For reference, I’m not the only blogger who believes that the GOP’s association with creationism is one of the factors that caused massive losses in the last two elections; Randy Barnett at the Volokh Conspiracy: This is Not Good.
And since there are so many people who insist on denying this, here’s a simple illustration of the importance of the issue in the 2008 election:
sarah palin creationism - Google Search.
1,220,000 results.
2 |
notutopia Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:10:37am |
Agree, This is NOT Good!
What are we going to do about these top three GOP
"potentials"?
| 3 |
loppyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:10:43am |
I campaigned for McCain and I never heard one person mention Creationism - pro McCain or or pro Obama.
| 4 |
Wendya Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:11:02am |
I would not support any GOP member who wanted creationism taught as science but I'm not going to shun someone who personally believes in ID or creationism yet has no intention of forcing that belief on America's schoolchildren.
| 5 |
MrSilverDragon Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:11:25am |
This is all a plot of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I know it.
| 8 |
NYCHardhat Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:12:12am |
I still believe all issues are second to people's money. If you fuck with the economy/peoples money, you won't get elected.
| 10 |
loppyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:13:12am |
re: #8 NYCHardhat
I still believe all issues are second to people's money. If you fuck with the economy/peoples money, you won't get elected.
Or their safety.
| 12 |
claire Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:13:40am |
Good. I was hoping/ wondering why more blogs weren't taking up this banner. But even if they aren't, you are having an impact on the conversation. there's no doubt about that-
Next step- educating the actual politicians on the actual facts.
| 13 |
Oh no...Sand People! Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:13:41am |
re: #4 Wendya
I would not support any GOP member who wanted creationism taught as science but I'm not going to shun someone who personally believes in ID or creationism yet has no intention of forcing that belief on America's schoolchildren.
Eggzackly. There is to be no 'litmus test on religion'. So if they keep it to themselves and not try to legislate it into schools there shouldn't be a problem. Don't start none, won't be none.
| 14 |
Vicious Babushka Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:13:49am |
I voted for Rudy in the primary, before he folded up like a paper napkin.
| 16 |
NYCHardhat Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:14:00am |
re: #10 loppyd
Or their safety.
I thought that until Obama got in. I don't understand people anymore.
| 17 |
zombie Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:14:35am |
If there was ever a time to "clean house" on the conservative side, this is it.
We just had an election. The Republicans got stomped. There isn't another election for 2 years; and not another Presidential election for 4 years. This is in fact the correct moment to "air the dirty laundry," as Charles is doing, because it will have the least effect electorally.
Both sides, in fact (Dem and Repub) need to "clean house," but the Dems are smug and aren't doing it, because they think they don't need to. Good. We'll clean house, come back leaner and meaner next time, and embarrass them for their unfortunate associations.
| 18 |
Peacekeeper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:14:42am |
re: #3 loppyd
I campaigned for McCain and I never heard one person mention Creationism - pro McCain or or pro Obama.
We live in New England. Our cherished myths involve Kennedys...
| 20 |
loppyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:15:19am |
re: #16 NYCHardhat
I thought that until Obama got in. I don't understand people anymore.
The average Obama voter was too clueless and blinded by the light to think clearly.
| 21 |
the_flying_pig Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:15:31am |
I am a Republican but I am opposed to creationism. I wish the Republican politicians would stop pandering to the usual Christian base voters and look at the real issues honestly.
| 22 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:15:45am |
re: #2 notutopia
Agree, This is NOT Good!
What are we going to do about these top three GOP
"potentials"?
Not vote for them if they are on any ticket.
| 23 |
notutopia Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:16:13am |
re: #9 addison
I had high hopes for Jindal.
So did Pink Floyd...
High Hopes
Run a mile run a mile
'cos all the while
You're cramping my style cramp my style
Bleeding me dry
Grab a hold grab a hold
To steady your soul
And test if they're real test for real
All the spotlights you shone to help me
Find needles in the hay
Let them lift away
'cos I've got high hopes
I believe
In the roots that keep me complete
And I've got high hopes
All I need
Is your hands to steady my feet steady my feet
You've sunken low sunken low
Its another swift blow
And I know where you've been where have you
So don't feed off my skin
While I test if they're real test for real
All the stories you told to lift me
When good times went astray
Let them lift away
'cos I've got high hopes
I believe
In the roots that keep me complete
And I've got high hopes
All I need
Is your hands to steady my feet
We will lift away
'cos I've got high hopes
I believe
In the roots that keep me complete
And I've got high hopes
All I need
Is your hands to steady my feet
| 24 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:16:17am |
re: #17 zombie
If there was ever a time to "clean house" on the conservative side, this is it.
We just had an election. The Republicans got stomped. There isn't another election for 2 years; and not another Presidential election for 4 years. This is in fact the correct moment to "air the dirty laundry," as Charles is doing, because it will have the least effect electorally.
Both sides, in fact (Dem and Repub) need to "clean house," but the Dems are smug and aren't doing it, because they think they don't need to. Good. We'll clean house, come back leaner and meaner next time, and embarrass them for their unfortunate associations.
No we won't.
| 27 |
loppyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:16:31am |
McCain did NOT lose for being too conservative.
| 28 |
Nevergiveup Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:16:34am |
3:55 Archaeologists find building, pottery from time of First and Second Temples (Haaretz)
Original owner behind on his mortgage demands funds from the stimulus?
| 29 |
Peacekeeper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:16:45am |
I'd rather have a creationist for a neighbor than an atheist, or a socialