus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:52:52pm

Putting hands in pockets.

925 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:53:05pm

re: #861 pink freud

When your kid is instructed in the Koranic versus on creationism in his science class, will you care then?

Here's the thing about that. How many of the people who've heard about this issue also realize that CAIR is lurking, ready to insist that the Koran be taught? For that matter, how many even know who/what CAIR is?

926 Noam Sayin'  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:53:06pm

re: #880 J.D.

Thanks, Noam!

Natalie does look good and Penelope Cruz's dress is fabulous.

She's quite lovely.

927 Hard Right  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:53:08pm

re: #909 Charles

And you are wrong.

That's YOUR opinion and I say it's wrong.
What is with the attitude? I am not attacking you or defending ID. I mereley disagree with some points you've made.

928 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:53:08pm

re: #912 Sheepdogess

That's what I thought....

And would you like to know anything else about my parenting history. Of course not, because you are a bigot. And you sit there smugly, please in getting that answer from me. Which doesn't say anything about me, since you know nothing more that what I just told you, but, you answer says tons about you.

But, I'll stick with bigot, that covers most of it for me. And do me a favor, leave Sharmuta alone.

929 Ojoe  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:53:26pm

re: #713 mich-again

And that is how it should be in my opinion. The 2-Party system forces the parties to attract from the center. The Multi-party system most Nations employ promotes pulling support from the edges.

Except, now it seems that the two party system lets the left fanatics and the right fanatics each have one party (conventions especially do this) and with both main parties contaminated as it were, many rational people sit out politics, and the nation is alternately governed by the extremes.

This is no good, and we need a big center party; 3 parties would not be like Europe, where there are more than three by quite a few.

Just my view of it.

930 Boxy_brown  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:53:26pm

re: #919 Killian Bundy


So, who's an acceptable Republican?

/we seem to be running out of real estate here

An excellent question. Moreover, who is an acceptable republican who can get elected?

931 Dragonwolf  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:53:41pm

re: #774 pingjockey

My better half gets a kick out of Abby, the girl that works in the lab.

Abby ROCKS!

932 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:53:43pm

re: #919 Killian Bundy

So, who's an acceptable Republican?

/we seem to be running out of real estate here

hahaha!...no shit...I'm down to this little patch I'm perched on like a friggin goat...where do we go from here seems like a reasonable question...

933 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:53:53pm

re: #919 Killian Bundy

So, who's an acceptable Republican?

/we seem to be running out of real estate here

I stated in a thread yesterday that with the number of Repubs "disqualifying" themselves due to stuff like this, their 2012 National Convention can be held in a phone booth instead of a Convention Ctr.

934 MAredneck  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:54:06pm

re: #893 Charles

It's your house.

935 NYCHardhat  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:54:17pm

Bill Hicks- Drugs and Evolution

I figure this one is appropriate.

936 UberInfidel67  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:54:35pm

**OT...Esurance dot com is wanting us all to join in for Earth Hour. On March ? turn off all your power for one hour to give Mother Earth a break. ROFLMAO

/This means YOU!

937 USBeast  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:54:38pm

Well, here's Ye Olde Beastie's solid concrete comment on Evolution vs. Creationism: I would rather believe that I share a common ancestor with a chimpanzee than be forced to admit that I am a descendant of two morons who could not follow one simple directive.

938 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:54:39pm

re: #930 Boxy_brown

An excellent question. Moreover, who is an acceptable republican who can get elected?

Find a republican who is an atheist. So far, that seems to be the only answer.

939 lobo91  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:54:43pm

re: #895 Dragonwolf

I would be very curious to find out what percentage of heterosexual marriages are truly "committed, loving, healthy". The current divorce rate disqualifies the first and the third is not quantifiable.

I suspect that it's not much different from the percentage of gay marriages that are the same. Just a smaller sample size at the moment.

Hell, the two lesbians who sparked the whole gay marriage ruling in Massachusetts recently filed for divorce.

I actually think it's the divorce lawyers, not the gays, who are behind the whole gay marriage movement. They figured out that they were missing out on a whole segment of the population they could make money off of.

940 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:54:45pm

re: #928 Walter L. Newton

Upding and not because you asked her to leave me alone. She can answer me, but I'm pretty sure I know the answer already. Her previous comments are pretty revealing and it's not pretty.

941 pink freud  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:54:50pm

re: #923 JacksonTn

It's like going over the whole campaign again with your making excuses for Obama ...I guess it does not bother you in the least that ..if nothing else ...he wants to change this country towards socialism ...and he has surrounded himself with marxist and racist all his life ...give him enough power with the votes he has with his friggin Pelosi and Reid and you see just how far down the socialist hole he wants to take this country ...by G-d he and his buddy Rev. Wright, et al will get their reparations one way or another ...you are a fool if you base your feelings about Obama on the books you read ...that he wrote (made up) ...WARM YOU HANDS AT THE FIRE WITH MARXISTS ...do you think he didn't absorb that crap ...you are blinded by love ....

I recognize you ...I can so clearly read between the lines of what you post about Obama ...I respect your service to our country but that is it ...done posting about Obama to you because you sir ...are in love ...

VERY well said.

942 Sheepdogess  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:54:56pm

re: #911 Sharmuta

Reject? In what respect?

943 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:55:43pm

re: #927 Hard Right

That's YOUR opinion and I say it's wrong.
What is with the attitude?

The attitude is simple: you're wrong. 1,220,000 results on a Google search tells you very clearly that this WAS an issue. Nearly 1,000 comments on this thread tells you it REMAINS an issue. But you're insisting otherwise. You have a right to your opinion, but it's very obviously wrong.

944 Aye Pod  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:55:56pm

re: #899 jcw46

I'm seeing a lot of silly stuff being chucked at avanti here - like 'prove Obama isn't a commie' - this is pure whacknuttery. And not everyone disagrees with everything he says either.

945 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:55:58pm

re: #942 Sheepdogess

What would you do if your child told you they were gay?

946 formercorpsman  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:55:58pm

re: #911 Sharmuta

More interesting question within that.

Once we are able to genetically determine homosexuality in-utero, will you be against aborting such children on this basis?

947 avanti  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:56:09pm

re: #915 albusteve

why is the question stupid?....millions of people must be asking how can you explain that BO is NOT a communists...if the answer is so simple then just say the answer...pretend I'm stupid and you need to set the record straight...it's easy...just do it

WTF is your problem ? You think our POTUS is a Commie, I tend to think that is not a main stream opinion, nor is it mine. As I've said before, you prove it, call Hannity or Beck to cover it and watch his popularity go in the crapper, end of story. You'll be a hero to your party.`

948 J.D.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:56:55pm

re: #946 formercorpsman
I don't believe that's genetic.

949 Kronocide  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:56:58pm

Hmm... I'm wondering if people who think ID/Creationism is 'not a big deal' somehow support it or don't care if it's enacted.

All these issues are dynamic, not static. While guns rights are important, just like Iran, Iraq, stimulus, it's 'what's hot' right now since planned agenda is now coming to fruition resulting in legislation. This is a current issue that can still be influenced.

The stimulus was just passed so there's not much to argue about at this point, it's done (thought there will still be discussions about it).

In addition to all the other things you frown about (how does 5+5 make you feel), what if schools wanted to teach children about other religions? About how the 2nd didn't really mean that private citizens could own weapons? Would that make it important then?

950 songbird  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:57:05pm

re: #938 Walter L. Newton

Find a republican who is an atheist. So far, that seems to be the only answer.

Give me a Republican with honesty, integrity, and a willingness to serve the people instead of his own ego and agendas! Creationist or not!

951 brookly red  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:57:09pm

re: #916 mich-again

"Chimpy" was a perfectly acceptable insult for Dems to hurl at GWB for years and years. But you'll have to pick out a different animal to compare to the current President or else!

Ostrich? Rat? Dung Beetle? Unicorn? Not sure what works best.

weasel?

952 pink freud  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:57:19pm

re: #925 MandyManners

Here's the thing about that. How many of the people who've heard about this issue also realize that CAIR is lurking, ready to insist that the Koran be taught? For that matter, how many even know who/what CAIR is?

Just one more poisonous tentacle of the whole ID movement. I should have attributed my remark to you, Mandy ...months ago your comments on this are what got me to realize that was the next step.

953 lostnearpittsburgh  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:57:27pm

I don't think ID should be taught in science class. That being said, I'm not terribly interested in this subject. I could be wrong, but I have a gut feeling that ID will die out soon enough without any help. Scientific truth, time, and a bad economy will reduce it to background noise, and I hope the same will happen to AGW.

I am a Christian, but I have never believed that evolution disproves Christianity. Only the most literal Biblical interpretations would lead you to that conclusion.

954 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:57:54pm

re: #946 formercorpsman

More interesting question within that.

Once we are able to genetically determine homosexuality in-utero, will you be against aborting such children on this basis?

I wouldn't abort a child of mine for any reason.

955 jorline  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:57:55pm

re: #921 Gus 802

I'm still basically new here so I don't have the background and he didn't seem that way here -- so I was confused by that.

He is the LGF's lone voice in the wilderness for Obama.

956 Gus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:58:00pm

The Air seems a little Hot in here tonight.

957 Shug  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:58:07pm

re: #946 formercorpsman

More interesting question within that.

Once we are able to genetically determine homosexuality in-utero, will you be against aborting such children on this basis?


That will set up the largest battle since Godzilla vs Rodan

GLAAD vs NARAL

958 mich-again  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:58:18pm

re: #911 Sharmuta

Would you reject one of your children if they were gay?

Not that you asked me, but I'll answer anyway.

Of course not. But I might be kind of sad for them that they would likely miss out on the greatest part of being a human being. The joy and pain of raising children. But to disown them? Thats preposterous. Never. What kind of animal would reject their own child.

959 Boxy_brown  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:58:22pm

re: #938 Walter L. Newton

Find a republican who is an atheist. So far, that seems to be the only answer.

I don't think an atheist could be elected in a national election. (Atheism has become a religion un-to itself btw)

960 UberInfidel67  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:58:29pm

re: #947 avanti
Many may not condiser him a "commie" since that term hasn't really been used since I was born. On the other hand, many won't recognize "socialist" either. Ignorance is why the main stream do not consider him a "commie".

961 Throbert McGee  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:58:41pm

re: #631 zombie

Somewhere online I just saw that the Oscars are happening now. Like, right now.

Is that true? Damn, am I clueless or what.

I feel for you, zombeleh, because I had no idea, either. (What is the formula for calculating Oscar night, again -- the first Sunday after the first full moon of spring? No, that can't be it.)

It seems like only yesterday when I actually tuned in to the Oscar broadcast to find out if Priscilla, Queen of the Desert would win the Best Costume Design statuette.

re: #631 zombie

I was over in the Castro District yesterday and the general consensus was: it's a done deal. "Milk" has a lock on all the Oscars.

Seems to be an accurate prediction, because in the hierarchy of PC topics, "gayness" trumps them all -- even "prostitute with a heart of gold" and "Nazis," both of which generally are hard to beat.

You forgot "gimp," another traditional Oscar-magnet.

962 formercorpsman  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:58:45pm

re: #948 J.D.

There are many people who do though, and the genome project has alluded to the prospect of this perhaps being reality at some point.

963 MrPaulRevere  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:58:50pm

OT: Andrew Bostom is now posting on the American Thinker, which was a decent site when it first started.

964 Aye Pod  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:58:54pm

Time for a movie then bed. Nite folks.

965 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:59:00pm

avanti...albusteve is the stereotypical dull blade...I come here to learn and I learned that BO is a commie, now your saying he isn't...how can this be? and why do you dodge a question you imply has such a simple answer....why do you post here if you won't help me out?...how is BO not a commie?

966 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:59:11pm

re: #940 Sharmuta

Upding and not because you asked her to leave me alone. She can answer me, but I'm pretty sure I know the answer already. Her previous comments are pretty revealing and it's not pretty.

She (or he) is a bigot. A bigot because of the all inclusive assumption on her part that I know nothing about raising children because I have none. She didn't ask me if I raised any children.

She is a bigot because she lumps all single parent situations into a bucket that implies that the children of that sort of relationship could not be as good as a two parent situation.

Se is a bigot simply because she doesn't inquire any more than she needs to satisfy her narrow minded opinion.

As I say, a bigot.

She really doesn't want to hear my parenting stories.

967 Ward Cleaver  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:59:40pm

re: #947 avanti

WTF is your problem ? You think our POTUS is a Commie, I tend to think that is not a main stream opinion, nor is it mine. As I've said before, you prove it, call Hannity or Beck to cover it and watch his popularity go in the crapper, end of story. You'll be a hero to your party.`

It's not a mainstream opinion only because the mainstream media has kept Americans in the dark.

968 Boxy_brown  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:59:58pm

re: #947 avanti


As I've said before, you prove it.....

Socialism is the step in between capitalism and communism...

969 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 7:59:59pm

re: #938 Walter L. Newton

Find a republican who is an atheist. So far, that seems to be the only answer.

good one...works for me

970 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:00:03pm

re: #947 avanti

No, a socialist. Next question?

971 CynicalConservative  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:00:07pm

re: #936 UberInfidel67

**OT...Esurance dot com is wanting us all to join in for Earth Hour. On March ? turn off all your power for one hour to give Mother Earth a break. ROFLMAO

/This means YOU!

I think I'll be sure to turn on all the lights, crank the furnace and leave the windows open.

972 Hard Right  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:00:10pm

re: #943 Charles

The attitude is simple: you're wrong. 1,220,000 results on a Google search tells you very clearly that this WAS an issue. Nearly 1,000 comments on this thread tells you it REMAINS an issue. But you're insisting otherwise. You have a right to your opinion, but it's very obviously wrong.

Google searches are your supporting evidence? I would have to say that is hardly solid evidence even if it's ober 1 million. Not to mention as far as LGF posters go, the average person doesn't know half of what is posted here. I'm not saying the average person is stupid, but they are not as informed as those here.

973 Kreuzueber Halbmond  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:00:10pm

Once upon a time, some people with a not so religious religious agenda made up a bunch of crap and called it science. Then they got together and hoodwinked some politicians into teaching the bunch of crap to kids, even though it goes against what is constitutionally acceptable. Education suffers, science suffers, and religion suffers, and our country suffers. Yeah, it's an important issue.

974 wiffersnapper  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:00:17pm

It's a shame that Palin and Romney aren't on this list. Or maybe that's a good thing that they're devout Christians but not crazy creationists!

975 Ward Cleaver  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:00:24pm

re: #951 brookly red

weasel?

Worm?

976 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:00:26pm

re: #958 mich-again

Not that you asked me, but I'll answer anyway.

Of course not. But I might be kind of sad for them that they would likely miss out on the greatest part of being a human being. The joy and pain of raising children. But to disown them? Thats preposterous. Never. What kind of animal would reject their own child.

Ask Sheepdogess.

977 J.D.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:00:37pm

re: #962 formercorpsman

There are many people who do though, and the genome project has alluded to the prospect of this perhaps being reality at some point.

No kidding?

That surprises me.

978 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:00:50pm

re: #822 jcw46

I have to say that although I'm not in agreement with these governors or any other proponents of requiring faith based teaching in public classrooms, the REPUBLICAN PARTY LOST THE LAST 2 ELECTIONS for reasons other than the creationists.

Sorry Charles but I believe your statement is a little hyperbolic. I can understand the sentiment but the party has far greater problems than creationist governors.

As I said above, it doesn't help any but the REPS lost due to their surrender to the toxic environment of compromise and pragmatism in Wash. D.C. They became the majority in '94 on the basis of fiscal conservatism; reduced taxes and cut spending. They proceeded to do far less than promised and in the last 6 years went in the opposite direction. ( they're wrong IMO).

In fact they may think that embracing creationism will help them to maintain some semblance of relevance to the conservative Christians in light of their abject failure to bring fiscal and social conservativism to D.C.

In no way is my intent to downplay the lack of judgement shown by Republicans embrace of creationism. I just don't think that's why the Republicans lost the House, Senate and Presidency within a space of 2 years.

Not THE reason, no. But most assuredly ONE of them.

979 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:01:00pm

re: #966 Walter L. Newton

I have resisted using that word all night, but I don't disagree with you at all.

980 J.D.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:01:01pm

re: #964 Jimmah

Nite.

981 Shug  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:01:10pm

re: #966 Walter L. Newton

Supernanny doesn't have any kids and she's done quite well for herself helping clueless parents.

982 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:01:19pm
983 UberInfidel67  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:01:35pm

re: #966 Walter L. Newton
Ha! People would probably never speak to me again if they knew my family dynamic as a single parent. lol lol I gotta laugh about it though.

984 Randall Gross  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:01:38pm

re: #851 venomX

Exactly.Im not saying its not worthy of debate,criticism,etc,etc.But i can see the media using this to drive a wedge,while similiarly ignoring the same type of divisive issues on the left.Perhaps we should all write our governors/senators(ive got specter/casey *retchhh*)and try to get them on the record.

Make no mistake --- it's Discovery Institute driving the wedge, or haven't you read their Wedge document yet? It's been posted here enough times.

985 HelloDare  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:01:38pm

re: #917 Charles

Well, that's your opinion. I'm telling you that I heard Sarah Palin say that live, when it happened, and I was greatly appalled.

It was ignorant and uninformed, and pandering to the very worst elements of the anti-science right.

Yes, it was ignorant and uninformed -- that's exactly my point. It doesn't mean she is "dumb" as Hitchens stated. And I don't know if it was pandering. If she thought it was just a waste of money -- like a study to find out if men are influenced by women in bikinis -- then it wouldn't be pandering.

And when I heard it I was appalled, too. I've known about fruit flies being used in research for a long time. I cringed when I heard it.

I am fully aware of the problem we have here. When people hear I'm conservative, many assume I'm religious and don't believe in evolution. They are wrong on both counts.

986 Gus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:01:41pm

re: #970 Walter L. Newton

No, a socialist. Next question?

That works. I was just thinking Socialist Democrat. So he could start the Socialist Democrat Party. SDP.

987 avanti  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:02:00pm

re: #899 jcw46

Why do you comment here? Surely you understand that your opinion is mostly in the minority? Do you enjoy baiting others to try to get intemperate responses? Do you like verbal/written abuse? Do you think for one minute anything you say is not at least smirked about if not met with uproarious laughter? `

I actually believe the hype that the left and right can find common ground on some issues. A few on here enjoy a discussion from outside the bubble, I know I do.
As to leaving, Charles can give me the boot at anytime that he feels I'm a distraction.

988 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:02:17pm

Good night, Lizards.

989 UberInfidel67  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:02:28pm

re: #971 CynicalConservative
Well that's a no-brainer...since we will still be here painting!

990 mich-again  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:02:40pm

re: #929 Ojoe

Except, now it seems that the two party system lets the left fanatics and the right fanatics each have one party (conventions especially do this) and with both main parties contaminated as it were, many rational people sit out politics, and the nation is alternately governed by the extremes.

To win the Primary you have to appeal to the base which includes the fringes. But then to win the general election you have to pull from the center. Obama beat Hillary in the Primaries because he did a better job of appealing from the far left than Hillary did. And then he beat McCain in the General because he did a better job of pulling from the middle.

991 J.D.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:02:47pm

Night, Mandy.

992 Bloodnok  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:02:52pm

re: #988 MandyManners

Good night, Lizards.

'night Mandy.

993 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:02:58pm

((((((Sharmuta))))))

Take care, lady.

994 jorline  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:03:04pm

re: #975 Ward Cleaver

Worm?

Slug?

995 Ward Cleaver  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:03:11pm

re: #971 CynicalConservative

I think I'll be sure to turn on all the lights, crank the furnace and leave the windows open.

I'll drive a little faster.

996 itellu3times  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:03:20pm

I'll just pipe in, I find this topic painful everytime it is raised, but consider Charles' doing it a public service.

997 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:03:21pm

re: #979 Sharmuta

I have resisted using that word all night, but I don't disagree with you at all.

That's OK. You know me, there is no accounting for my bad taste, so, I don't hold back. Truth is truth. PC has ruined this country and the ability to critically debate a topic. It's a wonder some people can get up in the morning and put on their pants or panties.

998 Shug  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:03:40pm

re: #994 jorline

Slug?

yes?

oh wait. nevermind

999 brookly red  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:03:47pm

re: #973 Kreuzueber Halbmond

Once upon a time, some people with a not so religious religious agenda made up a bunch of crap and called it science. Then they got together and hoodwinked some politicians into teaching the bunch of crap to kids, even though it goes against what is constitutionally acceptable. Education suffers, science suffers, and religion suffers, and our country suffers. Yeah, it's an important issue.

Is this about global warming? or something deeper?

1000 Timbre  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:04:07pm

Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, (probably not running for President, yet anyway) is a darling of the anti-evolutionists.

1001 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:04:08pm

re: #983 UberInfidel67

Ha! People would probably never speak to me again if they knew my family dynamic as a single parent. lol lol I gotta laugh about it though.

No kidding.

1002 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:04:18pm

G'night all. Fight nice, or not.

1003 formercorpsman  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:04:36pm

re: #954 Sharmuta

Let us just play devil's advocate for a second.

You are very vocal about this subject, and how it relates within the Republican party voter base.

Rino versus SocCon versus FisCon, etc.

As a voter issue, you have come down on the SocCon in the party about these issues.

Not you personally, but where does this put you on the issue?

Abortion is a personal choice. Even if that choice is done as the result of foreknowledge of bringing a gay child into the world.

1004 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:04:37pm

re: #981 Shug

Supernanny doesn't have any kids and she's done quite well for herself helping clueless parents.

And yet she helps two parent families who can't control their kids! A mom and a dad.... with out of control kids.

1005 J.D.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:05:08pm

Night pingjockey.

1006 pink freud  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:05:15pm

re: #982 Iron Fist

I do remember. "cultural diversity" "multiculturalism" "cultural tolerance"

/spit

1007 amused  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:05:18pm

re: #827 SanFranciscoZionist

NCIS is awesome. I need to go the grocery store. My husband wants cake.



Cake or death?

1008 Gus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:05:24pm

Looks like we get to name a Baby Gorilla. This should be interesting.

1009 Cognito  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:06:06pm

I am, to my own surprise, quite enjoying the Oscars this year.

1010 brandon13  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:06:09pm

re: #953 lostnearpittsburgh

I don't think ID should be taught in science class. That being said, I'm not terribly interested in this subject. I could be wrong, but I have a gut feeling that ID will die out soon enough without any help. Scientific truth, time, and a bad economy will reduce it to background noise, and I hope the same will happen to AGW.

I am a Christian, but I have never believed that evolution disproves Christianity. Only the most literal Biblical interpretations would lead you to that conclusion.

Die out soon? I don't see anything to suggest that. Look at how many Republicans either believe in creationism or pretend to believe in creationism to get elected. The top Republican contenders for '12 are creationists.

I'd say there's not a chance in hell it'll die out in my lifetime, and I'm only twenty.

1011 Sheepdogess  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:06:22pm

And you are a re: #945 Sharmuta
The same thing I would tell a heterosexual child: "I love you. Be careful who you have sex with."

And don't try to trap me into another tangential argument. Not gonna work.

Think More.
Feel Less.

Good night ya'll.

1012 jorline  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:06:25pm

re: #998 Shug

yes?

oh wait. nevermind

lol ;)

1013 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:07:02pm

re: #1004 Sharmuta

And yet she helps two parent families who can't control their kids! A mom and a dad.... with out of control kids.

What the hell happened to our "mother of the year" or was that "Mother Teresa" or was that the Virgin Mary herself?

1014 brookly red  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:07:29pm

re: #1008 Gus 802

Looks like we get to name a Baby Gorilla. This should be interesting.

3 bannings at least me thinks.

1015 albusteve  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:07:42pm

re: #987 avanti

I actually believe the hype that the left and right can find common ground on some issues. A few on here enjoy a discussion from outside the bubble, I know I do.
As to leaving, Charles can give me the boot at anytime that he feels I'm a distraction.

don't be such a pussy...you're here now and there is no time like the present eh?...why don't you address me?....how is BO not a commie...it's an easy answer is it not?...let's have a discussion

1016 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:07:44pm
1017 Shanimal1918  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:07:44pm

Just adding my 2 cents: Evolution wouldn't make my top 50 issues facing the country (or the world) in this day and age. It's just not an important issue to me, in the big picture. I do wonder what the general population attitude is towards this. Are there any legit polls that show what people believe to be the most important issues for the present and future?

1018 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:07:45pm

re: #837 green_earth

This is becoming as commonplace on LGF as any other single topic of late (purley an anecdotal observance however).

I struggle with this issue - and not because I am a religious person who believes in Christ and his message. I have no issue with the theory of evolution, nor it being taught to my children. But I strain to see why we make this such a divisive issue amongst conservatives. Will it really be an issue to enthrone the democratic party for years to come? I think the passion behind this issue is no more than it is with other, more "low priority" topics which make for political fodder during campaigns. Some of you rank this as high as say, abortion, I should think. I confess I don't know much about the scientific theories of "creationism" and how damaging they might be to skulls full of mush. But help me folks, the public schools are a cesspool of liberal ideas in full swing, and have been for years. Why on earth to we focus like a laser beam on this issue to cause us to be divisive with one another? Do not our common ideas of economics, national defense, and notions of individual liberty within the conservative ranks sway us to a more unified front in elections? Is it really more damaging that a few select states in this nation have ID parodied at some level aside evolution, than the catastrophic effects of modern democratic policies which threaten the standard of living of nearly all of us? That threatens the very liberty our founders and successfully implanted in generations of Americans?

I would vote for a candidate whether or not he or she was an atheist, creationist, or agnostic as long as the core principles were there for me. And this subject of ID just isn't one I feel strongly about.

You do not treat student patients for the arsenic poisoning of leftist teacher bias by dosing them with creationist strychnine.

The damage done to our country's national security and economic standing by hamstringing the bioscience education of our children should indeed be of grave concern.

And those who wish to force such religious dogmas into public high school science classes demonstrate a blatant and abject lack of respect for our Constitutional principles. Not to mention the individual religious liberties of students and their parents.

1019 CynicalConservative  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:07:52pm

re: #989 UberInfidel67

Well that's a no-brainer...since we will still be here painting!

Well, yeah. I forgot to ask if we're even in the same region of the country. May be difficult to make the timeline if we're geographically distributed. Moonbat central Portland Or here.

1020 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:09:19pm

re: #1017 Shanimal1918

Just adding my 2 cents: Evolution wouldn't make my top 50 issues facing the country (or the world) in this day and age. It's just not an important issue to me, in the big picture. I do wonder what the general population attitude is towards this. Are there any legit polls that show what people believe to be the most important issues for the present and future?

Then why don't you do a little googling and find out. Have you even read this thread?

1021 UberInfidel67  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:09:36pm

re: #1019 CynicalConservative
Well gas up the SUV...I am near Pittsburgh PA. lol

/I can wait

1022 CynicalConservative  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:10:58pm

re: #1021 UberInfidel67

Well gas up the SUV...I am near Pittsburgh PA. lol

/I can wait

Sometime around July I think...

1023 formercorpsman  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:11:26pm

re: #1016 Iron Fist

There is no doubt this topic always draws the ire from all sides. Over the years, my opinions have changed on different things, just like what we discuss here.

I truly don't think that premise is too far off. Whether we like it or not, it is going to force both sides to have to evaluate the argument within other dimensions beyond women's rights, etc.

1024 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:11:30pm

re: #851 venomX

Exactly.Im not saying its not worthy of debate,criticism,etc,etc.But i can see the media using this to drive a wedge,while similiarly ignoring the same type of divisive issues on the left.Perhaps we should all write our governors/senators(ive got specter/casey *retchhh*)and try to get them on the record.

And activist creationist Republicans are only enabling the MSM to brand the entire party as anti-science religious dogmatists on this issue.

1025 lobo91  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:11:48pm

re: #1016 Iron Fist

It could be said of any number of subjective characteristics. we already know that sex selective abortion has produced litterally millions of "missing" females from those populations. Is that a morally acceptable reason to prform an abortion? How about mandatory abortions of male children until the problem is redressed?

If you're talking about China, I think they have other plans for those "surplus" males...

/Joe Biden's "test"

1026 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:11:52pm
1027 mich-again  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:12:04pm

re: #946 formercorpsman

Once we are able to genetically determine homosexuality in-utero, will you be against aborting such children on this basis?

That question is a hypothetical. But to ask the same question about the sex of a child, the answer is clear. Officially, there is strong opposition to the use of abortion for sex selection. But it is very prevalent in some parts of the world. Sickening.

1028 Scion9  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:12:10pm

re: #835 Thanos

(note their ties to Russia and Greek Orthodox, or Melkite churches.)

After so many years of Communist oppression, the Orthodox Church in Russia was practically an organ of the State. The priests basically had to be confirmed by the KGB in the latter days of the USSR and it is still deeply infested today. There was a lot of debate about the Eastern Church in exile in western nations coming back into communion. I'm sure this is some kind of model for a modern theocracy for the Christian Reconstructionists and Socialists. Of course, I'm sure they want to invert the dogma; a government praising the Church, instead of a Church preaching the glories of the State.

1029 jaunte  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:13:12pm

re: #1017 Shanimal1918

Just adding my 2 cents: Evolution wouldn't make my top 50 issues facing the country (or the world) in this day and age. It's just not an important issue to me, in the big picture. I do wonder what the general population attitude is towards this. Are there any legit polls that show what people believe to be the most important issues for the present and future?

Here's some polling data that might be relevant:

Both major political parties have a problem with their approach toward religion, in the eyes of many Americans. More than four-in-ten say that liberals who are not religious have too much control over the Democratic Party, while an almost identical percentage says that religious conservatives have too much influence over the Republican Party.

The public also has distinctly different perceptions of both parties when it comes to dealing with religion and personal freedoms. By a wide margin ­ 51% to 28% ­ the Republican Party is seen as most concerned with protecting religious values. By a nearly identical margin (52%-30%), the Democratic Party is perceived as most concerned with protecting the freedom of citizens to make personal choices.

Yet the Democrats' strength in this area is overshadowed by a sharp erosion in the number of Americans who believe the party is friendly toward religion. Only about three-in-ten (29%) see the Democrats as friendly toward religion, down from 40% last August. Meanwhile, a solid majority (55%) continues to view the Republicans as friendly toward religion.

However, independents are more critical of the influence of religious conservatives on the Republican Party than they are of the influence of secular liberals on the Democratic Party. Most independents (54%) think religious conservatives have too much influence over the Republican Party, while fewer, 43%, think secular liberals have too much sway on the Democratic Party.


[Link: people-press.org...]

1030 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:13:36pm

Here come the people who post at the end of a 1000+ comment thread to tell everyone this subject doesn't matter and nobody cares.

Without a hint of seeing the irony.

1031 jorline  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:13:53pm

re: #1000 Timbre

Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, (probably not running for President, yet anyway) is a darling of the anti-evolutionists.

Perry is my Governor and he sucks and everything. Ma Richards had more shit on her stick than Rick "Silky Pony II" Perry.

1032 theheat  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:14:13pm

re: #1000 Timbre

It's a huge herd of 'em out there. I keep thinking Charles needs to start a Creationist Dead Pool, where you can place bets on the next jackass-of-note to out themselves (if they have not, already). Kind of like a drinking game, 'cept different.

As their comfort zone expands, and they feel there are enough like-minded people to blend in with the herd, the Creationists will begin absorbing the socons/wingnuts on the brink of 'going public', like a big black hole of stupid, just in time for 2012.

1033 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:14:17pm

re: #1011 Sheepdogess

Calling me a whore? I'm crushed.

1034 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:14:20pm

re: #813 lobo91

It's a pretty good show, but not exactly a realistic depiction of what NCIS agents actually do on a daily basis.

I read somewhere that more rounds were fired by the actors in the first episode than have been fired by all NCIS agents in the agency's entire history combined.

I believe the actual total to date has been 4, with none of them being a fatal shot.

I still watch every week, though...

That's true of basically all law-enforcement shows. My father won't watch NCIS because he thinks it's unrealistic. I think he'd love it.

1035 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:14:35pm

re: #865 Hard Right

I don't think it's even one reason, myself. Most people don't even know what ID is. Ignorance of it is good and bad.

No, public ignorance of the issue is bad, PERIOD. It's how these people are able to fly it into law under the radar.

1036 jcw46  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:15:43pm

re: #831 Charles
To assign, even just a little, blame for the Democrats controlling the house and senate and the presidency to the creationist beliefs of 3 governors is, to me, a little hyperbolic. (I qualified my comment also)
The positions of the 3 governors were little know by the electorate nationally and had very little to do with the decision the electorate made to elect democrats instead of republicans. I'm sure there are some that did, particularly in those governors' own states but the republicans lost more than 3 states and creationism, although reports about the court cases were reported in the media, never became a topic of general interest nationally as relating to the election.

re: #860 gclaghorn
To paraphrase Foghorn Leghorn. "I say, I say boy! What the dickens are you talkin' about?"

1037 Dan G.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:16:02pm

re: #124 USA

Speak for yourself.

1038 Hard Right  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:16:12pm

BTW Charles, are those Google results from before the election, during the election, or from before-during-and after the election? How many people searched? Does it say that or simply the number of searches? And HOW many people voted?

Really, your arguement so far is not supported by solid facts. You seem to want to believe it was one reason why the GOP lost, just because. Very unlike you.

1039 HelloDare  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:16:13pm

re: #1017 Shanimal1918

Just adding my 2 cents: Evolution wouldn't make my top 50 issues facing the country (or the world) in this day and age. It's just not an important issue to me, in the big picture. I do wonder what the general population attitude is towards this. Are there any legit polls that show what people believe to be the most important issues for the present and future?

It's not about whether or not people believe in evolution. It's about creationism being taught in schools. It's about anti-science curricular pushed through stealth creationist bills. It's about creationism taking over the republican party. It's about democrats winning the next presidential election. It's about more than evolution.

1040 formercorpsman  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:16:18pm

re: #1027 mich-again

Oh, I know that. It is something being worked on quite a bit though.

All in all, there are folks among the lunatic fringe from both camps. There are reasonable people from both camps who make good arguments.

Whether we like it or not, this topic, and your assertion as well, do not let this subject just ride out to a stalemate in the political realm.

1041 Gus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:16:43pm

re: #1034 SanFranciscoZionist

That's true of basically all law-enforcement shows. My father won't watch NCIS because he thinks it's unrealistic. I think he'd love it.

Really? They stretch it sometimes on NCIS but it's actually more realistic then the others out there which approach science fiction like most of the CSI programs. Plus, the ensemble is a hoot.

1042 cronus  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:17:00pm

night all

1043 winston06  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:17:22pm

re: #603 Hard Right

huh?

1044 lostnearpittsburgh  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:17:33pm

re: #1010 brandon13

> Die out soon? I don't see anything to suggest that.

Yes, and look how many Democrats pandered to the 9/11 truthers in the last election, yet I seriously doubt we're going to see any of the new Congressional investigations that the truthers wanted. It's all pandering, and I don't like it as much as the next guy.

1045 winston06  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:18:05pm

re: #292 pink freud

but how do u BLUE it?

1046 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:18:05pm

re: #875 devil in baggy pants

I would be interested to see how many threads here at LGF NOT about ID vs. Evolution concern the miseducation of America's children.

The vast majority of them. Next?

1047 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:18:32pm

re: #819 Iron Fist

Downs and Taysachs are, as I understand it, two of the main reasons for late term abortion. Make no mistake about it. When a woman has an abortion so that she won't bring a handicapped person into the world, that is euthanasia. If I were handicapped, I think I'd take that pretty personally.

Tay Sachs is pretty nearly fatal by the age of four, and it's not pretty, IIRC.

1048 Kronocide  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:19:35pm

re: #1030 Charles

Actually, I flipped Stinky a $20 and had him count: only 921 of the +1000 posts are about ID/Creationism, therefore, it's technically not important. In 79 posts it will be important.

1049 Killian Bundy  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:19:40pm

www.google.com...]>george bush creationism

1050 winston06  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:19:43pm

There are people down dinging posts but they never post a word themselves. How is that possible?

1051 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:19:57pm

We were contemplating the nuance of Geert's acceptance speech of a free speech award earlier in which he claims he claims to support an American style 1st amendment. I think this recent interview helps us understand what he means.....
Geert Wilders's revelations

At 2:50 he's asked if he supports freedom of religion. He claims that Islam is not a religion but instead a "totalitarian ideology" and Muslims would not be included. I think it's safe to assume he's still in favor of outlawing the Quran.
Also at 3:40 he also proposes adding an article to the constitution to ensure the dominance of Christianity, Judaism and humanism.

So much for the 1st amendment. I guess the Euros still don't get it.

1052 CynicalConservative  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:20:27pm

re: #1050 winston06

There are people down dinging posts but they never post a word themselves. How is that possible?

Charles hasn't implemented the dinger only lockout function yet.

1053 winston06  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:21:28pm

re: #1050 winston06

I mean KULHWCH

1054 Killian Bundy  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:22:12pm

re: #1049 Killian Bundy

george bush creationism

/people on the next thread are defending him (not sure why this part got cut off the first time)

1055 jcw46  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:22:21pm

re: #943 CharlesMind showing the specific search string you used for those hits?

1056 winston06  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:23:04pm

must work now

1057 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:24:24pm
1058 pink freud  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:24:55pm

re: #1045 winston06

but how do u BLUE it?

Damn Winston! You are tenacious. Who'da thunk you'd still be here a thousand comments later?

Ok. The only thing YOU control is whether or not YOUR nic is blue (whether someone can or cannot contact YOU). If you wish to contact someone who has not made their nic blue, the only thing you can do is make a request to them to blue their own nick (in-thread, where everyone sees it ---- or go to the lounge and do it) specifically so that you are able to contact them. If and when they blue their nick following your request, then you can click on it and there you will be prompted to follow the instructions to contact them.

I hope this helps.

1059 Hard Right  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:25:25pm

re: #1043 winston06

huh?


Sorry, his nick was close to yours and I mistyped.

1060 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:25:44pm

re: #907 HelloDare

I've defended Hitchens here many times but I think he is a little hyperbolic in the case of the fruit flies. Palin was ignorant of fruit flies. It doesn't mean she's dumb as Hitchens said.

I doubt if Palin is against the experiment now that she knows how fruit flies are used in genetic research?

Sure, she or somebody on her staff should have checked with a scientist about how fruit flies are used in science. But they didn't. Does this make her dumb?

There are a lot of really stupid science studies. Hot Air posts a couple every week. Palin probably thought it was another one of these.

The disturbing thing is that creationists aren't dumb.

Smart, talented people like Jindal believe in creationism. That the real problem. If only they were dumb.

There is indeed a difference between ignorance and denseness; ignorance can be remedied, and can be willful; denseness, otoh, is something some people are just stuck with.

1061 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:25:47pm

re: #1035 Salamantis

No, public ignorance of the issue is bad, PERIOD. It's how these people are able to fly it into law under the radar.

Agreed. Sorry I haven't posted here until now, but I was watching TV checking Ebay. Any meltdowns yet?

1062 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:25:54pm
1063 CynicalConservative  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:25:54pm

re: #1056 winston06

must work now

Sorry to hear that.

1064 jorline  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:25:54pm

Suggestion...If a person has posted more negative dings than comments give them the stick.
Post and take your lumps or go elsewhere.

1065 Scion9  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:26:03pm

re: #982 Iron Fist

What concerns me most is that the NEA/Left might not care about creationism at all if it were taught from Koranic verses. Remember thatschool district in California (I'm kind of guessing on the location, as I don't remember exactly, but it is a California kind of thing to do) that had the Mohammedan week or some such requiring the kids to beat their head on the floor five times a day, take a Mohammedan name for themselves (I am Abu bin Blowinshitup :-) and all that? IIRC we discussed it here, but we pretty much heard crickets from all of the "Separation of Church And State" usual suspects.

It was a lesson to say the Shahada in my public middle school; which for some interpretations of Islam makes the entire class Muslim and therefore likely apostates as well. We also learned about how the peaceful Muslims were unjustly accosted by the villianous Crusaders, etc.

Not that the Crusaders were righteous and the Muslims deserved their ravaging; but its not really common to teach history in a way that makes the student choose a 'side' in events and movements so absurdly removed from the modern day.

1066 pink freud  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:26:26pm

re: #1047 SanFranciscoZionist

Tay Sachs is pretty nearly fatal by the age of four, and it's not pretty, IIRC.

Very high prevalence in South Louisiana. Cause unknown.

1067 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:27:05pm
1068 Mich-again  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:27:15pm

re: #1057 Bulldog1967

Why it is an obsession to be loyal to the truth?

1069 freetoken  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:27:17pm

re: #849 MAredneck

Being in the sciences, I appreciate the respect given by this blog to the scientific disciplines, but I assure you a lot of that respect is misplaced.

For my part, the respect I give to "scientific disciplines" is most definitely not based upon any given personality that works in the fields of science or any particular institution.

Rather, it is the appreciation of Western Civilization, and especially the appreciation of the history of the last 500 years, in which the growth of the scientific method and all the endeavors of dedicated proponents in gathering and disseminating knowledge, that drives me to cherish what has been accomplished and the method by which it was performed.

The alternative is to live in a society in which social (group) decisions are made in concordance with doctrines handed down ex cathedra (whether the throne be in Rome, Italy or Tulsa, Oklahoma) or simply followed out of fear of a gun barrel.

1070 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:27:56pm
1071 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:28:36pm
1072 Lynn B.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:28:43pm

re: #412 Sharmuta

And the Edwards decision pretty much established that the states can't infringe upon the rights of Free Exercise and Establishment. Creationism is unconstitutional.

Late to this thread and can't hang long. But I'll keep posting this from time to time...

There are only TWO Supreme Court justices still sitting who ruled on the Edwards case. One of them, Justice Scalia, dissented. It's not clear where the present SCOTUS would come down on this question. Stare decisis only goes so far (see, Brown vs. Bd. of Education). So if a Creationist president were to appoint Creationist justices to the Court, Edwards could very well go the way of the dinosaurs (or Plessy v. Ferguson). This is one reason that hasn't been mentioned much here why this is, in fact, such an important issue when it comes to the potential Republican nominee in 2012. And why we can NOT take Edwards for granted.

1073 Dan G.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:29:06pm

re: #800 Charles

Its the only way he could keep the non-theocrats in the tent... now that tent's leaking hemorrhaging supporters.

1074 formercorpsman  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:29:37pm

re: #1062 Iron Fist

No matter what side of the issue one finds them self on this topic, it should not be easy.

I have much more reservation for people who this would not at least make them think about the subject, see both sides of the argument, and have a tough time.

Not an easy topic.

1075 Dan G.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:31:32pm

re: #1050 winston06

Perhaps one should have a ding account; one ding per post, one ding for each + ding you get, one less ding for each - ding you get... Might be complicated...

1076 dry_heavz_4_alla  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:33:09pm

re: #578 Honorary Yooper

All too true. How many Democrats listen to Mike Savage? How many Republicans to NPR? Just two cases in point, but they do show that people like to listen to those who fit what they think.

Actually, I listen to NPR and Market Place every day and wish more people would. IMHO, they're much more balanced than MSM's like CNN or the major networks (I know, low bar) and even cover topics in depth (though sometimes with the obligatory apologetics) that only get superficial coverage from the likes of Fox or talk radio (if any at all) ... including honor whacking, Darfur, Pali infighting, etc. Their Darwin Day coverage was especially interesting, and some of the very topics discussed here are regular subjects for them ([Link: www.npr.org...]

Of course there are topics and perspectives I wish got more attention, but overall I'm a satisfied listener. Makes the hr-drive in to work bearable.

1077 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:33:41pm

re: #1055 jcw46

Mind showing the specific search string you used for those hits?

I already did.

1078 Killian Bundy  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:35:05pm

re: #1075 Dan G.

Perhaps one should have a ding account; one ding per post, one ding for each + ding you get, one less ding for each - ding you get... Might be complicated...

/I've always thought a useful profile statistic would be the dings meted out, both + and -

1079 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:35:12pm

Had all the whining I can take for one day. Accounts will be blocked, and this is the only warning I'm going to give.

1080 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:36:04pm

re: #950 songbird

Give me a Republican with honesty, integrity, and a willingness to serve the people instead of his own ego and agendas! Creationist or not!

I don't care what a politician's religious beliefs are, so long as they don't play politics with them.

But the creationist-pandering Repubs are doing precisely that, and actually supporting the passage of theocratic laws that force sectarian religious dogmas to be taught to everybody's kids in public high school science class, US Constitution and religious freedom be damned.

1081 lobo91  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:36:45pm

re: #1065 Scion9

It was a lesson to say the Shahada in my public middle school; which for some interpretations of Islam makes the entire class Muslim and therefore likely apostates as well.

Technically, it only makes you Muslim if you sincerely believe it. Just saying the words doesn't do so.

As a practical matter, I'm not sure how you'd prove such sincerity, though.

Personally, I would have taken an "F" on that assignment.

1082 CynicalConservative  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:36:55pm

re: #1079 Charles

Had all the whining I can take for one day. Accounts will be blocked, and this is the only warning I'm going to give.

Was trying to think of some snarky response to HR, but nothing came to mind that wasn't worse than the wanker.

1083 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:37:40pm

re: #1066 pink freud

Very high prevalence in South Louisiana. Cause unknown.

I'm Ashkenazi on one side, my husband's family is from Louisiana. They're not Cajuns, AFAAK, but we're checking real careful before we try to reproduce.

1084 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:37:45pm
1085 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:38:33pm

formercorpsman-

I'm not real interested in discussing my views on abortion tonight. I think what I've said tonight and on previous threads on the topic is enough. Regardless- this isn't about abortion, it's about the anti-science sentiments that have permeated the GOP.

1086 Mich-again  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:38:46pm

re: #1074 formercorpsman

Not an easy topic.

Somewhat of an understatement there. Here is my understanding of the problem.

The right says a* is unacceptable period. The left say a* is the choice of the mother unless she makes her choice based on a non-politically correct motive. The middle says, I'm glad its not me having to make that choice.

1087 jcw46  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:39:19pm

Let me make a statement rather than respond to comments so that I can be a little clearer.

My only contention is that creationism within the Republican Party, whether 3 governors, 6 representatives or whatever, had little to do with the Republicans loss of the House, Senate and Presidency.
That it is a problem for the immediate future of the party = AGREED.

I believe that first the republicans must address the root cause of their failure to convince their fellow countrymen that they had the answers to the country's problems in the previous election cycle. Belief in creationism MAY be one of those. (I don't think so)
What all the root causes are; I don't know for sure but I think it's deep-seated and may be partly because of a lack of party discipline. (not necessarily a "bad" thing but the lack leads to fractures instead of solidarity)
The Republicans seem unable to counter liberal media interviewers when the interviewers pose questions using untruths or misquotes or faulty analysis. (deer in the headlights/camera shyness/lack of assertiveness) They are inarticulate concerning the reasons for their positions let along clear about what those positions are.

All this stuff comes off the top of my head and I'm sure that there's political analysts that can come up with better. I just don't believe that belief in creationism lost the Republicans the Election. It most certainly WILL in the near future if some creationists get their way in the classroom.

As discussed earlier today; the party may be a total loss. Better to start over with a new party and all new leadership.

1088 winston06  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:40:00pm

re: #1059 Hard Right

thats ok

1089 brookly red  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:40:23pm

re: #1050 winston06

There are people down dinging posts but they never post a word themselves. How is that possible?

Well actually you need to get into marketing to really explain, but if you look at elections for example the vast majority of voters never campaign, they just vote.

1090 formercorpsman  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:40:48pm

re: #1085 Sharmuta

I joined a conversation you were already involved with.

Have a good night.

1091 winston06  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:41:04pm

re: #1089 brookly red

true

1092 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:41:08pm

re: #953 lostnearpittsburgh

I don't think ID should be taught in science class. That being said, I'm not terribly interested in this subject. I could be wrong, but I have a gut feeling that ID will die out soon enough without any help. Scientific truth, time, and a bad economy will reduce it to background noise, and I hope the same will happen to AGW.

I am a Christian, but I have never believed that evolution disproves Christianity. Only the most literal Biblical interpretations would lead you to that conclusion.

This issue, like any fanatical religious issue, isn't dying out until it either wins or we kill it. And it will have to be killed not just in the courts, because these laws will continue to be proposed no matter how many of them fail as long as politicians think that proposing such laws wins them votes, but mainly at the polls, and only when pushing them becomes an electoral liability rather than an asset. And that's not going to happen if we ignore the issue; our adversaries sure the hell aren't.

1093 solomonpanting  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:42:39pm

re: #555 Shug

I'll trade Palin for Obama right now. No questions asked.

Moreover, and a VP to be named later.

1094 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:42:43pm

re: #1084 Iron Fist

So they should kill them to spare them the suffering of the disease? Where do you stop? This will be getting progressively more complex as we learn more from the human genome project. You learn that the child's jgenea indicate that you are getting a boy who will grow to only six feet in height. And you desperately want to raise a child to go into profesional basketball. What do you do about that?

Please acknowledge that there are no easy answers here. I did not say 'should', in fact I said nothing except to state a medical fact.

I will say that I would not judge any parents who chose to abort in such a situation, nor would I judge any who chose to bring the child to term. I am, as the phrase has it, pro-choice.

I will also say that I am active in my ethnic community, which is prone to Tay-Sachs, encouraging people to get tested before starting families.

1095 Dan G.  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:42:52pm

re: #1087 jcw46

Its not an image/advertising issue (i.e. camera appearance). It is an ideological one. The current GOP is neither pro-Constitution nor pro-fiscal restraint.

1096 pink freud  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:42:57pm

re: #1083 SanFranciscoZionist

I'm Ashkenazi on one side, my husband's family is from Louisiana. They're not Cajuns, AFAAK, but we're checking real careful before we try to reproduce.

Best wishes to both of you. :-)

1097 Scion9  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:44:03pm

re: #1081 lobo91


Personally, I would have taken an "F" on that assignment.

Personally, I did.

1098 Mich-again  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:44:18pm

re: #1092 Salamantis

And it will have to be killed not just in the courts, because these laws will continue to be proposed no matter how many of them fail

I agree with you there. The moles never stop popping their heads up no matter how many times they get whacked down until the game is over.

1099 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:45:32pm

re: #1096 pink freud

Best wishes to both of you. :-)

Thanks--it's not hard to test for, and if we are (unlikely) both carriers, well, I hear adoption is just as exhausting and painful and expensive as actually being pregnant.
/

1100 lobo91  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:45:53pm

re: #1097 Scion9

Personally, I did.

Good for you!

1101 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:46:17pm

re: #1072 Lynn B.

Great point, Lynn.

1102 Mich-again  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:47:43pm

re: #1084 Iron Fist

Where do you stop? This will be getting progressively more complex as we learn more from the human genome project.

There is a fork in the road and one of the choices eventually leads to eugenics.

Because once we say its OK to kill a fetus based on a medical test saying it won't be perfect, then its a slippery slope.

1103 jcw46  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:47:59pm

re: #1095 Dan G.

Its not an image/advertising issue (i.e. camera appearance). It is an ideological one. The current GOP is neither pro-Constitution nor pro-fiscal restraint.


I was referring to their inability to talk back to these journalists. They show too much respect for them and don't stop them when they make statements or formulate questions that contain lies, mistatements of facts or invalid analysis. That's why Rumsfeld was such a hoot for me; he didn't let those yahoos get their talking points out while they were posing their question. (too bad he didn't have a clue about the war in Iraq)

1104 pink freud  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:48:24pm

re: #1099 SanFranciscoZionist

Thanks--it's not hard to test for, and if we are (unlikely) both carriers, well, I hear adoption is just as exhausting and painful and expensive as actually being pregnant.
/

The pure joy that comes from sharing your life and love with a child is worth every bit of it.

/ I will refrain from mentioning the teenage years ... LOL!

1105 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:50:10pm

re: #1017 Shanimal1918

Just adding my 2 cents: Evolution wouldn't make my top 50 issues facing the country (or the world) in this day and age. It's just not an important issue to me, in the big picture. I do wonder what the general population attitude is towards this. Are there any legit polls that show what people believe to be the most important issues for the present and future?

Frequently, what ARE the most important issue and what people THINK are the most important issues are radically dissimilar things...until it's too late.

1106 green_earth  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:50:28pm

re: re: #852 Shug

why is it that people with only a few comments over large parts of time, always seem to post something critical of eliminating the ID pseudoscience?

Not my intent, but appears that way nonetheless. As a matter of fact, I would support the elimination of ID in public schools. I'm just more concerned in it becoming yet another reason to keep democrats in office, that's all.

That said, I think I need to study up on this issue more, so I'll withhold more critical comments until I do ;-)

re: #881 Walter L. Newton

Oh, so yours is an purely anecdotal attempt at telling Charles what to post on his blog?

Absolutely not - no, no, no. Charles' blog is his own, and I'm thrilled it exists. LGF is a wonderful place with the most classy group of commentators anywhere. Just because I'm not thrilled with Charles' focus on this issue, should not mean anything to him, and I'm sure it doesn't! I'll take it with the rest of why I visit this site. Thanks.

1107 lobo91  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:50:35pm

re: #1102 Mich-again

There is a fork in the road and one of the choices eventually leads to eugenics.

Because once we say its OK to kill a fetus based on a medical test saying it won't be perfect, then its a slippery slope.

"We" (meaning the majority of Americans) already apparently think it's ok to do so for pretty much any reason, including personal convenience.

I think we're already well down that slope.

1108 jcw46  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:51:21pm

How many conservatives/Republicans are wrapped up in this creationism assault? I don't mean names, I mean an estimate of actual numbers of people in local leadership positions that support this effort by the creationists. Any one have an idea? If the numbers are signifigant then the party needs to be flushed. Michael Steele may be a good man but I don't think he understands the job that he faces.

1109 freetoken  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:52:05pm

re: #1087 jcw46


My only contention is that creationism within the Republican Party, whether 3 governors, 6 representatives or whatever, had little to do with the Republicans loss of the House, Senate and Presidency.

As far as the balance in the House is concerned... I agree with you.

As for the Senate... I am unsure if the very tight races (especially the one in MN) had any decisive backlash against the GOP=religious right meme involved in the process.

However, in the POTUS race, it was my observation that the GOP candidate selection was highly distorted by the religious conservative bloc influence on the process. That included the "issue" surrounding evolution (e.g., raise-your-hand moment.)

And that indeed is what is on topic here... those three governors are jockeying for the 2012 race, and all of them are coming up with positions that will be amenable to blocs within the GOP, and it appears as part of the jockeying Darwin has to be thrown under the bus chariot.

1110 Kulhwch  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:52:58pm

re: #411 Charles

Now up to 7 hate mails.

A man's worth is judged by the weight of his enemies.  Of course, mouth-breathing knuckle-walkers only count for half.

};)     [Love the thread, always a good time.]

1111 brandon13  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:53:41pm

Slumdog wins best picture.

1112 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:54:28pm
1113 Mich-again  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:55:33pm

re: #1107 lobo91

"We" (meaning the majority of Americans) already apparently think it's ok to do so for pretty much any reason, including personal convenience.

For whatever reason, personal convenience is a more acceptable reason than I didn't want to have girl. Or a child whose IQ would be subpar. Or a child with green eyes. Or a child who would be likely to develop cancer. Those are the kinds of questions that science will eventually provide to prospective moms.

The current simple yes or no question is easy in comparison.

1114 brandon13  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:55:49pm

re: #1112 Kolbe

I come here for these threads almost exclusively, but I don't pretend to speak for everyone.

1115 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:56:28pm

re: #1108 jcw46

How many conservatives/Republicans are wrapped up in this creationism assault? I don't mean names, I mean an estimate of actual numbers of people in local leadership positions that support this effort by the creationists. Any one have an idea? If the numbers are signifigant then the party needs to be flushed. Michael Steele may be a good man but I don't think he understands the job that he faces.

The problem is that in too many places they are too numerous to be flushed.

1116 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:56:45pm

re: #1112 Kolbe

Please get your own blog so we can come over and tell you what to do with it.

1117 Scion9  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:58:51pm

re: #1103 jcw46

Rumsfeld really wasn't beholden to the electorate. A handful of journalists can do significant damage to a candidate. Should they, as an establishment, heap their scorn on a single politician that has totally alienated himself from them, they can absolutely destroy him. Including ones that are already in office. Politicians essentially have to bow and scrape to the press; right-wing politicians especially so.

1118 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:59:19pm

re: #1061 Dark_Falcon

Agreed. Sorry I haven't posted here until now, but I was watching TV checking Ebay. Any meltdowns yet?

A few. Just click on the deleted posts, and count the different blocks.

1119 avanti  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:59:23pm

re: #1086 Mich-again

Somewhat of an understatement there. Here is my understanding of the problem.

The right says a* is unacceptable period. The left say a* is the choice of the mother unless she makes her choice based on a non-politically correct motive. The middle says, I'm glad its not me having to make that choice.

I think there is some middle ground. For example, calling giving a rape victim the morning after pill a murderer is one extreme, a late term abortion for convenience sake is the other.
I'd like to see the pro lifers embrace birth control education rather then abstinence education simply because one works, the other does not. I don't oppose over the counter sales of the morning after pill either since fertilized embryos often fail to attach naturally and it's a better choice then even a first trimester abortion.
Even if Roe v Wade is overturned, it'll still be legal in most states and would only mean a road trip for those in other states. Those that think that a constitutional amendment would pass banning abortion are unrealistic in my opinion, even if your party supports it.

1120 scjeff  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:00:54pm

I have to wonder when I see otherwise intelligent people like Sanford fumble through a statement if they are speaking from their hearts or from their party's perceived base. Potential lost votes may change the minds of many a current creationist proponent if the voters make it clear in volumes that matter that they will not elect or re-elect creationists.

1121 Throbert McGee  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:06:22pm

re: #709 Dr. Shalit

Harvey Milk was a San Fransisco City Councilman. He WAS Gay, He WAS a Democrat, He WAS the owner of a Small Business (A Photography Shop) and in his own way a Libertarian. He ALSO was killed for no good reason, along with the SF Mayor.

In my understanding, the mayor (George Moscone) was very clearly the primary target of the gunman (Dan White) -- Milk was one of several secondary targets whom White hoped to shoot after shooting Moscone, but as it turned out, Milk was the only secondary who happened to be around that day.

In the telling and retelling and mythologizing of the event, however, Milk got turned into White's primary target -- thus making it a homophobia-motivated slaying, and transforming Milk into America's First Gay Rights Martyr.

I haven't seen the movie Milk, so I don't know whether the movie makes any attempt to untangle some of this myth-creation, or just runs with it.

1122 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:06:37pm

re: #1090 formercorpsman

I appreciate your civility. You have a good night too.

1123 Mich-again  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:07:15pm

re: #1119 avanti

I think there is some middle ground.

Always. But some people only see in black and white while others only see different shades of gray.

1124 Mich-again  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:08:04pm

re: #1120 scjeff

I have to wonder when I see otherwise intelligent people like Sanford fumble through a statement if they are speaking from their hearts or from their party's perceived base.

Mark Twain said if you don't lie, you don't need a good memory.

1125 Summer Seale  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:08:41pm

re: #350 Sheepdogess

Agree.

I would add one more.

6) Traditional family, two parents, a mom and a dad.

Yes, I agree. Anyone as imperfect as to be outside of a family of 2 children, a house, a white picket fence, a dog and a cat, cannot be a true conservative.

It must truly be amazing to be such a perfect being; free of all accidents and mistakes around you; untouched by circumstances outside of your control or by mistakes of your own making; living a carefree life as you wave goodbye to the husband on his way to work in a perfect office park someplace nearby.

Anyone outside of this image truly cannot enter the party and should be shunned by the local community, and all eyes must be downcast from their direction as they shop on Main Street, so as to demonstrate the social displeasure at their plight for they are cursed. Single moms should even be accused at times of witchcraft for not conforming to the norm, and should be weeded out of the community.

Atheists should be "put to the question" as they are shown the "implements". Mothers or fathers with a deceased spouse should immediately remarry or their children must be taken away instantly and put into a loving foster home as their surviving members linger in the stocks for heresy against "The Word".

We must not tolerate anything outside of the norm, be it in art, music, or literature - these must only be a reflection of our praise for the higher being.

Children of single parents should also no longer be allowed to attend school to limit the chances of "infecting" other children with their twisted values that they are given at home.

Everything must be perfectly ordered, perfectly spaced, perfectly run, and perfectly understood and accepted. Progress is a way for the devil to test our faith. Anyone caught outside of this norm should be hauled up to trial and "pressed to the question" if they refuse to answer. Imperfection should never be tolerated.

Is that it? Did I clarify your position, or should I go on?

1126 jcw46  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:10:35pm

re: #1109 freetoken

As far as the balance in the House is concerned... I agree with you.

As for the Senate... I am unsure if the very tight races (especially the one in MN) had any decisive backlash against the GOP=religious right meme involved in the process.

However, in the POTUS race, it was my observation that the GOP candidate selection was highly distorted by the religious conservative bloc influence on the process. That included the "issue" surrounding evolution (e.g., raise-your-hand moment.)

And that indeed is what is on topic here... those three governors are jockeying for the 2012 race, and all of them are coming up with positions that will be amenable to blocs within the GOP, and it appears as part of the jockeying Darwin has to be thrown under the bus chariot.


I have no problem with making sure that those who would promote faith based opinion in the Public classroom should be well known. I just don't see it having any affect recently. The presidency was decided by many things other than the acceptance of creationism in the classroom. It was a plebiscite on the economy and the our current position in the world. Sadly the Republicans were unprepared to win it.

Being Christian myself, I of course feel less alarm about the Idea of Intelligent Design. That said, I am concerned about the appearance of theocracy that forcing that teaching into public schools would be seen by those of other religions/no religion. As Mandy stated above, of even more concern is the lawsuit that would occur demanding equal time for other creation theories from other religions. Apparently DI and the governors have given little thought to this happening and the governors are derelict of duty on the face of it for assuming that they can dictate one religion's teachings over another's without a court fight ensuing. Even worse would be if they won. Science classes would become a point where religions would contend for position and thus the learning of actual science would be lost in the noise.

1127 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:14:46pm
1128 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:16:17pm
1129 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:16:29pm

re: #1125 Summer

Well said!

1130 jcw46  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:16:53pm

re: #1124 Mich-again

Mark Twain said if you don't lie, you don't need a good memory.


also, if you know what you're talking about you probably won't fumble around for words. Clearly in the quotes they didn't have clue.

this one's my favorite:
"one of the laws of thermodynamics which is the law of, of ... in essence, destruction."

Even I, years from school, have a better understanding of the laws of thermodynamics than this.

1131 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:18:15pm

re: #1127 Salamantis

Don't quote it, Sala!

1132 dry_heavz_4_alla  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:21:22pm

re: #1078 Killian Bundy

/I've always thought a useful profile statistic would be the dings meted out, both + and -

I understand the frustration, but please tread lightly. I'm one of those guilty of dinging up (and occassionaly down, I'll admit) comments without follow-up primarily because I usually don't have the time to wade through all 500+ comments to make sure I'm not saying something that's already been addressed (people are quick to point out "if only you had read the whole thread!"). This is also the main reason I rarely comment (that, and a 4 yr old).

In complete fairness, one shouldn't ding anything down unless following up with a rebuttal. But, also to be fair, this is only practical in real time (or something close to it). So perhaps down dings could be limited to the reply process ... and the reply process limited to the last 100 posts or so to keep things relavant and topical.

1133 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:23:04pm

re: #1131 Sharmuta

Don't quote it, Sala!

Oops! Too late!

1134 Killian Bundy  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:28:46pm

re: #1132 dry_heavz_4_alla

You have 122 comments, I doubt you're that interesting.

/I'm talking about those that have meted out thousands of up and/or down dings, that information would be fascinating, at least to me

1135 Kronocide  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:29:37pm

Stinky has informed me that the amount of posts in this thread that technically discuss ID/Creationism has passed 1,000 posts. That makes it official: it's important. All posts stating otherwise are factually incorrect, essentially wrong, and moot. Adding a whining kicker will earn you the boot.

That is all.

1136 Promethea  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:31:27pm

You all know, of course, that it's turtles all the way down.

Enough said.

1137 jaunte  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:32:43pm

re: #1136 Promethea

You all know, of course, that it's turtles all the way down.

Are you talking about potential GOP candidates?

1138 Killian Bundy  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:33:57pm

re: #1135 BigPapa

See open light socket.

/stick finger in same

1139 dry_heavz_4_alla  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:35:33pm

re: #1134 Killian Bundy

You have 122 comments, I doubt you're that interesting.

/I'm talking about those that have meted out thousands of up and/or down dings, that information would be fascinating, at least to me

ouch ... like I suggested, I'm "multi-tasking" here and actually try to read and absorb what's being said in my free time ... and my suggestion was meant to be constructive, not personal/petty/vindictive.

1140 Kronocide  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:37:39pm

re: #1136 Promethea

?

1141 Killian Bundy  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:38:53pm

re: #1139 dry_heavz_4_alla

ouch ... like I suggested, I'm "multi-tasking" here and actually try to read and absorb what's being said in my free time ... and my suggestion was meant to be constructive, not personal/petty/vindictive.

I get that, you're cool.

/I just want to see who holds the record for down dinging, without having to guess

1142 funky chicken  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:42:40pm
Some LGF readers ask me: Am I “obsessed?” Do I “hate Christians?” Why do I keep “harping” on this issue?

Answer: The top 3 GOP governors in America are all creationists, who have no problems with teaching pseudo-science to American children.

That’s why. This is wrong, and it’s one reason why the Democrats now control both houses of Congress. If this anti-scientific insanity continues, the Democrats will be in power for the next 20 years.

I saw this happen in Kansas. I was in college and grad school during the rise of the KS creationists, and it's no stretch to say that creationists and Operation Rescue freaks are wholly responsible for the fact that KS now has a democrat governor. If the GOP nominates a creationist for president in 2012, KS could actually go D in that election too.

1143 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:46:02pm
1144 funky chicken  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:48:34pm

We may be seeing the effects of having a hard core pro-life litmus test in GOP primaries....your hard-core pro-lifers are more likely to be influenced by religious arguments about creationism too.

1145 dry_heavz_4_alla  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:51:23pm

re: #1141 Killian Bundy

I get that, you're cool.

/I just want to see who holds the record for down dinging, without having to guess

And I get your sentiment re: serial drive-by dawn-dingers. I guess I was trying to address that and multiple tangents as well ... like why some people have time to rate but don't comment much, and how some threads can get so long they lose their "freshness", and how the combination of these things can lead to behavior that is not necessarily or intentionally trollish. Some blog/chatroom hybrid structure with the transparency you're suggesting might mitigate several of these issues.

1146 Promethea  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:53:24pm

re: #1140 BigPapa

?

You know, of course, that the universe is resting on the back of a giant turtle.

"And what is that turtle standing on?" asked BigPapa.

"An even larger turtle." explained Promethea.

"But what is that turtle standing on?" asked BigPapa.

1147 Killian Bundy  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:55:07pm

re: #1145 dry_heavz_4_alla

I read that several times and it still doesn't make sense to me.

/no, I'm talking about the hardcores

1148 avspatti  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:58:17pm

I am sorry that I haven't read this whole thread, but I don't understand why this upsets everybody so much. Do governors have so much power that they can compel schools districts to teach a specific subject or interject it into the classroom? I am a teacher, and I have never seen any governor with that kind of power. Curriculum is decided upon by school boards, departments of education, the legislature etc. Most definitely, NOT by any one person.

If they, in fact, do not have that kind of power, aren't people down on them for their personal beliefs? They aren't under any law that says they cannot speak their mind on these issues even if they are controversial. How is this different from what Romney went through for being a Mormon?

If this is incorrect science, the truth will out. Let the process take place.

1149 VioletTiger  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:59:25pm

re: #63 HelloDare

I wrote Michael Steele a week and a half ago asking what his and the republican party's position on creationism is. Haven't heard anything yet.

I get more feedback from Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi. I at least get a form letter back.

The Republicans need somebody, just one person, anybody, to stand up and say something against creationism. If they don't it will be identified as the creationists party.

This really sums it up for me. Steele needs to come out with a position on this and hammer home to any GOP hopefuls that pushing a creationist agenda will be a loser.

The downdingers really went to town on this thread.

1150 RedSoxNation  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 9:59:48pm

re: #760 buzzsawmonkey

The word you are fumbling for is "consensus."

Not "census."

Opps. I knew I was misspelling it but was making my points in a rush. If only I had an "idiot" checker in addition to the spell checker.

1151 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 10:01:37pm

re: #1143 oinkster

Your lying, gratuitous slander richly merits and deserves your skinned carcass being turned on a red hot spit over a blazing flame, frying your bacon till it's sizzling crisp, then being served up piping hot and smoking from the LGF Troll House Barbeque for the avid consumption of all and sundry Lizardhood.

Complete with napkins for the grease dripping.

1152 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 10:05:44pm

re: #1148 avspatti

I am sorry that I haven't read this whole thread, but I don't understand why this upsets everybody so much. Do governors have so much power that they can compel schools districts to teach a specific subject or interject it into the classroom? I am a teacher, and I have never seen any governor with that kind of power. Curriculum is decided upon by school boards, departments of education, the legislature etc. Most definitely, NOT by any one person.

If they, in fact, do not have that kind of power, aren't people down on them for their personal beliefs? They aren't under any law that says they cannot speak their mind on these issues even if they are controversial. How is this different from what Romney went through for being a Mormon?

If this is incorrect science, the truth will out. Let the process take place.

In Louisiana (as well as other states), the governor does indeed have the power to open the door, pave the way and show their support for creationism to be taught.

If you believe that means nothing to local departments of education and local school boards, you are seriously uninformed.

1153 RedSoxNation  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 10:08:33pm

re: #769 theheat

I disagree. I want to know if their agendas include Creationist bullshit. And most Creationists argue they know exactly what they're talking about, and why, until they're blue in the face. In fact, they're pretty uppity about it.

From a political strategy standpoint, Republicans cannot split the party over something like this because this issue is really not that important when compared to other larger issues like the economy, national defense, federal judges, etc.. I understand your frustration, but I'd rather have a leader who panders to the creationists than a leader who panders to the teacher unions, Acorn, Code Pink, Global Warming Alarmists, Moveon.org, George Soros, etc. There is no such thing as a perfect party. We could do a lot worse than having a couple of politicians who pander to creationists or, even worse, who may believe it.

1154 funky chicken  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 10:09:50pm

re: #702 Sharmuta

I am so infuriated by your comments, I don't even know what to say at the moment. Single mothers (and fathers!) are just as capable of producing well adjusted offspring as anyone else. And "traditional families" are just as capable of producing sociopaths as anyone else. Parents are human and capable of doing well or poor by their children regardless of their circumstances, m'kay?!

I wonder if sheepdoggess and her ilk would ban my kids from public school for the years that my husband has been deployed to the middle east? He's spent a hell of a lot of time away from us, which means that my kids have been raised by me, on my own, quite a bit.

snort

1155 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 10:09:57pm

re: #1143 oinkster

If you get the gate, you'll have earned it.

1156 dry_heavz_4_alla  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 10:13:05pm

re: #1147 Killian Bundy

I read that several times and it still doesn't make sense to me.

/no, I'm talking about the hardcores

I think I took your #1134 the wrong way. I now understand "I doubt you're that interesting" as "I doubt you're a serial down-dinger". My follow-up post was in the context of several other posts I ran across suggesting harsh measures for stealth dingers (esp. down-dingers). Sorry for the confusion.

1157 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 10:13:14pm

re: #1153 RedSoxNation

I'd rather have a leader who panders to no one. It's been said here before but it bears repeating: This issue is of grave import, because it deals with the First Amendment and also creationism doesn't just attack evolution; It ultimately attacks most of science in general. As a doctrine of anti-science, it has no place in science classes.

1158 Rustler  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 10:17:07pm

re: #1143 oinkster Hey Numnuts it's an important discussion. Allowing 1 rel;igions creation mythos into schools means we must allow everyones Creation mythos into schools. Creationism isn't science it is thuroughly disproved to have occured in the Biblical sense. And if it occured as the bible said it did and God seeded this Hoax to fool mankind don't you think we should play along.

1159 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 10:19:42pm

re: #1148 avspatti

I am sorry that I haven't read this whole thread, but I don't understand why this upsets everybody so much. Do governors have so much power that they can compel schools districts to teach a specific subject or interject it into the classroom? I am a teacher, and I have never seen any governor with that kind of power. Curriculum is decided upon by school boards, departments of education, the legislature etc. Most definitely, NOT by any one person.

They can sign bills into law that allow sexctarian religious dogma to be shoveled like so much shit into everybodys' kids' naive, gullible, pliable and credulous young minds by creationist teachers and school boards. Jindal recently did just that.

If they, in fact, do not have that kind of power, aren't people down on them for their personal beliefs? They aren't under any law that says they cannot speak their mind on these issues even if they are controversial. How is this different from what Romney went through for being a Mormon?

Romney wasn't trying to abuse government power in order to enable the shoehorning of Mormonism down the throats of America's youth in public schools.

If this is incorrect science, the truth will out. Let the process take place.

Yeah, right, sure; Teach the Controversy! Academic Freedom! So the Disco Institute can use compliant churches to program their parisioners' kids like zombic memebots with creationist talking points, debating tactics, and obscure fallacies, and launch them out the door each morning like misguided missiles, to relentlessly barrage every hour-long public high school science class with them, thus strangling the attempt to teach authentic science in the schoolhouse crib.

Debating tactics and talking points like these:

[Link: ncseweb.org...]

Obscure fallacies like these:

[Link: timpanogos.wordpress.com...]

It would be a catastrophically disastrous for genuine science education. Which is precisely what the Disco Institute intends.

Look how easy it is to screw folks over by cynically applying rhetorical sophistry to the most transparently ridiculous contentions:

[Link: www.teachthemscience.org...]

Fuck this creationist Trojan Horse and the bullshit pseudojustifications it rides in on!

1160 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 10:32:37pm

re: #1153 RedSoxNation

From a political strategy standpoint, Republicans cannot split the party over something like this because this issue is really not that important when compared to other larger issues like the economy, national defense, federal judges, etc.. I understand your frustration, but I'd rather have a leader who panders to the creationists than a leader who panders to the teacher unions, Acorn, Code Pink, Global Warming Alarmists, Moveon.org, George Soros, etc. There is no such thing as a perfect party. We could do a lot worse than having a couple of politicians who pander to creationists or, even worse, who may believe it.

It was a Reagan-appointed federal judge who quite wisely and constitutionally ejected this crap from public schools. If you don't think that hamstringing the bioscience education of this nation's youth will not entail severe and dire future economic and national security consequences, you haven't been contemplating the ramifications nearly enough. And pandering pols who pass this anti-science crap are massively damaging the bioscience education of EVERYBODY'S kids who attend public school in the areas in which they legislate or govern. If we continue to allow creationists to hold the party hostage to their overweening desire to foist their sectarian religious dogmas upon everybody else's kids in public school science class, we can expect a long, languishing exile in the political hinterlands, because we will have conceded the very voters that put us over the top: moderates, centrists, independents, and Reagan Democrats.

It's not an either/or; we can reject BOTH leftism AND public-school-mandated creationism. I refuse to choose between two such unacceptable alternatives. I will abide NEITHER of them.

1161 brandon13  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 10:34:39pm

re: #1153 RedSoxNation

From a political strategy standpoint, Republicans cannot split the party over something like this because this issue is really not that important when compared to other larger issues like the economy, national defense, federal judges, etc.. I understand your frustration, but I'd rather have a leader who panders to the creationists than a leader who panders to the teacher unions, Acorn, Code Pink, Global Warming Alarmists, Moveon.org, George Soros, etc. There is no such thing as a perfect party. We could do a lot worse than having a couple of politicians who pander to creationists or, even worse, who may believe it.

But it's not just a couple of politicians that believe in this crap. There are many. And I don't understand why you believe you should be able to tell other people which issues are important. If this isn't an important issue for you, fine. But you can't say that it's not an important issue, period, because judging by the 1,000+ responses to this thread, quite a few people do find it important.

1162 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 10:37:41pm

The whining seems to be getting louder in here.

1163 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 10:42:10pm

re: #1162 Charles

The whining seems to be getting louder in here.

They always try to hit the tail end of long threads like this later at night, hoping their crapola will go both undeleted and unanswered till the morning.

1164 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 10:45:04pm

We also have someone screaming about James Randi in the dowsing thread.

1165 Kulhwch  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 11:00:47pm

re: #1164 Charles

We also have someone screaming about James Randi in the dowsing thread.

Is he spontaneously manifesting again?

}:)     [Drat that pesky Randi!]

1166 realwest  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 11:06:43pm

re: #1162 Charles
Charles I hope you don't think this is "whining" and I'll preface this comment by saying that I haven't even tried to scan a thread this long.
I'm a Christian. I believe in God and in Jesus Christ. I also believe in Evolution and I don't want religion taught in public schools as science or anything else.
Religion should not be taught in public schools, period.
BUT - and you knew this was coming - despite Sal's dire warnings in his #1160 to the effect that "It's not an either/or; we can reject BOTH leftism AND public-school-mandated creationism." that's not correct if by "We" he means the Republican Party. The Republican Party is shot through with creationists and, judging just by thread topic,three of them are Governors (four if you include Palin but I don't think she belongs on the list because she had stated publicly that she doesn't want creationism taught in the public schools). Those folks were elected by a whole lot of creationists. To Governorships no less. And while I also agree with Sal about the risks to America if this creationism or any other form of religion is taught in our public schools, including in science classes, the simple facts are that the ideas dreamed up by the LEFT, by BILL AYERS and the NEA amongst others are, right now, a more immediate danger to this nation. The LEFTIST agenda has to include education in the public schools or it will ultimately FAIL for people will not be studying revisionist history, will not be given self-esteem, will not learn completely inaccurate ideas about our government, how it works and about the Constitution. In other words the Socialist Nanny State that is the Left's wet dream cannot come to fruition if the LEFT doesn't control the public schools.
And right now, today, February 23, 2009, the Left is actively trying to and are so far succeeding - to a degree - in implementing their Nanny State dreams because, in large part, huge numbers of American voters, especially younger voters, are products of an educational system which has been run by the LEFT not by Creationists.
Yes, creationism in the Public Schools is a very serious danger; but the agenda of the LEFT in public schools is, I submit a far greater and imminent danger. So we either stay with and try to change the Republican party WITHOUT drumming out creationists NOW, or we will have the LEFT's version of America for a long, long time.

1167 asu86pe  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 11:14:33pm

Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, cursed a tree and it died before the witnesses (See Matthew 21:19-20, or Mark 11 :143, 20) acknowledged a CREATOR (See John 3:2), but this is not enough for us to acknowledge a CREATOR?

The witnessed miracles by Jesus and recorded in the four Gospels, but this is not enough for us to acknowledge a CREATOR?

Apostles of Jesus, martyred witnesses to the power of the Gospels and even, performed miracles, but this is not enough for us to acknowledge there is a CREATOR?

Many scientists, of old and today, did/do their work from an acknowledgment of a CREATOR.

Maybe "Creation/Creator" acknowledgment isn't "one" popular idea enough for Republicans to get elected but is always necessary to be popular or principled and right?

I say, occasionally it is necessary to stand and acknowledge the right thing and not the popular thing which is wrong. From what else do we acknowledge that our inalienable rights of man be derived if not from an acknowledgment of a CREATOR?


Yes, I acknowledge there are bones of dinosaurs everywhere, but what of it? It does not disagree with the acknowledgment of a CREATOR!

1168 Claire  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 11:19:23pm

Okay, I'm confused. I coulda sworn I heard Palin say before the election that her father was a science teacher and that she thought only evolution should be taught in science class. (Regardless of her personal beliefs.) I was happy to hear that- That's the only way I could justify voting for her at the time.......that and the fact there was no way in hell I'd ever vote for Obama.

If I had heard her say equal time should be given to ID, would I have voted for her and ole' what'shisname? That's a really tough question.

But I have to think that given the proper information, SOME of these people could be shown where they are being misled and educated about the facts, or do you think it's hopeless to even try? They can't all be willfully evil about this can they? It's almost to depressing to ponder.

1169 brandon13  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 11:21:24pm

re: #1167 asu86pe

You have got to be fucking kidding me.

1170 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 11:21:48pm

re: #1166 realwest

Charles I hope you don't think this is "whining" and I'll preface this comment by saying that I haven't even tried to scan a thread this long.
I'm a Christian. I believe in God and in Jesus Christ. I also believe in Evolution and I don't want religion taught in public schools as science or anything else.
Religion should not be taught in public schools, period.
BUT - and you knew this was coming - despite Sal's dire warnings in his #1160 to the effect that "It's not an either/or; we can reject BOTH leftism AND public-school-mandated creationism." that's not correct if by "We" he means the Republican Party. The Republican Party is shot through with creationists and, judging just by thread topic,three of them are Governors (four if you include Palin but I don't think she belongs on the list because she had stated publicly that she doesn't want creationism taught in the public schools). Those folks were elected by a whole lot of creationists. To Governorships no less. And while I also agree with Sal about the risks to America if this creationism or any other form of religion is taught in our public schools, including in science classes, the simple facts are that the ideas dreamed up by the LEFT, by BILL AYERS and the NEA amongst others are, right now, a more immediate danger to this nation. The LEFTIST agenda has to include education in the public schools or it will ultimately FAIL for people will not be studying revisionist history, will not be given self-esteem, will not learn completely inaccurate ideas about our government, how it works and about the Constitution. In other words the Socialist Nanny State that is the Left's wet dream cannot come to fruition if the LEFT doesn't control the public schools.
And right now, today, February 23, 2009, the Left is actively trying to and are so far succeeding - to a degree - in implementing their Nanny State dreams because, in large part, huge numbers of American voters, especially younger voters, are products of an educational system which has been run by the LEFT not by Creationists.
Yes, creationism in the Public Schools is a very serious danger; but the agenda of the LEFT in public schools is, I submit a far greater and imminent danger. So we either stay with and try to change the Republican party WITHOUT drumming out creationists NOW, or we will have the LEFT's version of America for a long, long time.

I don't want to see ALL creationists drummed out of the Republican party, but I DO want to see those creationist pols who adamantly insist upon pushing unconsitutional anti-science legislation upon the school systems they regulate, and those voting creationists who will only remain with the Republican party if they can elect such pandering politicians, to be ejected, for as long as they remain, we will lose the votes of the centrists, moderates, independents and Reagan Democrats, which is a LOT more votes, and THAT will leave us with the Left's vision and version of Americal for a long, long time.

They can believe whatever they want, and be welcomed; where the line should be drawn is at the abuse of the machinery of the state in order to foist their personal religious convictions on other peoples' kids in public high school science class.

1171 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 11:30:28pm

re: #1167 asu86pe

Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, cursed a tree and it died before the witnesses (See Matthew 21:19-20, or Mark 11 :143, 20) acknowledged a CREATOR (See John 3:2), but this is not enough for us to acknowledge a CREATOR?

The witnessed miracles by Jesus and recorded in the four Gospels, but this is not enough for us to acknowledge a CREATOR?

Apostles of Jesus, martyred witnesses to the power of the Gospels and even, performed miracles, but this is not enough for us to acknowledge there is a CREATOR?

Many scientists, of old and today, did/do their work from an acknowledgment of a CREATOR.

Maybe "Creation/Creator" acknowledgment isn't "one" popular idea enough for Republicans to get elected but is always necessary to be popular or principled and right?

I say, occasionally it is necessary to stand and acknowledge the right thing and not the popular thing which is wrong. From what else do we acknowledge that our inalienable rights of man be derived if not from an acknowledgment of a CREATOR?

Yes, I acknowledge there are bones of dinosaurs everywhere, but what of it? It does not disagree with the acknowledgment of a CREATOR!

Some scientists believe and have believed in a creator while others do and have not, but their empirical science advances do not stand or fall upon such supernatural premises.

The presence or absence of a creator is not empirically ascertainable, and as such, the acknowledgement of either the presence or the absence of such a creator is not science, and does not belong in public high school science class any more than your religious exhortations do.

And our inalienable rights are guaranteed by our government, in the US Constitution; while it is a much-beloved founding document of our nation, the Declaration of Independence was addresed not to the American people, but to King George, and does not carry the force of law. Religion and politics are legally fused not in the US, but in Iran and Saudi Arabia. We are a constitutional democracy, not a totalitarian theocracy.

1172 realwest  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 11:36:25pm

re: #1170 Salamantis
Sal, with all due respect,

I DO want to see those creationist pols who adamantly insist upon pushing unconsitutional anti-science legislation upon the school systems they regulate, and those voting creationists who will only remain with the Republican party if they can elect such pandering politicians, to be ejected, for as long as they remain, we will lose the votes of the centrists, moderates, independents and Reagan Democrats, which is a LOT more votes, and THAT will leave us with the Left's vision and version of Americal for a long, long time.

How do you know that? McCain, as lame as he was won something over 58 MILLION voters. I sincerely doubt that any signifcant percentage of those voters fit into the category of whom we should throw out of the Republican Party.
If you have some statistics or links that indicate that I'm wrong, kindly post them. I MUST go to sleep now and I would like to continue this but I just can't do anymore tonight.
Have a good night, and I hope I get the chance to see you all down the road.
Good night, all.

1173 americanpundit  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 11:36:29pm
That’s why. This is wrong, and it’s one reason why the Democrats now control both houses of Congress. If this anti-scientific insanity continues, the Democrats will be in power for the next 20 years.

Charles, my friend, I almost always agree with you. Please know that. But I doubt governor support for creationism is anywhere near one of the issues Americans put Democrats in power over. Only 4 in 10 believe in Evolution. I'm not a creationist myself, but someone believing in it really isn't about to be a deciding factor over the White House or Congress.

Perhaps I'm just misreading what you wrote. In which case, apologies.

1174 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 11:49:57pm

re: #1172 realwest

Sal, with all due respect,

How do you know that? McCain, as lame as he was won something over 58 MILLION voters. I sincerely doubt that any signifcant percentage of those voters fit into the category of whom we should throw out of the Republican Party.
If you have some statistics or links that indicate that I'm wrong, kindly post them. I MUST go to sleep now and I would like to continue this but I just can't do anymore tonight.
Have a good night, and I hope I get the chance to see you all down the road.
Good night, all.

I am convinced that the people who are pushing for the unconstitutional inclusion of religious dogma in public high school science class are a small but well-funded and fanatical minority whose mouths are much louder than their numbers are large - and they enjoy more influence than their numbers are due precisely because they are not above not only abandoning, but also engaging in spiteful, lying slander campaigns against, ANYONE - Republican or Democrat - who refuses to be their creationist ideological clone. Those who refused to vote for McCain because he accepts evolutionary theory - which he does - are precisely the serially betraying millstone albatrosses who drag us down, and who we should cut from around our necks. Theirs is a one way street; they demand that we be there for them when they need us, but they're never there for us when WE need THEM. It is a fickle, faithless and abusive marriage, that richly merits dissolution.

1175 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Feb 22, 2009 11:59:00pm

Sal, realwest, you've both made excellent points tonight. I'd like to post a well thought out response but weariness prevents me from doing so. I will however, post such a response after I've slept. I did upding you both though, for you were both being thoughtful and wise advocates for your positions, positions you have taken in good faith.

Good night, and again thank you.

1176 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:01:35am

re: #1173 americanpundit

Charles, my friend, I almost always agree with you. Please know that. But I doubt governor support for creationism is anywhere near one of the issues Americans put Democrats in power over. Only 4 in 10 believe in Evolution. I'm not a creationist myself, but someone believing in it really isn't about to be a deciding factor over the White House or Congress.

Perhaps I'm just misreading what you wrote. In which case, apologies.

But, from the same poll, only 1 in 4 believe in creationism, and I'll wager that most of the rest of them do not want their children programmed in its relgious dogmas in public high school science classes. Even most of those who have no opinion on the matter almost certainly don't want their childrens' science education sabotaged by these zealots.

Empirical science is not a matter of public opinion polls. Empirically supported remains empirically supported and factually wrong remains factually wrong, no matter how many people deny the evidence or embrace the error. The earth was not a flat disc circling the sun in ancient times, and did not morph into a sun-circling sphere only when popular opinions changed.

And evolutionary theory does not require belief; it can be known to be the case through an objective and dispassionate perusal of the vast and massive plethora of empirical evidence for its contentions, unlike creationism/ID, which lacks any supporting empirical evidence whatsoever, and must either be believed in or not. This is what separates empirical science from religious dogma: the presence vs. the absence of supporting empirical evidence.

1177 Perfected Democrat  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:03:58am

"Yes, creationism in the Public Schools is a very serious danger; but the agenda of the LEFT in public schools is, I submit a far greater and imminent danger. So we either stay with and try to change the Republican party WITHOUT drumming out creationists NOW, or we will have the LEFT's version of America for a long, long time."

Probably true, pragmatically, but then it's the beginning of the slippery slope, ie. rationalizing the installation of sharia finance, then limited sharia law.... Apparently this is the Age of Compromise, so how about present "Intelligent Design", "Global Warming", and Darwin, together in some (new) segregated context, ie. maybe "Comparative Scientific Theory" or "Critical Analysis of Scientific Theory"... Ultimately, whether evolution is as yet 100% complete, most of us can agree that Darwin's basic premise of evolution likely represents the most rational approach in it's related scientific genre, but is itself, like other scientific arenas, constantly evolving. Perhaps throwing in a little "Intelligent Design", in a qualified context, would in fact simply strengthen the case for "Evolution", and certainly the related critical thinking; And after all we allow the teaching of various philosophies, including Marx, and for good reason.

1178 americanpundit  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:11:37am
re: #1176 Salamantis
But, from the same poll, only 1 in 4 believe in creationism, and I'll wager that most of the rest of them do not want their children programmed in its relgious dogmas in public high school science classes. Even most of those who have no opinion on the matter almost certainly don't want their childrens' science education sabotaged by these zealots.

Please understand that I'm not arguing whether evolution is fact. I'm firmly planted on that one. The question is whether believing in creationism is going to keep a Republican out of power.

I can't find a whole lot of national polls on what should be taught (oddly enough) but here's one from Pew Research in August 2005:


People on both sides of that argument think students should hear about various theories, however.

Nearly two-thirds of those in a Pew Research Center poll, 64 percent, say they believe “creationism” should be taught alongside “evolution” — a finding likely to spark more controversy about what is taught in the schools.

Not sure how much has changed in a couple of years, but people weren't overwhelmingly opposed to creationism being taught in schools.

1179 americanpundit  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:14:23am

And support for teaching creationism was nearly the same in 2000, when a People for the American Way -- a liberal group -- commissioned a poll.


The New York Times, after carefully examining the many different polling categories and their results, concluded that 79% of those polled favored the teaching of creation in some form or other (March 11 Times story). AiG contacted the Times to verify their math, and an education reporter confirmed with us that if “you looked at the different categories of all those people who expressed support in any way for creation in public schools, and if you add it up yourself—it was pretty straightforward, but they (PFAW) didn’t add it up for you so you had to do it yourself—79% of Americans expressed support in some way for the teaching of creation in public schools. I ran it by them (PFAW) and checked it.”
1180 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:16:17am

re: #1177 Perfected Democrat

"Yes, creationism in the Public Schools is a very serious danger; but the agenda of the LEFT in public schools is, I submit a far greater and imminent danger. So we either stay with and try to change the Republican party WITHOUT drumming out creationists NOW, or we will have the LEFT's version of America for a long, long time."

Probably true, pragmatically, but then it's the beginning of the slippery slope, ie. rationalizing the installation of sharia finance, then limited sharia law.... Apparently this is the Age of Compromise, so how about present "Intelligent Design", "Global Warming", and Darwin, together in some (new) segregated context, ie. maybe "Comparative Scientific Theory" or "Critical Analysis of Scientific Theory"... Ultimately, whether evolution is as yet 100% complete, most of us can agree that Darwin's basic premise of evolution likely represents the most rational approach in it's related scientific genre, but is itself, like other scientific arenas, constantly evolving. Perhaps throwing in a little "Intelligent Design", in a qualified context, would in fact simply strengthen the case for "Evolution", and certainly the related critical thinking; And after all we allow the teaching of various philosophies, including Marx, and for good reason.

It's unacceptable to just toss a religious dogma into the middle of empirical science. And a religious dogma is precisely what ID is. Judge John Jones found it to be so in the Dover case, and Daniel Dennett notes that there is not a single shred of empirical evidence for the notion. If there ain't empirical evidence for it, it ain't science.

[Link: ase.tufts.edu...]

Excerpt:

The focus on intelligent design has, paradoxically, obscured something else: genuine scientific controversies about evolution that abound. In just about every field there are challenges to one established theory or another. The legitimate way to stir up such a storm is to come up with an alternative theory that makes a prediction that is crisply denied by the reigning theory - but that turns out to be true, or that explains something that has been baffling defenders of the status quo, or that unifies two distant theories at the cost of some element of the currently accepted view.

To date, the proponents of intelligent design have not produced anything like that. No experiments with results that challenge any mainstream biological understanding. No observations from the fossil record or genomics or biogeography or comparative anatomy that undermine standard evolutionary thinking. Instead, the proponents of intelligent design use a ploy that works something like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a "controversy" to teach.

Note that the trick is content-free. You can use it on any topic. "Smith's work in geology supports my argument that the earth is flat," you say, misrepresenting Smith's work. When Smith responds with a denunciation of your misuse of her work, you respond, saying something like: "See what a controversy we have here? Professor Smith and I are locked in a titanic scientific debate. We should teach the controversy in the classrooms." And here is the delicious part: you can often exploit the very technicality of the issues to your own advantage, counting on most of us to miss the point in all the difficult details.

to be continued...

1181 freetoken  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:17:35am

re: #1167 asu86pe

From what else do we acknowledge that our inalienable rights of man be derived if not from an acknowledgment of a CREATOR?

Well.... ok... so, what do you propose should be the laws governing topics related to such (such as instruction in schools)?

1182 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:17:53am

continued...

William Dembski, one of the most vocal supporters of intelligent design, notes that he provoked Thomas Schneider, a biologist, into a response that Dr. Dembski characterizes as "some hair-splitting that could only look ridiculous to outsider observers." What looks to scientists - and is - a knockout objection by Dr. Schneider is portrayed to most everyone else as ridiculous hair splitting.

In short, no science. Indeed, no intelligent design hypothesis has even been ventured as a rival explanation of any biological phenomenon. This might seem surprising to people who think that intelligent design competes directly with the hypothesis of non-intelligent design by natural selection. But saying, as intelligent design proponents do, "You haven't explained everything yet," is not a competing hypothesis. Evolutionary biology certainly hasn't explained everything that perplexes biologists. But intelligent design hasn't yet tried to explain anything.

1183 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:26:47am

re: #1179 americanpundit

And support for teaching creationism was nearly the same in 2000, when a People for the American Way -- a liberal group -- commissioned a poll.

I also have no doubt that a wide majority of Southerners preferred for Jim Crow and school segregation to remain in place. That didn't make it right, nor did it make it the Constitutional - or American - thing to do. The tyranny of the majority should not be allowed to deny demonstrable facts, and their fervent emotional attachments should not dictate national policy, any more than the equally fervent emotional attachments of those Southerners should have.

I also note that you are posting a link from the young earth creationist site Answers In Genesis; do you then support teaching our schoolkids that the universe, the earth, and terrestrial life are all only a few thousand years old, and that each and every one of millions upon millions of terrestrial species both existent and extinct were recently created independently and as is in a six day span? That website does.

1184 americanpundit  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:33:31am
I also have no doubt that a wide majority of Southerners preferred for Jim Crow and school segregation to remain in place. That didn't make it right, nor did it make it the Constitutional - or American - thing to do.

I'm not arguing that it's right. I'm arguing that it's not a major reason that we are now or will be out of power in Washington. You appear to think that we're having an ideological debate over whether it's right to teach creationism. I'm simply saying advocating its teaching isn't as much of a political albatross as it's made to seem.

I also note that you are posting a link from the young earth creationist site Answers In Genesis; do you then support teaching our schoolkids that the universe, the earth, and terrestrial life are all only a few thousand years old, and that each and every one of millions upon millions of terrestrial species both existent and extinct were recently created independently and as is in a six day span? That website does.

No, I'm linking to the site because it came up in a Google search for support in teaching creation in public schools. If you care to disregard that source, please do.

Here's a poll from the Guardian where 29% of science teachers support teaching creationism. 79% of "science specialists" believe creationism should be discussed. Or check the Pew Research poll where 64% support teaching it.

1185 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:39:34am

re: #1178 americanpundit

re: #1176 Salamantis

But, from the same poll, only 1 in 4 believe in creationism, and I'll wager that most of the rest of them do not want their children programmed in its relgious dogmas in public high school science classes. Even most of those who have no opinion on the matter almost certainly don't want their childrens' science education sabotaged by these zealots.

Amer: Please understand that I'm not arguing whether evolution is fact. I'm firmly planted on that one. The question is whether believing in creationism is going to keep a Republican out of power.

I can't find a whole lot of national polls on what should be taught (oddly enough) but here's one from Pew Research in August 2005:

People on both sides of that argument think students should hear about various theories, however.

Nearly two-thirds of those in a Pew Research Center poll, 64 percent, say they believe “creationism” should be taught alongside “evolution” — a finding likely to spark more controversy about what is taught in the schools.

Not sure how much has changed in a couple of years, but people weren't overwhelmingly opposed to creationism being taught in schools.

This is because people have been deceived by the creationist rhetoric about teaching all 'althernative theories.' But ID is NOT an 'alternative theory'; it lacks any supporting empirical evidence whatsoever, and as such is not a theory at all, in the scientific sense. It therefore does not belong in public high school science class. I refuse to embrace the cynical expedient of indulging popular delusions on this issue; if we do so, it is our children and our future as a free, prosperous and secure constitutional democracy that will suffer for it.

Empirical facts are what they are, and neither popularity nor pious fervor will sway them. If they did, we should embrace the Islamocreationism of the Harun Yahya that the US Disco Institute (which invented the term ID in a vain attempt to circumvent 1st Amendment prohibitions against teaching creationism in public school science class) has made common cause with, for no one is more piously fervent that someone who is willing to blow themselves up in order to kill you, simply because you do not share their religious beliefs.

Me, I'm against appeasement and dhimmitude in ALL its forms - no matter WHO demands it of me.

1186 Cheese Eating Victory Monkey  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:49:12am

Did anyone notice that words such as "intelligent", "design", and "creation" have very positive connotations to the average person? Yes, I realize that the agenda they're pushing is ridiculous, but those proponents sure have a way with taglines and imagery. Maybe they can get a job with the hopenchange marketing team in 2012...

1187 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:52:08am

re: #1184 americanpundit

I'm not arguing that it's right. I'm arguing that it's not a major reason that we are now or will be out of power in Washington. You appear to think that we're having an ideological debate over whether it's right to teach creationism. I'm simply saying advocating its teaching isn't as much of a political albatross as it's made to seem.

To teach empirically demonstrable untruths or empirically unsupportable metaphysical notions to our children as if they were scientific facts is an affront to our claim to care for our own offspring and a betrayal of facts, logic, evidence, and truth. There IS NO credible debate about the veracity, credibility or human decency of doing so; it utterly lacks justification or excuse. If you don't think that advocating such an action does any political damage once people seriously consider the facts and issues, I point you to Kansas, where the egregiou actions of the creationist lobby there resulted in a democratic governor in that state. And Kansas is hardly a hotbed of liberalism.

No, I'm linking to the site because it came up in a Google search for support in teaching creation in public schools. If you care to disregard that source, please do.

I loathe the site; they make it a policy to lie for religious reasons. It's called taqqiya.

Here's a poll from the Guardian where 29% of science teachers support teaching creationism. 79% of "science specialists" believe creationism should be discussed. Or check the Pew Research poll where 64% support teaching it.

Many of those teachers only wanted to include creationist notions in their science class discussions so that they could pre-emptively debunk, discredit, and refute them. That was the idea that Reiss had, but he expressed it clumsily and was sacked due to the confusion.

But the place for such discussions is not in public high school science class, but in pbilosop-hy or theology or comparative religio classes. Should we also include astrology? A dismayingly large chunk of nitwits believe in that, too.

1188 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:56:13am

re: #1186 Cheese Eating Victory Monkey

Did anyone notice that words such as "intelligent", "design", and "creation" have very positive connotations to the average person? Yes, I realize that the agenda they're pushing is ridiculous, but those proponents sure have a way with taglines and imagery. Maybe they can get a job with the hopenchange marketing team in 2012...

They're free to concentrate on marketing manipulative rhetoric, since they lack any empirical evidence whatsoever for their product. Propaganda is all they have to sell.

1189 hurricane567  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 2:45:02am

What do i have to do to get Mike Foster to run for Governor again?

1190 rikzilla  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 3:27:09am

Yeah, this is a major issue for the future of the Republican party. Of thos governors you mention Charles you may as well include George W. If he were still governor in Texas I'm sure he'd be promoting this stuff too. It's been a major trait of the Republicans for as long as I can remember. Oh it hasn't stopped me from voting Republican simply because I can't stand vapid leftism even more, but this born-again anti-science? It's been around forever! George W had political "commissars" (for want of a better word) at NASA telling scientists to shut up about global warming studies there. I gotta say, I love my Republicans for foreign policies that make sense in a dangerous world....but I'm sad to say its the Dems that consistently promote science to it's proper place of importance in our society.

-z

1191 Annar  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 3:28:11am

To start with any politician who wishes win national office has to at least feign some kind of religious belief. Many are insincere about that (including, I suspect, the current president) and I also suspect the same is true about the 'god created earth in six days a few thousand years ago' farce. If and when the polls show 80% acceptance of evolution the politicians will become more amenable to reason.

It might be a good idea if the National Science Foundation were to make a very public declaration on this subject.

1192 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 3:52:43am

re: #1190 rikzilla

Yeah, this is a major issue for the future of the Republican party. Of thos governors you mention Charles you may as well include George W. If he were still governor in Texas I'm sure he'd be promoting this stuff too. It's been a major trait of the Republicans for as long as I can remember. Oh it hasn't stopped me from voting Republican simply because I can't stand vapid leftism even more, but this born-again anti-science? It's been around forever! George W had political "commissars" (for want of a better word) at NASA telling scientists to shut up about global warming studies there. I gotta say, I love my Republicans for foreign policies that make sense in a dangerous world....but I'm sad to say its the Dems that consistently promote science to it's proper place of importance in our society.

-z

re: #1191 Annar

To start with any politician who wishes win national office has to at least feign some kind of religious belief. Many are insincere about that (including, I suspect, the current president) and I also suspect the same is true about the 'god created earth in six days a few thousand years ago' farce. If and when the polls show 80% acceptance of evolution the politicians will become more amenable to reason.

It might be a good idea if the National Science Foundation were to make a very public declaration on this subject.

We need a national party that pursues sensible foreign policy in a dangerous world (the Repubs are better on this one, hands down), fiscal restraint (neither party, lately - the Repubs borrow and spend, the Dems tax, and spend even more), science policy that accepts scientific facts (the Dems do so more than the Repubs, but they both let partisan politics take precedence over empirical facts on occasion) and a policy that accepts people for what they are, of whatever race, sex, or gender orientation, and extends them equal rights and freedoms as US citizens (the Dems are ahead on this one, but the Repubs are making strides). Either we'll have to separate the Dems from the leftist moonbats, separate the Repubs from the RR socon wingnuts, or carve a new party out of the sensible center, and leave the fringes marginalized on either side.

1193 [deleted]  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 4:23:43am
1194 [deleted]  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 4:47:04am
1195 Simple Voice  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:26:28am

It is unlikely the 10% undecided that decided the last 5 presidential elections had "anti-scientific insanity" as one of the top 10 reasons they voted the way they did. The two Clinton elections were decided by the Perot margin, aka, "It's the economy, stupid.".
I submit Bush won because of safety issues(Soccer moms) and Democrats put up totally inept losers. Does anyone know Dubya's view on creation? Obama won because the the economy is in the tank, the media wanted him to win and it was unlikely any Republican could win this time for any reason. I recall the issue of what candidate believed in evolution and what candidate believed in creation as lasting all of a day or two. In a two year campaign, two days focused on evolution/creation as a deciding issues isn't much. Many people want to blame Palin for McCain's failure last November. Seeing how the media attacked Hillary, I'm wondering if the venom against Palin had more to do with her gender and less to do with her views. (Although it is obvious, the two worst things you can be in politics is a woman that is conservative or an African-American that is conservative.) McCain lost because he is McCain.

in my opinion, the only way President Obama loses in 2012 is if the economy is worse now or if, God forbid, the country is attacked again. The country is polarized. If the aforementioned issues are at hand in 2012, Obama could still win, because the country is pretty much evenly divided and because the media will pull out it's big guns again and root, root, root for the home team.
We all have our reasons why we vote or don't vote for a candidate. For Charles, creation/evolution seems to be an issue that is high on his list. I suspect for most Americans, that issue doesn't even see the top 10.

One last point. I have my doubts that social conservatives aka, Christians, are the reason the GOP lost the last election. When the GOP exercises good fiscal sense, it wins. When it doesn't, the voters go to the other side. The so-called religious right has been in the tank for the GOP since 1980. The GOP has won 5 of those 8 elections. How many swing voters that swayed things the GOP's way in those 5 elections went the other way in the other 3 elections because of creationism?

1196 thatemailname  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:04:42am

Sorry Charles, although I agree with you on many things, on this issue I think you're just plain wrong.

It comes down to a simple question - under which of the following two scenarios would this country be better off? I use these two scenarios because it's they represent the choice which your article seems to be presenting us with: (And mind you, I believe in the fact of evolution)

a) 20 years of Democratic rule

b) Kids are taught creationism alongside evolution

1197 Sharmuta  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:19:28am

re: #1196 thatemailname

Two words: false dichotomy.

1198 SecondComing  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:24:09am

re: #1195 Simple Voice

It is unlikely the 10% undecided that decided the last 5 presidential elections had "anti-scientific insanity" as one of the top 10 reasons they voted the way they did. The two Clinton elections were decided by the Perot margin, aka, "It's the economy, stupid.".
I submit Bush won because of safety issues(Soccer moms) and Democrats put up totally inept losers. Does anyone know Dubya's view on creation? Obama won because the the economy is in the tank, the media wanted him to win and it was unlikely any Republican could win this time for any reason. I recall the issue of what candidate believed in evolution and what candidate believed in creation as lasting all of a day or two. In a two year campaign, two days focused on evolution/creation as a deciding issues isn't much. Many people want to blame Palin for McCain's failure last November. Seeing how the media attacked Hillary, I'm wondering if the venom against Palin had more to do with her gender and less to do with her views. (Although it is obvious, the two worst things you can be in politics is a woman that is conservative or an African-American that is conservative.) McCain lost because he is McCain.

in my opinion, the only way President Obama loses in 2012 is if the economy is worse now or if, God forbid, the country is attacked again. The country is polarized. If the aforementioned issues are at hand in 2012, Obama could still win, because the country is pretty much evenly divided and because the media will pull out it's big guns again and root, root, root for the home team.
We all have our reasons why we vote or don't vote for a candidate. For Charles, creation/evolution seems to be an issue that is high on his list. I suspect for most Americans, that issue doesn't even see the top 10.

One last point. I have my doubts that social conservatives aka, Christians, are the reason the GOP lost the last election. When the GOP exercises good fiscal sense, it wins. When it doesn't, the voters go to the other side. The so-called religious right has been in the tank for the GOP since 1980. The GOP has won 5 of those 8 elections. How many swing voters that swayed things the GOP's way in those 5 elections went the other way in the other 3 elections because of creationism?

Excellent point.

1199 [deleted]  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:38:57am
1200 [deleted]  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:49:48am
1201 thatemailname  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:51:29am

re: #1197 Sharmuta

Two words: false dichotomy.

Yes, the false dichotomy was being presented in the original article. Here is the specific text from the original article that I was responding to:
--------
Answer: The top 3 GOP governors in America are all creationists, who have no problems with teaching pseudo-science to American children.

That’s why. This is wrong, and it’s one reason why the Democrats now control both houses of Congress. If this anti-scientific insanity continues, the Democrats will be in power for the next 20 years.
--------

One of my points was there is no need for a "dichotomy" at all. Our nation won't be destroyed if creationism is discussed alongside science.
However, our nation will most likely be destroyed, or at least horribly mangled, by 20 years of Democratic rule.

And please note - I am not arguing for the truth of creationism. I myself believe in the fact of evolution.

1202 Randall Gross  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:58:32am

re: #1201 thatemailname

Your bias is causing you to miss the main connection here. If this issue keeps being pushed by small segments then the dems are likely to rule for 20 yrs.

1203 Aye Pod  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:08:12am

re: #1128 Iron Fist

What the FUCK was that?

1204 jimc  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:09:17am

Yes, creationism is the root of all America's problems, not socialism, not abortion, not immorality, but creationism. Yes, creationism, that evil threat to a scientific theory, so weak in fact that creationism threatens it. I have no problem with people believing in scientific agendas and calling it fact, what I have a problem with is so called scientific minded people trying to muscle out any challenges to their dogma. That's not science people. You're diluted if you think rallying behind evolution at the expense of shutting down discourse is a noble scientific cause. True scientific minded people welcome challenges, not write scathing shredding commentary on anyone who opposes your brand of faith...

True scientists would be ashamed of this behavior... only explanation I can think of for such behavior is insecurity about the "fact" of evolution. To compensate, you ramrod the point home and vilify any contrary ideas...not very scientific at all...but then again most who recon themselves "scientist" are far from it...

1205 Aye Pod  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:16:05am

re: #1204 jimc

Another pathetic attempt to confuse the idea of "academic freedom" with the idea of "teaching other peoples kids the laughable fairy tales you happen to believe in for entirely religious reasons, yet want to call 'science'".

1206 Sharmuta  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:18:29am

re: #1201 thatemailname

Our nation won't be destroyed if creationism is discussed alongside science.

I think undermining science education will have a devastating impact on this country- from medicine to technology. Our economy, our security, our health- these would no longer be in American hands to shape. Instead, we'd be relying on other countries- some perhaps not quite so friendly to our interests as we would be.

I also think many on this thread have failed to see that many of us don't want democrat control for 20 years, which is why we feel this issue needs to be corrected now. Maybe it's because I live in a liberal enclave that I do see how centrists and just left of center people see this party- it's not good, and this issue does play a role in the overall perception the center has of this party. It needs to be corrected, or we will continue to lose.

1207 scottishbuzzsaw  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:18:31am

re: #1203 Jimmah

What the FUCK was that?

Good question. Isn't there an 'Iron Fist' rule around here somewhere?

1208 reine.de.tout  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:19:36am

re: #1207 scottishbuzzsaw

I just "reported" it.

1209 topazpilot  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:22:47am

I have to admit to being somewhat surprised to see that Sanford is at least attempting to sound like an intelligent design believer and that it should be taught in public schools, especially considering that as Governor he opposed the "In God We Trust" license plates in South Carolina. That being said it doesn't dampen my support for him in 2012, even though it is EXTREMELY early to contemplate possible candiates, however out of those being mentioned he is #1 on my list with Eric Cantor as my #1 for VP.

Also, just because they support ID doesn't bother me one whit. I'm not a single issue voter and look at the total package rather than nitpick single issues that I disagree with them on. If I tried to find a candidate that I agreed with 100% then I would find myself sitting out every single election. Though, I do understand that any possible ID support will be exposed ad nauseam by the liberal media and will be used to bury the candidates. Governor Jindal's obvious and enthusiastic support of teaching ID in schools could pose the main hurdle. Any support by Sanford or Pawlenty is more subtle and would, most likely, not cause a similar level of resistance by the voting pubic at large.

On the subject of teaching ID in schools as part of the development of the universe and Earth, I do not support teaching it as science. Even though I am a believer in theistic evolution I think there should be a separation of religion and science in the classroom. This is why I believe that a religious studies course should be included as a elective in schools and/or a philosophical ethics course. Religion was such an important aspect of the Founding Fathers and the creation of this nation, not to mention as a current subject of public discourse that it would be a travesty not to include it within a broader school curriculum. Just keep it separate from science and we can have the best of both worlds.

1210 Sharmuta  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:22:51am

re: #1204 jimc

A couple more talking points and I could have had a "Bingo". Try harder.

1211 reine.de.tout  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:25:46am

re: #1210 Sharmuta

A couple more talking points and I could have had a "Bingo". Try harder.

Nice graphic, I've bookmarked it.

On jimc's talking points, this one I really like:

You're diluted if you think rallying behind evolution at the expense of shutting down discourse is a noble scientific cause.

Nice to know we are "diluted", not "deluded".

1212 Sharmuta  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:28:04am

re: #1211 reine.de.tout

Nice to know we are "diluted", not "deluded".

That explains all those trips to the bathroom.

1213 scottishbuzzsaw  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:28:06am

re: #1211 reine.de.tout

Nice to know we are "diluted", not "deluded".

*snicker* Morning, reine & Shar...hope you're both well.

1214 jimc  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:28:23am

re: #1205 Jimmah

Another pathetic attempt to confuse the idea of "academic freedom" with the idea of "teaching other peoples kids the laughable fairy tales you happen to believe in for entirely religious reasons, yet want to call 'science'".

When did I say I wanted creationism taught in the schools? Stop falsely attributing someone else's views to me!

I am not advocating teaching creationism in schools, quite the opposite, I do think teaching evolution as fact is however wrong, especially to K-12. College level, teach it all you want, I don't care, because at the college level, that's a students choice, but in public schools, way too much indoctrination occurs already.

1215 Sharmuta  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:30:11am

re: #1214 jimc

I do think teaching evolution as fact is however wrong, especially to K-12.

Why?

1216 Charles Johnson  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:31:40am

Wow. Quite an influx of creationists last night.

1217 jimc  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:33:28am

re: #1211 reine.de.tout

Ah yes, spellchecker got me, I'm a MS Word dependency moron, ha ha...boy you've just destroyed me and I must now walk away completely humiliated because of your vast superiority and intellect. Just excuse me as I go over here in a corner and wonder where I went wrong to think I could match wits with the lot of you....

1218 scottishbuzzsaw  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:34:14am

re: #1214 jimc

When did I say I wanted creationism taught in the schools? Stop falsely attributing someone else's views to me!

I am not advocating teaching creationism in schools, quite the opposite, I do think teaching evolution as fact is however wrong, especially to K-12. College level, teach it all you want, I don't care, because at the college level, that's a students choice, but in public schools, way too much indoctrination occurs already.

Do you equate teaching evolution with indoctrination?

1219 reine.de.tout  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:35:28am

re: #1217 jimc

Ah yes, spellchecker got me, I'm a MS Word dependency moron, ha ha...boy you've just destroyed me and I must now walk away completely humiliated because of your vast superiority and intellect. Just excuse me as I go over here in a corner and wonder where I went wrong to think I could match wits with the lot of you....

Jimmy - lighten up.

And explain why you think teaching evolution is "indoctrination" - from your 1214:

" . . . that's a students choice, but in public schools, way too much indoctrination occurs already."
1220 Zimriel  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:37:01am

re: #92 Charles

I suspect Rudy Giuliani's heart wasn't in the campaign because he got the word early on that the GOP wasn't going to stand for him as the nominee.

1) Not a creationist.

2) Not hardcore anti-abortion.

3) Not hardcore pro-gun rights.

4) Divorced.

5) Not in the pocket of the religious right.

6) Not a Washington insider. (Probably most important.)

McCain was just as divorced as Giuliani. McCain was also, as of the time Giuliani started, viewed as an even more outspoken opponent of the theocrats; in 2000 he'd gone so far as to call them "forces of evil" in the GOP.

However: McCain's ex had moved on. No-one would put it past Giuliani's ex to make a stink during the campaign.

I'm mostly putting it down to the two you're marking as "hardcore": abortion and guns. McCain kept his creds on those, and thus left himself acceptable to social-cons and libertarians. Giuliani refused to compromise his (statist and liberal) principles.

Here's www.ontheissues.org...]>Giuliani: "I do not think the government should cut off the right to bear arms. My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed...we’re talking about all dangerous weapons. (Source: Boston Globe, p. A4 Mar 21, 2000)

Opposition to this - which amounts to a blank check for Federal authorities to restrict firearms even in private residence - is not "hardcore". I would call Giuliani's position "hardcore".

I also call Giuliani a liar, for introducing this opinion with "I do not think the government should cut off the right to bear arms". That's exactly what he said: that bearing arms is, like driving, not a right; a privilege which the government grants, or withholds, For Public Safety.

"Hardcore", my eye.

1221 jimc  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:38:38am

re: #1215 Sharmuta

Are you being facetious? What absolute necessity is there to teach k-12 about evolution? Highschool biology doesn't require any knowledge of origins of species. I have no problem teaching about evolution as a scientific theory as a leading (or the leading) idea to explain how and why things are here, that's fine, but don't teach it as THE ONLY explanation, that's called deception.

1222 Sharmuta  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:40:40am

re: #1221 jimc

I have no problem teaching about evolution as a scientific theory as a leading (or the leading) idea to explain how and why things are here, that's fine, but don't teach it as THE ONLY explanation, that's called deception.

It's not deception- there is no other competing scientific theory. In fact- there is no other theory in science as verified and sound as evolution.

1223 topazpilot  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:41:42am

Wow. Can I ask what caused such a negative reaction to my post?

1224 thatemailname  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:42:22am

re: #1202 Thanos

Your bias is causing you to miss the main connection here. If this issue keeps being pushed by small segments then the dems are likely to rule for 20 yrs.

re: #1202 Thanos

My "bias". I'm curious to know just what bias you see in my comment!

(And let me repeat what I've already said in two previous comments: I believe in the fact of evolution).

And I don't agree with you, for the following reasons:

a) The issue of creationism played 0 (zero!) part in the most recent election, and the dems seem to have done quite well.

b) If conservatives themselves keep making an issue out of this, and reject otherwise qualified candidates, *that* will be the quickest path to ensuring Democrat rule for the next 20 years.

c) I didn't miss the main connection, I was taking issue with Charles' assertion that:

"... this is wrong, and it’s one reason why the Democrats now control both houses of Congress. If this anti-scientific insanity continues, the Democrats will be in power for the next 20 years."

I don't believe there's any evidence for this assertion, since the issue was not prominent in any Congressional election, nor in the Presidential election. On an importance scale of 1 - 10, I believe this issue rates a 1 in the minds of most people. As long as conservatives go along with the extreme-left-wing mainstream media, and criticize otherwise qualified conservative candidates over this issue, we're in trouble!

1225 Aye Pod  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:42:45am

re: #1214 jimc

When did I say I wanted creationism taught in the schools? Stop falsely attributing someone else's views to me!

I am not advocating teaching creationism in schools, quite the opposite, I do think teaching evolution as fact is however wrong, especially to K-12. College level, teach it all you want, I don't care, because at the college level, that's a students choice, but in public schools, way too much indoctrination occurs already.

You are not decieving anyone. Your post clearly indicates that you think it is shameful that creationism is not being taught alongside evolution, but is instead being attacked by nasty intolerant science people who refuse, in their arrogance, to give it an equal status to science. You are a creationist who wants to see creationism taught in schools. Why can't you at least be honest and just admit to that?

1226 Zimriel  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:43:41am

Just for confusing "right" with "privilege", Giuliani should have been booted from the GOP in 2000.

1227 jimc  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:45:39am

re: #1219 reine.de.tout

And explain why you think teaching evolution is "indoctrination" - from your 1214

Just read any primary school science books. "Millions of years", "evolved", "evolution", are all words taught to gradeschoolers before they can possibly understand the gravity of the topic. They are softened to the eventuality of being taught evolution as fact. I remember it growing up. I was 27 years old before I questioned evolution as fact. I came out of college only reinforced in the idea that evolution was fact, never questioning what I was taught as truth. Evolution is an indoctrination, much like our children are being indoctrinated to tolerate socialism or gay marriage at early ages. Much easier to make social changes when you stealthily place it into public education materials at such a young age. Most parents are asleep at the wheel and all too thankful that the public school system is there to raise their kids for them...public school system is the liberal indoctrination machine...

1228 Aye Pod  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:46:22am

re: #1222 Sharmuta

He wants to brainwash kids with creationism first, maybe teach science later if they are still interested.

1229 Charles Johnson  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:47:04am

Since people continue to deny that the GOP's association with creationists played a part in the election, here it is again:

sarah palin creationism - Google Search.

1,220,000 results.

1230 Sharmuta  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:50:37am

re: #1223 topazpilot

Me? Because of this for one:

Religion was such an important aspect of the Founding Fathers and the creation of this nation

First- many of the Founders were Deists, and not overly religious men.

Second- people came to this country to flee religious persecution- why should we allow encroachment on religious freedom in this country? It would be a disservice to their memories.

1231 thatemailname  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:50:52am

re: #1206 Sharmuta

I think undermining science education will have a devastating impact on this country- from medicine to technology. Our economy, our security, our health- these would no longer be in American hands to shape. Instead, we'd be relying on other countries- some perhaps not quite so friendly to our interests as we would be.

I also think many on this thread have failed to see that many of us don't want democrat control for 20 years, which is why we feel this issue needs to be corrected now. Maybe it's because I live in a liberal enclave that I do see how centrists and just left of center people see this party- it's not good, and this issue does play a role in the overall perception the center has of this party. It needs to be corrected, or we will continue to lose.

Let me be clear about my view: if including "creationism" in the curriculum means teaching that evolution is false, or not well founded, then I'd be against it. But I think we need to be much, much more concerned with the steep decline of solid science education in the schools, a decline which has had zero to do with "creationism".

(And BTW, living just outside NYC as I do, I guess you could say I live in a liberal "enclave" also! :-) And from what I've seen, the libs in this little enclave would never vote for a Republican, let alone a Conservative, under any conditions whatsoever. So conservatives would never attract those people to their side no matter what they do!)

1232 Aye Pod  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:51:22am

re: #1227 jimc

Much easier to make social changes when you stealthily place it into public education materials at such a young age. Most parents are asleep at the wheel and all too thankful that the public school system is there to raise their kids for them...

Check out the epic projection in this post.

1233 reine.de.tout  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:52:23am

re: #1227 jimc

Just read any primary school science books. "Millions of years", "evolved", "evolution", are all words taught to gradeschoolers before they can possibly understand the gravity of the topic. They are softened to the eventuality of being taught evolution as fact. I remember it growing up. I was 27 years old before I questioned evolution as fact. I came out of college only reinforced in the idea that evolution was fact, never questioning what I was taught as truth. Evolution is an indoctrination, much like our children are being indoctrinated to tolerate socialism or gay marriage at early ages. Much easier to make social changes when you stealthily place it into public education materials at such a young age. Most parents are asleep at the wheel and all too thankful that the public school system is there to raise their kids for them...public school system is the liberal indoctrination machine...

You are making no sense. Teaching as fact that the earth is millions of years old is not "indoctrination". What sort of "social changes" would you envision would take place as a result of teaching this sort of factual information along with words and phrases like "millions of years", "evolved" and "evolution"? What sort of "liberal indoctrination" takes place?

I agree with Jimmahre: #1225 Jimmah

You are not decieving anyone. Your post clearly indicates that you think it is shameful that creationism is not being taught alongside evolution, but is instead being attacked by nasty intolerant science people who refuse, in their arrogance, to give it an equal status to science. You are a creationist who wants to see creationism taught in schools. Why can't you at least be honest and just admit to that?

1234 Sharmuta  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:52:43am

re: #1231 thatemailname

But I think we need to be much, much more concerned with the steep decline of solid science education in the schools, a decline which has had zero to do with "creationism".

Have you not been paying attention? They're not attacking the theory of gravity, you know. It has everything to do with creationism.

1235 jimc  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:52:52am

re: #1225 Jimmah

You are not decieving anyone. Your post clearly indicates that you think it is shameful that creationism is not being taught alongside evolution, but is instead being attacked by nasty intolerant science people who refuse, in their arrogance, to give it an equal status to science. You are a creationist who wants to see creationism taught in schools. Why can't you at least be honest and just admit to that?

I will not be a part of reinforcing your self doubt. If you cannot address what I say, then I suggest you stop talking. I have posted on LGF before clearly stating my objection to the idea of teaching creationism in schools. So unless you're comfortable in making crap up to make you feel better, I suggest you reevaluate your approach in responding to my comments.....

1236 Sharmuta  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:53:34am

re: #1227 jimc

Evolution IS fact.

1237 Simple Voice  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:54:04am

re: #1229 Charles

A million of those hits were probably on LGF! (Ha, ha, just kidding!)

1238 Sharmuta  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:55:04am

re: #1237 Simple Voice

Charles defended Sarah.

1239 Charles Johnson  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:55:10am

It's also pretty clear that the ones arguing that creationism played no part in the last election are at least sympathetic to teaching creationism to children, if not outright in favor of it.

1240 Simple Voice  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:58:53am

re: #1238 Sharmuta

First, it was a joke.
Second, I know Charles defended Palin.
Third, I'm still not buying that being a creationist is that heavy of a millstone around the neck of any GOP candidate for president. More than likely, it is more like a caraway seed.

1241 Aye Pod  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:59:06am

re: #1227 jimc

Just read any primary school science books. "Millions of years", "evolved", "evolution", are all words taught to gradeschoolers before they can possibly understand the gravity of the topic.

Whereas concepts like "hell" "eternal damnation" and "god created the earth in six days - no, really!" are fine and dandy.

I was reading books about fossils, dinosaurs etc from the age of six. Didn't understand everything at first, but that's what learning is all about. My ex on the other hand had the 'privilege' of being 'educated' at Liberty 'university' - it was years before she was able to think straight on these issues, even though she was an atheist.

1242 jimc  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:59:29am

re: #1233 reine.de.tout

I agree with Jimmahre: #1225 Jimmah

Wow, seriously, the caliber of this discussion is breathtaking. It is almost like you actually believe by telling me I want creationism taught in schools that I will somehow come to some realization that you are in fact correct. Unfortunately, you're just as delusional as Jimmahre, possibly just as insecure..

1243 Charles Johnson  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:01:22am

Guess what?

I'm not the only one who thinks this issue is a GOP-killer:

[Link: volokh.com...]

1244 jimc  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:01:46am

re: #1241 Jimmah

Whereas concepts like "hell" "eternal damnation" and "god created the earth in six days - no, really!" are fine and dandy.

Are you completely deranged? Where on earth did you pull that out of? Why would I want public kids taught about Hell and eternal damnation in public schools?

1245 reine.de.tout  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:03:14am

re: #1242 jimc

Wow, seriously, the caliber of this discussion is breathtaking. It is almost like you actually believe by telling me I want creationism taught in schools that I will somehow come to some realization that you are in fact correct. Unfortunately, you're just as delusional as Jimmahre, possibly just as insecure..

Probably so.

Now, perhaps you would be so kind as to address the rest of my comment:

You are making no sense. Teaching as fact that the earth is millions of years old is not "indoctrination". What sort of "social changes" would you envision would take place as a result of teaching this sort of factual information along with words and phrases like "millions of years", "evolved" and "evolution"? What sort of "liberal indoctrination" takes place?
1246 Simple Voice  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:04:49am

re: #1239 Charles

Well, in all honesty, based on the product that public school system is putting out these days, I question a whole lot of what they are teaching. Want the schools to stop teaching creationism? Fine with me. My next choice for a subject getting 86'ed would be anthropomorphic global warming.

*Sigh*, if only I were king of the world!

1247 Aye Pod  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:05:10am

re: #1244 jimc

Are you completely deranged? Where on earth did you pull that out of? Why would I want public kids taught about Hell and eternal damnation in public schools?

Because you're a creationist. It's what creationists do.

1248 scottishbuzzsaw  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:07:32am

We must go where the scientific evidence leads us. It isn't conservative and it isn't liberal. It is not theistic or atheistic. It is using the best scientific knowledge and method we have at any given time to explain this incredible world we live in and far, far beyond. Does it not fill you with wonder? Isn't it wonderful to have your curiosity satisfied? I thank the scientists of all branches for their dedication to discovery and truth.

1249 Aye Pod  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:09:09am

re: #1247 Jimmah

I notice you don't seem to have a problem with the "god created the earth in six days - no, really" bit.

1250 topazpilot  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:10:50am

re: #1230 Sharmuta

So you claim religion was not an important aspect of the Founding Fathers? When they say we have rights endowed to us by our Creator? You say they were mostly deists and I won't argue the point. I've too often seen both sides selectively take quotes from the same men to prove that they were deist or they were traditional christians. I'm not going down that road because it leads nowhere. They were far too enigmatic in that regards, however you sort of defeat your own point. Deism was a religious viewpoint, albeit not a traditional christian one but religious nonetheless.

Notice that nowhere did I state that christianity was an integral aspect of their lives but that religion, in a general way, was an important aspect of their lives as they used the pretext that we are given our rights not by governments, kings, or parliaments but by our Creator and that no government, king or parliament can take those away or infringe upon them. In many ways this philosophical argument is the foundation of the entire revolution.

I could pull a thousand quotations that show the religious foundations of the revolutionary generation, but I won't. That's not what is important. What is important is that in our own colleges and universities we can elect to take a religious studies course that instructs about the philosophical foundations of religion in general, but in our public k-12 schools there is not the same option. Is it religious persecution to have that option in college? So, I don't understand how it could be persecution to include a religious studies course as an elective.

Thanks for responding and explaining however.

1251 [deleted]  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:11:17am
1252 Simple Voice  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:15:38am

re: #1243 Charles
I have a friend that argues that the real GOP killer is personality. He says Americans vote for the guy we like best. All other issues are secondary.
Obama is definitely more of an interesting and likable figure than McCain.
Bush has miles of more charm than Kerry or Gore.
Clinton is the King of Cool Dudes.
Bush, the Elder has more personality when he is asleep than Dukakis has when he is awake and trying to engage others.
Reagan was a movie star!
He says the last boring guy we voted for president was Nixon. Look what happened to him!
I suggest the next person the GOP nominate for president be a helluva' nice guy(or gal) with loads of charm. Anyone know if Hugh Jackman is a Republican?

1253 Aye Pod  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:15:46am

re: #1251 Iron Fist

It was pretty incomprehensible, but didn't look good. I take it you were pished?

1254 dry_heavz_4_alla  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:21:31am

re: #1239 Charles

It's also pretty clear that the ones arguing that creationism played no part in the last election are at least sympathetic to teaching creationism to children, if not outright in favor of it.

With all due respect, that conclusion is not clear to me. As an athiest physicist working in the field of oil exploration, I have absolutely no sympathy for teaching creationism (or whatever they choose to label it these days) as science. I do, however, think that there's a valid arguement to be made that an "uncommited" or even "anti" evolution stance can be a wash in the current politcal environment. Unfortunately, as shown in polls, this is a testiment to the success of the anti-evolution crowd in obscuring and demonizing good science.

I have several blue-dog Dems in my family who reject evolution but still vote Dem. I suspect, however, that there are those less blue-dog who would actually vote Repub in local elections based on this issue, just as there are some Repubs who would contrarily change sides or not vote at all. Therefore, it could be a wash. That there are so many Google links may only suggest that the issue has become irrationally politicized ... among the anti-evolution crowd as well as the anti-religious.

1255 Aye Pod  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:21:43am

re: #1252 Simple Voice

So Sarah Palin's problem was that she lacked personality? The media would not allow a creationist candidate to achieve 'credible mass'.

1256 jmwcctx  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:24:10am

You folks just don't get it--if you can't accommodate God having a hand in creation, then you're going to lose the vast majority of conservatives, period. And that seems to be the road we're on here. You either believe in evolution without question or you're a "nutty creationist."

It's this "either/or" crap that's maniacal and self-defeating. The comments I read were as diplomatic as they could be about leaving it up to the local districts without calling creationists "nutjobs." This issue, like the abortion issue, has no business being in the Fed's purview and I don't think Gregory worried about it because it's not even an issue on the national radar (except for Charles, I guess--he seems to latch onto anyone that doesn't scream "hokum" at creationist as proof of their being one).

Personally, I think evolution should be taught as the prevailing theory with the evidence to date. But pointing out that not everyone believes in evolution or that though we accept evolution as fact, there's nothing that in science that can prove the non-existence of a higher power playing a part in creation and evolution is hardly cause for the panic I see emanating from the pages here daily.

1257 [deleted]  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:27:39am
1258 jimc  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:28:10am

re: #1245 reine.de.tout

Teaching as fact that the earth is millions of years old is not "indoctrination". What sort of "social changes" would you envision would take place as a result of teaching this sort of factual information along with words and phrases like "millions of years", "evolved" and "evolution"? What sort of "liberal indoctrination" takes place?

Fact? Really? You and the other "scientists" on here ought to get together and publish a paper, you could be famous and stuff!

Social changes oh like questioning the authority of their parents. Children at such a young age are so vulnerable to influences that any possible conflicting teachings should be left out of public curriculum, especially when it is not needed at those grade levels. Teachings evolution can and often does run counter to the beliefs and teaching of parents. For these children, they are left questioning the authority of their parents. The state then becomes the authority in their lives supplanting the right of the parents. This is the same mentality that socialist UN wants to establish here in the US by giving children the right to divorce their parents, to give children the ability to turn their parents in for spanking them. To basically strip parents of all rights and hand it over to the state. Indoctrination of evolution is just one of many ways of separating kids from their parents authority of them. It is a slow and methodical approach but it is evidently working.

1259 Simple Voice  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:30:48am

re: #1255 Jimmah

The day this country elects a president because the VP is so amazing, we just have to elect the guy/gal so we can have a super-duper charming VP is the day this country finally goes nuts. Palin had little effect on the race. I was speaking about the office of President.

1260 jimc  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:31:15am

re: #1249 Jimmah

I notice you don't seem to have a problem with the "god created the earth in six days - no, really" bit.

Well, you've done it. You've have absolutely convinced me that you are in fact a moron.

Sorry, I need to earn some $$$ and write more computer code using my B.S. in C.S. and all that fancy learnin' I got in college....so to you I say adieu.

1261 Aye Pod  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:31:24am

re: #1256 jmwcctx


You folks just don't get it--if you can't accommodate God having a hand in creation, then you're going to lose the vast majority of conservatives, period. And that seems to be the road we're on here. You either believe in evolution without question or you're a "nutty creationist." It's this "either/or" crap that's maniacal and self-defeating.

Surely you've read enough of these threads to realise that it is possible to accept evolution and naturalism and still believe that god created the universe, without giving an inch to creationist IDiocy, and that that is the position of most of the posters here?

See above.

1262 [deleted]  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:36:09am
1263 topazpilot  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:36:39am

re: #1261 Jimmah

I completely agree. That is why I support this inclusion of a religious studies course elective in the secondary curriculum, not to mention I would also like to see philosophical ethics course as well. Apparently, my compromise didn't go over so well in this forum as I anticipated, but I'm not complaining...much.

1264 Aye Pod  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:37:22am

re: #1259 Simple Voice

I know. I was talking about her reception and treatment by the media. Her personality certainly helped her, but it wasn't enough to get over the other stuff, like the creationism. I think this would also have happened, perhaps more so, had she been running for president.

1265 topazpilot  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:38:24am

re: #1262 Iron Fist

You took the words right out of my mouth! Or at least off my keyboard. I wish I could remember the author or book that argued the exact same point. I believe it was called the Fourth something or other. An attempt to show that the belief in a Creator and evolution were not mutually exclusive.

1266 topazpilot  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:40:57am

re: #1239 Charles

Maybe you could fill me in but for the life of me I can't remember where creationism was an important issue in the last presidential election. As far as I can remember it mostly hinged upon overall experience, in regards to Obama and Palin, and the economy with foreign policy relegated to second tier status.

1267 NoizeNinja  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:42:53am

#1250 - TopazPilot

A religious studies elective would encompass more than just Christianity. What percentage of high school teachers could competently teach such a complex course?

1268 Simple Voice  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:43:36am

re: #1264 Jimmah

Methinks the issue with Palin and the media is her gender and not her views. I think it was the same with Hillary. I was surprised by the animosity other women directed at those two. I was even more surprised when the media downplayed it. The way women are viewed when they are running for high office was the real eye-opener for me this past election.

1269 [deleted]  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:44:17am
1270 Aye Pod  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:45:33am

re: #1260 jimc

Well, you've done it. You've have absolutely convinced me that you are in fact a moron.

Sure, it was moronic of me to infer from your rantings about the evils of indoctrinating children with evolution that you are a creationist/ID sucker.

You really got me there. Adieu to you too, IDiot.

1271 reine.de.tout  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:46:43am

re: #1258 jimc

Fact? Really? You and the other "scientists" on here ought to get together and publish a paper, you could be famous and stuff!

Social changes oh like questioning the authority of their parents. Children at such a young age are so vulnerable to influences that any possible conflicting teachings should be left out of public curriculum, especially when it is not needed at those grade levels. Teachings evolution can and often does run counter to the beliefs and teaching of parents. For these children, they are left questioning the authority of their parents. The state then becomes the authority in their lives supplanting the right of the parents. This is the same mentality that socialist UN wants to establish here in the US by giving children the right to divorce their parents, to give children the ability to turn their parents in for spanking them. To basically strip parents of all rights and hand it over to the state. Indoctrination of evolution is just one of many ways of separating kids from their parents authority of them. It is a slow and methodical approach but it is evidently working.

I'm not a scientist. But there is plenty enough actual evidence that the earth is indeed millions of years old, so much so that even someone of my admittedly limited intellectual abilities can see it.


Indoctrination of evolution is just one of many ways of separating kids from their parents authority of them. It is a slow and methodical approach but it is evidently working

You are saying that teaching evolution causes "the state" to supplant the rights of parents?

I'm just flabbergasted; I don't know how to even respond to that.

Teaching children that God made the world in exactly 6 days, that the earth is only a few thousand years old, that man lived concurrently with the dinosaurs - THAT is indoctrination of the religious kind, AND it does not match my religious beliefs. Why should my child be indoctrinated with that sort of belief? What happens then - are MY rights as a parent being stepped on because the somebody wants the state to indoctrinate my child with THEIR religious beliefs?

My religious faith allows the beauty and truth of science to be accepted. My kid, who goes to a school affiliated with my religion, learns science in science class, and faith in religion class. AND THE TWO THINGS ARE PERFECTLY COMPATIBLE.

Why do you think they are not compatible? It is perfectly possible to raise children with faith AND with the information and knowledge necessary to ensure that they are not morons when they go out into the world.

And finally - if you really think that leaving evolution out of science class is going to cause kids to stop questioning their parents - well, you must not be a parent.

1272 topazpilot  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:49:04am

re: #1267 NoizeNinja

I don't know, but I would like to see it explored as an option for those districts who are able to find competent teachers to instruct the course. Not all districts in the country are able to have courses in French, Psychology, etc. but if they are able to find the instructors then they are able to include it as an elective and if they are not able to then they will not include it. It is similar in that not all public colleges and universities offer the same exact degree programs due to various factors, but if able to attract or find professors who are able to teach a course or enough professors to offer it as an actual degree program then they will. We can see this with a program such as Geology or Astronomy.

I think it could be listed as a valid elective as per the state and federal curriculum and if districts are able to include it then they should be able to do so.

1273 Aye Pod  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:51:11am

re: #1262 Iron Fist

That is, essentially, my position on the issue. The idea that the world is only 6000 years old is ludicrous on the face of it. But I certainly believe in a Creator and that all of the phenomenal world is His Creation. As I've said before "And God said let there be light..." and there was a Big Bang. I see no reason that Religion is incompatible with science.

As an atheist/agnostic I don't share your belief, but I respect the position.

1274 axeman1  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:51:39am

If scientific heresy would doom A political party Liberal democrats would be a perpetual minority party.The teaching of global warming as defined by liberals or the teaching of almost anything racial or political being at odds with reality in the schools has not hurt liberals. God Creating the universe ,I think I can say, is an almost universal belief in anyone who would vote GOP. I don't advocate teaching creationism as science in classrooms but doubt the dire consequences predicted if it is.

1275 Aye Pod  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:55:46am

Dinner time. Later...

1276 jimc  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:14:34am

re: #1271 reine.de.tout

Teaching children that God made the world in exactly 6 days, that the earth is only a few thousand years old, that man lived concurrently with the dinosaurs - THAT is indoctrination of the religious kind, AND it does not match my religious beliefs. Why should my child be indoctrinated with that sort of belief? What happens then - are MY rights as a parent being stepped on because the somebody wants the state to indoctrinate my child with THEIR religious beliefs?

Seriously, I'm not going to ding you on this anymore but reading comprehension seems to have stepped out for the day. I DO NOT WANT YOU OR YOUR CHILDREN TAUGHT ABOUT CREATIONISM IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS! Ok, can we get past this now? Get it?

No on the flip side, you're perfectly ok with teaching your beliefs in public schools because it fits your beliefs. The problem here is that just because you believe evolution is fact doesn't make it so. That also does not negate the very fact that teaching evolution in K-12 is completely and totally not necessary except for the purpose of indoctrinating children, conditioning them to view the world as evolutionist see it.

Why do you think they are not compatible? It is perfectly possible to raise children with faith AND with the information and knowledge necessary to ensure that they are not morons when they go out into the world.

Yes I agree. However, you miss my point, I do not assume evolution to be factual. I used to, but I don't anymore. I accepted evolution because the guys with the fancy letters behind their names said it was so. Then I later came to question their methods and their agenda. Now I flat out reject any scientist who boldly claims evolution to be fact. I will however respect and accept any that treats it as it is, a working theory worthy of further study. In stark irony, I am the most open minded person on here when it comes to science. I love science. I love thinking about the possibilities, yes I approach it from a creationist view but I don't reject anything outright. I find out what it is based upon and look at the validity of the work. I stopped taking for granted what people tell me when I realized people have agendas, mostly for political/social reasons. I don't claim to state that evolution is 100% false. I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more than God. I don't however believe evolution has crossed the threshold of being considered fact when so much of it is based on question methods, assumptions, subjective analysis, and ignores anything that proves difficult by issuing the umbrella defense of "anything is possible of millions of years". However, evolution is not my real passion, theoretical physics is more my thing. That's science in my book, something that can advance us as a society. Evolution is a drag on science in my opinion. Worthless discussion over what? Who can claim king of the mountain? Well whoopy freakin' dooo!

1277 thatemailname  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:32:21am

re: #1234 Sharmuta

Have you not been paying attention? They're not attacking the theory of gravity, you know. It has everything to do with creationism.

I'll never understand why these discussions always seem to degenerate into personal criticisms.

How in heaven's name have you shown by your post that election losses have anything to do with creationism?

1278 reine.de.tout  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:34:54am

re: #1276 jimc

Well.
If, as you say:

I will however respect and accept any that treats it as it is, a working theory worthy of further study

Then I do not understand why you don't want it taught in school. Well, yes maybe I do:

I love thinking about the possibilities, yes I approach it from a creationist view but I don't reject anything outright. I find out what it is based upon and look at the validity of the work. I stopped taking for granted what people tell me when I realized people have agendas, mostly for political/social reasons.

You also seem to be saying that you have rejected well-documented evolutionary theory simply because you believe it may be tied to some sort of political or social "agenda" by somebody you disagree with.

Sounds like a great plan to me.
/

1279 jmwcctx  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:36:07am

I do--but I also see an undercurrent of "If you don't call creationists fools and idiots, you must be one" in almost every post, and that's a fallacy. I don't choose to call them fools or idiots because, frankly, they're entitled to their own interpretation of the evidence, no matter how uninformed they might be. That the creationist movement reached them in a more convincing fashion than science (assuming they ever had the choice) tells me that there's more missing from their lives than Darwin. So are we going to become liberals, ridiculing anyone who doesn't toe the line to our way of thinking? Are we going to declare "settled science" like the agw'ers? Or do we work to insure that they're made to feel a part of the party regardless, and then give them time and information to investigate for themselves?

Personally, I've observed that people who become part of a contrarian movement are never moved by ridicule or derision. In fact, it only makes them less open to alternative thought. IMO, this movement would die an inauspicious death if the scientists would quit lending it credence as a credible threat to science. The louder the protest of the movement becomes, the more weight those undecided give the movement.

1280 thatemailname  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:36:55am

re: #1277 thatemailname

! CORRECTION OF ABOVE !

Sorry, thought you were talking about the other thing I said had nothing to do with creationism.

So how in heaven's name have you shown, through your reply, that the decline in science education has anything to do with creationism? *Asserting* something doesn't make it so.

In my area, the schools do NOT teach creationism, and never will (New York / New Jersey). And the science education SUCKS. It is a JOKE. The kids I speak with know very little about science, and most have even less interest. They say it's BOOOOORING.

And creationism hasn't been taught 'round here in probably 100 years or more! :-)

1281 Shanimal1918  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:40:46am

re: #1020 Walter L. Newton

Great idea Walter. Thanks for the suggestion. I googled a bit and found a good link that has the poll results:

Problems and Priorities.

None of the polls list creationism, or evolution as a top priority for the people of this country. But I'm willing to keep an open mind and continue to follow these threads.

For the record, I'm not a creationist. I do want what is best for the GOP and for our country. If getting the word to the GOPs' top candidates for 2012 to drop this nonsense is going to help our country, then I'm willing to yell it from the rooftops with you all. This is where I think this is heading, stop this nonsense to ensure a better shot at taking our country back from the socialists.

1282 jimc  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:46:12am

re: #1278 reine.de.tout

Well.
If, as you say:

You also seem to be saying that you have rejected well-documented evolutionary theory simply because you believe it may be tied to some sort of political or social "agenda" by somebody you disagree with.

Sounds like a great plan to me.
/

I'm sorry but I am going to have to call you one more time on reading comprehension, I say I reject those who claim evolution is a FACT not a theory. I embrace and respect those who treat it as such even if I disagree with their assumptions.

Then I do not understand why you don't want it taught in school

Because you're not reading close enough, this all falls back to the reading comprehension. Evolution is not being taught as theory but being laid down as fact. The word theory probably only comes up on the lesson plan title *if that*. That is what I object to. Teach it for what it is, a theory and I don't care, still think it doesn't belong in K-12 but I would accept it as an elective.

And I don't reject those who have valid theories based on there agenda's, I only question it when they try to pass it off as fact to support their agendas.

1283 avspatti  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:46:36pm

I have finally been reading through this thread and find it amazing that even the mildest somewhat neutral comment is collecting down dings. (Is downding one word?) I knew when I posted at 1148 that I would get them, too, no matter how carefully I tried to word my comment. It is disturbing. I, for one, was asking a question and then reporting my own experience with governors and education. Of course, it could be that here in Colorado, the gov and the legislature are frequently at odds, but that IS my experience as an educator. I am not sure why that is so controversial.

1284 [deleted]  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:55:05pm
1285 jackflash  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 2:42:27pm

Right on, Charles. Fight the good fight. Evolution is at least proved as much as the theory that germs cause disease. It makes the Republican party look uneducated for so many of them to entertain the idea of "intelligent design."

1286 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 3:58:55pm

re: #1196 thatemailname

Sorry Charles, although I agree with you on many things, on this issue I think you're just plain wrong.

It comes down to a simple question - under which of the following two scenarios would this country be better off? I use these two scenarios because it's they represent the choice which your article seems to be presenting us with: (And mind you, I believe in the fact of evolution)

a) 20 years of Democratic rule

b) Kids are taught creationism alongside evolution

If I had to choose an either/or, I would sadly and reluctantly, but firmly, choose A. The education of our children should be sacrosanct.

However, I consider this to be a false choice. I cannot bring myself to believe that the Republican party is incapable of fielding other than anti-science, activist creationist candidates.

But...if that is indeed the case, then the Republican party richly merits and deserves political extinction, so that a more pedagogically responsible and less empirical-reality-denying successor can rise like a phoenix from its crashed and burned ashes.

1287 tjexcite  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 4:03:35pm

re: #1229 Charles
media bais against gop
2,430,000
this may have be a factor too.

1288 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 4:04:31pm

re: #1201 thatemailname

Yes, the false dichotomy was being presented in the original article. Here is the specific text from the original article that I was responding to:
--------
Answer: The top 3 GOP governors in America are all creationists, who have no problems with teaching pseudo-science to American children.

That’s why. This is wrong, and it’s one reason why the Democrats now control both houses of Congress. If this anti-scientific insanity continues, the Democrats will be in power for the next 20 years.
--------

One of my points was there is no need for a "dichotomy" at all. Our nation won't be destroyed if creationism is discussed alongside science.
However, our nation will most likely be destroyed, or at least horribly mangled, by 20 years of Democratic rule.

And please note - I am not arguing for the truth of creationism. I myself believe in the fact of evolution.

It can never be acceptable among people possessed of the slightest shred of integrity and decency to countenance the the machinery of the state being placed in the service of the systematic sectarian brainwashing of America's youth in order to pander to a perceived political expediency regarding constitution-shunning activist theocrats.

1289 tjexcite  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 4:07:43pm

re: #1287 tjexcite

This too may be why there is Barry in the WH

Media
Bias

10 million hits

1290 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 4:24:45pm

re: #1204 jimc

Yes, creationism is the root of all America's problems, not socialism, not abortion, not immorality, but creationism.

You don't think it's immoral to force the systematic public school brainwashing of America's children into some peoples' pet religious dogmas?

Yes, creationism, that evil threat to a scientific theory, so weak in fact that creationism threatens it.

Creationism has not a single shred of empirical evidence with which to threaten evolution. The threat is not scientific, it is religiopolitical.

I have no problem with people believing in scientific agendas and calling it fact, what I have a problem with is so called scientific minded people trying to muscle out any challenges to their dogma. That's not science people. You're diluted if you think rallying behind evolution at the expense of shutting down discourse is a noble scientific cause. True scientific minded people welcome challenges, not write scathing shredding commentary on anyone who opposes your brand of faith...

Failing at the attempt to elevate religious dogma to the level of empirtical science, desperate creationists endeavor to lower empirical science to the level of religious dogma. But this endeavor also fails, because the bright line of the presence of empirical evidence for evolution vs. the absence of empirical evidence for crerationism remains.

Your cynical Disco-Institute-inspired 'academic freedom/teach-the-nonexistent-controversy' meme is laughable on its face; there IS NO credible scientific alternative to evolution. All they've got is obfuscating rhetoric and propaganda PR; they lack all substance:

[Link: ase.tufts.edu...]

But rhetorical sophistry can do massive damage to the teaching of genuine empirical science. A handful of kids programmed like zombic memebots by Disco-Institute-inspired parents or churches with creationist debating tactics and talking points can smother the attempt to teach authentic science in its schoolhouse crib (and that is their aim):

[Link: ncseweb.org...]

[Link: timpanogos.wordpress.com...]

After all, look at the sophistric mischief they can pull with even the most ridiculous contentions:

[Link: www.teachthemscience.org...]

True scientists would be ashamed of this behavior... only explanation I can think of for such behavior is insecurity about the "fact" of evolution. To compensate, you ramrod the point home and vilify any contrary ideas...not very scientific at all...but then again most who recon themselves "scientist" are far from it...

IDiots like you lack the faintest conception of what empirical science is and what empirical scientists are. Nor do you appear to have the slightest grasp of what constitutes schoolhouse science instruction. But whatever you think that it is, you clearly don't like it, and wanna see it reduced to a perpetual creationist debating society, to further your covert malignant ends.

1291 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 4:28:36pm

re: #1209 topazpilot

I have to admit to being somewhat surprised to see that Sanford is at least attempting to sound like an intelligent design believer and that it should be taught in public schools, especially considering that as Governor he opposed the "In God We Trust" license plates in South Carolina. That being said it doesn't dampen my support for him in 2012, even though it is EXTREMELY early to contemplate possible candiates, however out of those being mentioned he is #1 on my list with Eric Cantor as my #1 for VP.

Also, just because they support ID doesn't bother me one whit. I'm not a single issue voter and look at the total package rather than nitpick single issues that I disagree with them on. If I tried to find a candidate that I agreed with 100% then I would find myself sitting out every single election. Though, I do understand that any possible ID support will be exposed ad nauseam by the liberal media and will be used to bury the candidates. Governor Jindal's obvious and enthusiastic support of teaching ID in schools could pose the main hurdle. Any support by Sanford or Pawlenty is more subtle and would, most likely, not cause a similar level of resistance by the voting pubic at large.

On the subject of teaching ID in schools as part of the development of the universe and Earth, I do not support teaching it as science. Even though I am a believer in theistic evolution I think there should be a separation of religion and science in the classroom. This is why I believe that a religious studies course should be included as a elective in schools and/or a philosophical ethics course. Religion was such an important aspect of the Founding Fathers and the creation of this nation, not to mention as a current subject of public discourse that it would be a travesty not to include it within a broader school curriculum. Just keep it separate from science and we can have the best of both worlds.

For a candidate to support the systematic sectarian brainwashing of public high school children is an absolute deal-breaker for me, as it should be for anyone of good conscience and any respect whatsoever for constitutionality.

1292 Aye Pod  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 4:29:53pm

re: #1279 jmwcctx

IMO, this movement would die an inauspicious death if the scientists would quit lending it credence as a credible threat to science

It's NOT a threat to science - it's a threat to EDUCATION. Opposing the teaching of nonsense in science classes does not lend it credence!

1293 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 4:33:26pm

re: #1214 jimc

When did I say I wanted creationism taught in the schools? Stop falsely attributing someone else's views to me!

I am not advocating teaching creationism in schools, quite the opposite, I do think teaching evolution as fact is however wrong, especially to K-12. College level, teach it all you want, I don't care, because at the college level, that's a students choice, but in public schools, way too much indoctrination occurs already.

It is the job of public high school science teachers to teach science. Evolution is one of the most empirical-evidence-supported scientific theories in the entire scientific enterprise; with 150 years worth of empirical evidence supporting it, and not a single shred against. It ain't indoctrination; it's education.

Teaching religious dogmas such as creationism/ID, however, WOULD be indoctrination, as they lack any empirical support whatsoever.

1294 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 4:41:09pm

re: #1221 jimc

Are you being facetious? What absolute necessity is there to teach k-12 about evolution? Highschool biology doesn't require any knowledge of origins of species. I have no problem teaching about evolution as a scientific theory as a leading (or the leading) idea to explain how and why things are here, that's fine, but don't teach it as THE ONLY explanation, that's called deception.

But evolution IS the only empirically supported explanation for the origin of species:

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
Theodore Dobzhansky

[Link: www.pbs.org...]

ID/creationism sure as hell don't explain a DAMN thing. In fact, even their advocates shamefacedly admit that, empirically speakling, they are "content-free.":

[Link: ase.tufts.edu...]

1295 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 4:51:20pm

re: #1224 thatemailname

re: #1202 Thanos

My "bias". I'm curious to know just what bias you see in my comment!

(And let me repeat what I've already said in two previous comments: I believe in the fact of evolution).

And I don't agree with you, for the following reasons:

a) The issue of creationism played 0 (zero!) part in the most recent election, and the dems seem to have done quite well.

b) If conservatives themselves keep making an issue out of this, and reject otherwise qualified candidates, *that* will be the quickest path to ensuring Democrat rule for the next 20 years.

c) I didn't miss the main connection, I was taking issue with Charles' assertion that:

"... this is wrong, and it’s one reason why the Democrats now control both houses of Congress. If this anti-scientific insanity continues, the Democrats will be in power for the next 20 years."

I don't believe there's any evidence for this assertion, since the issue was not prominent in any Congressional election, nor in the Presidential election. On an importance scale of 1 - 10, I believe this issue rates a 1 in the minds of most people. As long as conservatives go along with the extreme-left-wing mainstream media, and criticize otherwise qualified conservative candidates over this issue, we're in trouble!

As I stated in #1288, it can never be acceptable among people possessed of the slightest shred of integrity and decency to countenance the machinery of the state being placed in the service of the systematic sectarian brainwashing of America's youth in order to pander to a perceived political expediency regarding constitution-shunning activist theocrats.

Besides which, Republican political support for these activist creationist loons is why Kansas, not known as a hotbed of liberalism, went Democratic.

1296 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 4:55:56pm

re: #1227 jimc

Just read any primary school science books. "Millions of years", "evolved", "evolution", are all words taught to gradeschoolers before they can possibly understand the gravity of the topic. They are softened to the eventuality of being taught evolution as fact. I remember it growing up. I was 27 years old before I questioned evolution as fact. I came out of college only reinforced in the idea that evolution was fact, never questioning what I was taught as truth. Evolution is an indoctrination, much like our children are being indoctrinated to tolerate socialism or gay marriage at early ages. Much easier to make social changes when you stealthily place it into public education materials at such a young age. Most parents are asleep at the wheel and all too thankful that the public school system is there to raise their kids for them...public school system is the liberal indoctrination machine...

Empirical science is neither liberal nor conservative.

Teaching empirically supported scientific contentions is not indoctrination, it is education. And no scientific contention enjoys more empirical support than does evolution, with not a single shred of credible empirical evidence contradicting it.

1297 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 4:59:38pm

re: #1231 thatemailname

Let me be clear about my view: if including "creationism" in the curriculum means teaching that evolution is false, or not well founded, then I'd be against it. But I think we need to be much, much more concerned with the steep decline of solid science education in the schools, a decline which has had zero to do with "creationism".

(And BTW, living just outside NYC as I do, I guess you could say I live in a liberal "enclave" also! :-) And from what I've seen, the libs in this little enclave would never vote for a Republican, let alone a Conservative, under any conditions whatsoever. So conservatives would never attract those people to their side no matter what they do!)

Including religious dogmas alongside empirical science in public high school science class is unacceptable, unconstitutional, and just plain wrong. Should we also teach astrology there, because a sizeable chunk of ignorant nitwits believe in it?

1298 Aye Pod  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:01:11pm

Another interesting comment by jimc:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

So Charles, with all your fervent blogging on evil creationist, what shall we do with said dullards? Surely you're not proposing some sort of restriction on their freedoms are you? Why sure the Church of Darwin would rejoice but at what cost?

I am being facetious of course as I have already stated here before that I graduated college with a degree in science while I was a proclaimed atheist/evolutionist but I evolved into a fundamental Baptist/creationist. Why? Partly by the dogmatic faith being executed by inquisitors all high minded and snooty as they themselves foolishly fantasize as being "scientists" and can fully explain the theories they defend and use to bash the brains in of the weak and less fit "religious fanatics". There is no possible way to be a scientist and not be an evolutionist is there? I mean how silly! I am now off to erase all mentioning of the laws of Newton since that silly moron was a believer as well...

All this creationist attacking does no credit to real science...

Hmmm - that's some real strong argumentation there./

jimc doesn't want to see what he believes in taught in science class, he just wants us not to teach evolution - the 'Church of Darwin' (not till after the creationist memes have had a chance to take hold at any rate). Oh, and he also regards opposing the teaching of creationism in school the way Charles has been doing as a series of attacks on creationism that discredit science.

But he's on our side on this issue - we are just misunderstanding him./

1299 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:03:05pm

re: #1235 jimc

I will not be a part of reinforcing your self doubt. If you cannot address what I say, then I suggest you stop talking. I have posted on LGF before clearly stating my objection to the idea of teaching creationism in schools. So unless you're comfortable in making crap up to make you feel better, I suggest you reevaluate your approach in responding to my comments.....

Your objection to teaching the massively empirically supported theory of evolution in public high school science class clearly indicate an illegitimate equating of religious dogma with empirical science.

1300 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:06:19pm

re: #1240 Simple Voice

First, it was a joke.
Second, I know Charles defended Palin.
Third, I'm still not buying that being a creationist is that heavy of a millstone around the neck of any GOP candidate for president. More than likely, it is more like a caraway seed.

Being activist creationists sunk the Republican candidates in Kansas. Mighty heavy caraway seed there.

1301 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:09:07pm

re: #1242 jimc

Wow, seriously, the caliber of this discussion is breathtaking. It is almost like you actually believe by telling me I want creationism taught in schools that I will somehow come to some realization that you are in fact correct. Unfortunately, you're just as delusional as Jimmahre, possibly just as insecure..

You are clearly practicing creationist taqiyyah, as evinced by Jimmah's reposting of your past comment in #1298. Your present facile and self-serving denials are not to be trusted.

1302 Charles Johnson  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:09:46pm

re: #1298 Jimmah

Another interesting comment by jimc:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Hmmm - that's some real strong argumentation there./

jimc doesn't want to see what he believes in taught in science class, he just wants us not to teach evolution - the 'Church of Darwin' (not till after the creationist memes have had a chance to take hold at any rate). Oh, and he also regards opposing the teaching of creationism in school the way Charles has been doing as a series of attacks on creationism that discredit science.

But he's on our side on this issue - we are just misunderstanding him./

'jimc' is a fanatic. He's toned it down since he first appeared here, to avoid being booted out, because if his account is blocked he won't be able to continue "witnessing" to the infidels at LGF.

1303 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:10:24pm

re: #1244 jimc

Are you completely deranged? Where on earth did you pull that out of? Why would I want public kids taught about Hell and eternal damnation in public schools?

Umm...because you believe them to be the God's gospel truth?

1304 Charles Johnson  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:10:44pm

(But he isn't fooling me one bit.)

1305 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:13:32pm

re: #1246 Simple Voice

Well, in all honesty, based on the product that public school system is putting out these days, I question a whole lot of what they are teaching. Want the schools to stop teaching creationism? Fine with me. My next choice for a subject getting 86'ed would be anthropomorphic global warming.

*Sigh*, if only I were king of the world!

The solution to leftist strychnine poisoning in public schools is not to does the patient with creationist arsenic.

If you were king of the world, I would book the next flight to the moon - or else stage a palace coup.

1306 Aye Pod  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:15:06pm

re: #1304 Charles

He must think we're all buttoned up the back.

1307 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:20:02pm

re: #1250 topazpilot

So you claim religion was not an important aspect of the Founding Fathers? When they say we have rights endowed to us by our Creator? You say they were mostly deists and I won't argue the point. I've too often seen both sides selectively take quotes from the same men to prove that they were deist or they were traditional christians. I'm not going down that road because it leads nowhere. They were far too enigmatic in that regards, however you sort of defeat your own point. Deism was a religious viewpoint, albeit not a traditional christian one but religious nonetheless.

Deists believe in a Prime Mover that created the universe and set it in motion - and has kept its hands off it ever since. And the declaration of Independence was addressed not to the American people, but to King George, and unlike the US Constitution, does not carry the force of law.

Notice that nowhere did I state that christianity was an integral aspect of their lives but that religion, in a general way, was an important aspect of their lives as they used the pretext that we are given our rights not by governments, kings, or parliaments but by our Creator and that no government, king or parliament can take those away or infringe upon them. In many ways this philosophical argument is the foundation of the entire revolution.

See my previous comment in this post.

I could pull a thousand quotations that show the religious foundations of the revolutionary generation, but I won't. That's not what is important. What is important is that in our own colleges and universities we can elect to take a religious studies course that instructs about the philosophical foundations of religion in general, but in our public k-12 schools there is not the same option. Is it religious persecution to have that option in college? So, I don't understand how it could be persecution to include a religious studies course as an elective.

Thanks for responding and explaining however.

I see nothing wrong with a comparative religion class, that teaches, without bias or favor, the basic tenets of all of the world's religions. Including those such as Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, which do not include a creator, and those of Hinduism and Paganism, which include many of them.

1308 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:21:50pm

re: #1252 Simple Voice

I have a friend that argues that the real GOP killer is personality. He says Americans vote for the guy we like best. All other issues are secondary.
Obama is definitely more of an interesting and likable figure than McCain.
Bush has miles of more charm than Kerry or Gore.
Clinton is the King of Cool Dudes.
Bush, the Elder has more personality when he is asleep than Dukakis has when he is awake and trying to engage others.
Reagan was a movie star!
He says the last boring guy we voted for president was Nixon. Look what happened to him!
I suggest the next person the GOP nominate for president be a helluva' nice guy(or gal) with loads of charm. Anyone know if Hugh Jackman is a Republican?

He's Australian.

1309 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:28:57pm

re: #1256 jmwcctx

You folks just don't get it--if you can't accommodate God having a hand in creation, then you're going to lose the vast majority of conservatives, period. And that seems to be the road we're on here. You either believe in evolution without question or you're a "nutty creationist."

The presence or absence of supernatural beings is not a legitimate topic for public high school science classes, as they are not empirically detectable.

It's this "either/or" crap that's maniacal and self-defeating. The comments I read were as diplomatic as they could be about leaving it up to the local districts without calling creationists "nutjobs." This issue, like the abortion issue, has no business being in the Fed's purview and I don't think Gregory worried about it because it's not even an issue on the national radar (except for Charles, I guess--he seems to latch onto anyone that doesn't scream "hokum" at creationist as proof of their being one).

Of course it does. The 1st Amendment prohibits the entangling of church and state, which is precisely what the teaching of religious dogmas in public school science class does. The US judiciary is surpassingly clear on this point.

Personally, I think evolution should be taught as the prevailing theory with the evidence to date. But pointing out that not everyone believes in evolution or that though we accept evolution as fact, there's nothing that in science that can prove the non-existence of a higher power playing a part in creation and evolution is hardly cause for the panic I see emanating from the pages here daily.

Empirical science is not a matter of popularity contests, and therefore public high school science education should have no place for the reporting of public opinion polls. Nor should it address either the presence or the absence of supernatural beings, as there exists no empirical means by which their presence or absence can be detected.

1310 Aye Pod  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:34:07pm

re: #1260 jimc

The rank dishonesty of avowed creationist jimc, for all to see:

Jimmah:

I notice you don't seem to have a problem with the "god created the earth in six days - no, really" bit.

jimc:


Well, you've done it. You've have absolutely convinced me that you are in fact a moron.
1311 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:34:52pm

re: #1258 jimc

Fact? Really? You and the other "scientists" on here ought to get together and publish a paper, you could be famous and stuff!

Social changes oh like questioning the authority of their parents. Children at such a young age are so vulnerable to influences that any possible conflicting teachings should be left out of public curriculum, especially when it is not needed at those grade levels. Teachings evolution can and often does run counter to the beliefs and teaching of parents. For these children, they are left questioning the authority of their parents. The state then becomes the authority in their lives supplanting the right of the parents. This is the same mentality that socialist UN wants to establish here in the US by giving children the right to divorce their parents, to give children the ability to turn their parents in for spanking them. To basically strip parents of all rights and hand it over to the state. Indoctrination of evolution is just one of many ways of separating kids from their parents authority of them. It is a slow and methodical approach but it is evidently working.

So kids shouldn't be taught racial tolerance because their parents might be bigots?

Evolution is both a fact AND a theory:

[Link: www.stephenjaygould.org...]

[Link: www.2think.org...]

[Link: www.actionbioscience.org...]

[Link: www.springerlink.com...]

[Link: scienceblogs.com...]

1312 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:40:04pm

re: #1274 axeman1

If scientific heresy would doom A political party Liberal democrats would be a perpetual minority party.The teaching of global warming as defined by liberals or the teaching of almost anything racial or political being at odds with reality in the schools has not hurt liberals. God Creating the universe ,I think I can say, is an almost universal belief in anyone who would vote GOP. I don't advocate teaching creationism as science in classrooms but doubt the dire consequences predicted if it is.

Once again, trying to discredit evolution by invoking AGW is like trying to slander Abraham Lincoln by invoking Ron Paul. And the teaching of religious dogma does not belong in public high school science class.

1313 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:51:20pm

re: #1276 jimc

Seriously, I'm not going to ding you on this anymore but reading comprehension seems to have stepped out for the day. I DO NOT WANT YOU OR YOUR CHILDREN TAUGHT ABOUT CREATIONISM IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS! Ok, can we get past this now? Get it?

No on the flip side, you're perfectly ok with teaching your beliefs in public schools because it fits your beliefs. The problem here is that just because you believe evolution is fact doesn't make it so. That also does not negate the very fact that teaching evolution in K-12 is completely and totally not necessary except for the purpose of indoctrinating children, conditioning them to view the world as evolutionist see it.

It is not necessary to BELIEVE in evolution, because one can objectively and dispassionately peruse the vast and massive plethora of empirical evidence that supports it and come to KNOW its soundness and validity. Creationism/ID, otoh, can present not a single solitary shred of supporting empirical evidence, and therefore it is not empirical science, but religious dogma, which must either be BELIEVED in or not, because it cannot be KNOWN to be true.

Yes I agree. However, you miss my point, I do not assume evolution to be factual. I used to, but I don't anymore. I accepted evolution because the guys with the fancy letters behind their names said it was so. Then I later came to question their methods and their agenda. Now I flat out reject any scientist who boldly claims evolution to be fact. I will however respect and accept any that treats it as it is, a working theory worthy of further study. In stark irony, I am the most open minded person on here when it comes to science. I love science. I love thinking about the possibilities, yes I approach it from a creationist view but I don't reject anything outright. I find out what it is based upon and look at the validity of the work. I stopped taking for granted what people tell me when I realized people have agendas, mostly for political/social reasons. I don't claim to state that evolution is 100% false. I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more than God. I don't however believe evolution has crossed the threshold of being considered fact when so much of it is based on question methods, assumptions, subjective analysis, and ignores anything that proves difficult by issuing the umbrella defense of "anything is possible of millions of years". However, evolution is not my real passion, theoretical physics is more my thing. That's science in my book, something that can advance us as a society. Evolution is a drag on science in my opinion. Worthless discussion over what? Who can claim king of the mountain? Well whoopy freakin' dooo!

Evolution has been studied for 150 years already, and without credible exception, the results of such investigations have supported it.

As to demonstrating that terrestrial lifeforms evolutionarliy diverged from ancient common ancestors this has been shown to be the case beyond rational statistical doubt:

[Link: www.newyorker.com...]

1314 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:52:25pm

re: #1277 thatemailname

I'll never understand why these discussions always seem to degenerate into personal criticisms.

How in heaven's name have you shown by your post that election losses have anything to do with creationism?

Check out Kansas.

1315 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:59:41pm

re: #1279 jmwcctx

I do--but I also see an undercurrent of "If you don't call creationists fools and idiots, you must be one" in almost every post, and that's a fallacy. I don't choose to call them fools or idiots because, frankly, they're entitled to their own interpretation of the evidence, no matter how uninformed they might be. That the creationist movement reached them in a more convincing fashion than science (assuming they ever had the choice) tells me that there's more missing from their lives than Darwin. So are we going to become liberals, ridiculing anyone who doesn't toe the line to our way of thinking? Are we going to declare "settled science" like the agw'ers? Or do we work to insure that they're made to feel a part of the party regardless, and then give them time and information to investigate for themselves?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions; they are NOT, however, entitled to their own facts. And the empirical evidence so massively supports evolution that it requires a vast capacity for relaity denial and willful self-delusion in order to 'interpret' them away.

Personally, I've observed that people who become part of a contrarian movement are never moved by ridicule or derision. In fact, it only makes them less open to alternative thought. IMO, this movement would die an inauspicious death if the scientists would quit lending it credence as a credible threat to science. The louder the protest of the movement becomes, the more weight those undecided give the movement.

There IS NO credible scientific alternative to evolution, as far as explaining how it is that we have the plethora of genetically interrelated yet distinct terrestrial species that we do is concerned.

And I do not subscribe to the 'weeds' theory that the more moles you whack, the more they breed, and the more popular support they gain. It sure as hell hasn't been the case with Al Qaeda in Iraq.

1316 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:02:21pm

re: #1280 thatemailname

! CORRECTION OF ABOVE !

Sorry, thought you were talking about the other thing I said had nothing to do with creationism.

So how in heaven's name have you shown, through your reply, that the decline in science education has anything to do with creationism? *Asserting* something doesn't make it so.

In my area, the schools do NOT teach creationism, and never will (New York / New Jersey). And the science education SUCKS. It is a JOKE. The kids I speak with know very little about science, and most have even less interest. They say it's BOOOOORING.

And creationism hasn't been taught 'round here in probably 100 years or more! :-)

Polluting empirical science education with religious dogma CANNOT HELP but to damage it. It's a fucking no-brainer.

Tell me about all of that great, grand and glorious creationist science education happening in the Muslim world, why doncha?

1317 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:04:57pm

re: #1282 jimc

I'm sorry but I am going to have to call you one more time on reading comprehension, I say I reject those who claim evolution is a FACT not a theory. I embrace and respect those who treat it as such even if I disagree with their assumptions.

Because you're not reading close enough, this all falls back to the reading comprehension. Evolution is not being taught as theory but being laid down as fact. The word theory probably only comes up on the lesson plan title *if that*. That is what I object to. Teach it for what it is, a theory and I don't care, still re: #1311 Salamantis

So kids shouldn't be taught racial tolerance because their parents might be bigots?

Evolution is both a fact AND a theory:

[Link: www.stephenjaygould.org...]

[Link: www.2think.org...]

[Link: www.actionbioscience.org...]

[Link: www.springerlink.com...]

[Link: scienceblogs.com...]

think it doesn't belong in K-12 but I would accept it as an elective.

And I don't reject those who have valid theories based on there agenda's, I only question it when they try to pass it off as fact to support their agendas.

1318 Brit in Japan  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:34:03pm

re: #1282 jimc

So after all that, this is your entire argument? To willfully misunderstand what a "scientific theory" means?

I mean... really? That's your best argument? And you think that will work here on LGF?

Pathetic.

BiJ.

1319 thatemailname  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:48:26pm

re: #1286 Salamantis

If I had to choose an either/or, I would sadly and reluctantly, but firmly, choose A. The education of our children should be sacrosanct.

However, I consider this to be a false choice. I cannot bring myself to believe that the Republican party is incapable of fielding other than anti-science, activist creationist candidates.

But...if that is indeed the case, then the Republican party richly merits and deserves political extinction, so that a more pedagogically responsible and less empirical-reality-denying successor can rise like a phoenix from its crashed and burned ashes.

The education of our children is anything BUT "sacrosanct". It is being consistently dumbed-down and destroyed by the introduction of all manner of politically correct, watered-down curricula and ideologies, all coming from the left.

In theory, I agree with you. In practice, any harm that might come from discussion of creationism in the schools is nothing, compared to the harm of 20 years of demo rule.

And I'm not saying the candidate HAS to be in favor of creationism in schools, I too would prefer an **effective** candidate that is not.

I *am* saying that if an otherwise qualified, effective candidate is in favor of it, that doesn't disqualify them in my view.

1320 thatemailname  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:49:48pm

re: #1288 Salamantis

It can never be acceptable among people possessed of the slightest shred of integrity and decency to countenance the the machinery of the state being placed in the service of the systematic sectarian brainwashing of America's youth in order to pander to a perceived political expediency regarding constitution-shunning activist theocrats.

.... unless that would mean having a shot at implementing the other 95% of their agenda. To my mind, it's being pragmatic. In theory, you are right, but politics is the art of the possible.

1321 thatemailname  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:51:46pm

re: #1297 Salamantis

Including religious dogmas alongside empirical science in public high school science class is unacceptable, unconstitutional, and just plain wrong. Should we also teach astrology there, because a sizeable chunk of ignorant nitwits believe in it?

No. But I'm not prepared to equate the religious view of the origins of life with astrology, nor am I ready to call people of faith "ignorant nitwits".

1322 thatemailname  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:52:29pm

re: #1314 Salamantis

Check out Kansas.

Sure. Could I ask for some starting point? (serious question)

1323 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:16:58pm

re: #1319 thatemailname

The education of our children is anything BUT "sacrosanct". It is being consistently dumbed-down and destroyed by the introduction of all manner of politically correct, watered-down curricula and ideologies, all coming from the left.

In theory, I agree with you. In practice, any harm that might come from discussion of creationism in the schools is nothing, compared to the harm of 20 years of demo rule.

And I'm not saying the candidate HAS to be in favor of creationism in schools, I too would prefer an **effective** candidate that is not.

I *am* saying that if an otherwise qualified, effective candidate is in favor of it, that doesn't disqualify them in my view.

It is no solution to leftist strychnine poisoning to mandate that the patient be dosed with crationist arsenic. And the grave damage that fucking up an entire generation of American children's science education will do lasts, for them, their entire lifetimes - and for our nation, perhaps far longer.

If an 'otherwise qualified' candidate is in favor of forcing creationist crapola into public high school science classes, that single solitary fact ALONE disqualifies them just as much as would a professed love for the economic policies of Karl Marx.

1324 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:24:43pm

re: #1321 thatemailname

No. But I'm not prepared to equate the religious view of the origins of life with astrology, nor am I ready to call people of faith "ignorant nitwits".

Neither of them is supported by any empirical evidence whatsoever, and if they're Biblical Literalist creationists (a small subset of 'people of faith'), they're not only ignorant nitwits, but willfully so, as the contentions that the universe, the earth and all life on it were created a few thousand years ago, and that millions upon millions of terrestrial species both existent and extinct were created independently and as is in the space of six relatively recent days, are empirically demonstrable as absotively, posilutely false - and the empirical science that proves them so is readily avaiable for all who seek it.

Religious dogmas deserve no more respect than do political contentions, and should be equally open to not only criticism, but also outright lampoon and ridicule; otherwise, Nazism and Communism could insulate themselves from same by declaring themselves to be religions. Islamofacism is already trying to exploit this attempted enforcement of excessive respect for piety-for-piety's-sake.

1325 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:29:24pm

re: #1320 thatemailname

.... unless that would mean having a shot at implementing the other 95% of their agenda. To my mind, it's being pragmatic. In theory, you are right, but politics is the art of the possible.

It is also the art of the noble and honorable. And I refuse to associate myself with such craven, ignoble, dishonorable and child-damaging sellouts. We become far worse than that which we oppose and despise when we engage in execrable and reprehensible behavior such as this. I categorically refuse to sacrifice our nation's youth on such an indecent altar.

1326 Salamantis  Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:32:00pm

re: #1322 thatemailname

Sure. Could I ask for some starting point? (serious question)

Check out what happened to the Republicans there after they supported the creationism-in-public-schools bill. Their governor and congresspeople are Dems now. And it's not by any stretch of the imagination a liberal hotbed; instead, we have cost ourselve a chunk of the heartland.

1327 MJBrutus  Tue, Feb 24, 2009 2:52:04pm

re: #23 devil in baggy pants

So your official statement on Election 2008 is that Obama won because there are creationists who govern three states?

Are you serious?

How about the fact that the GOP didn't run a candidate who didn't reflect true conservatism?

If we would have run a Duncan Hunter/Ronald Reagan republican, we would have won this thing in spades and it wouldn't have mattered a whit what 3 governors believe about evolution.

If it weren't for the religious righteous in the GOP, we would not have had Huckleberry in the race, bleeding away support from Romney. Thus we wouldn't have had McLame as our nominee and probably would not be suffering under the rule of President Pelosi (And make no mistake, that is who is in charge in DC, not the nominal President Bambi)!


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Detroit Local Powers First EV Charging Road in North America The road, about a mile from Local 58's hall, uses rubber-coated copper inductive-charging coils buried under the asphalt that transfer power to a receiver pad attached to a car's underbelly, much like how a phone can be charged wirelessly. ...
Backwoods Sleuth
3 days ago
Views: 185 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 4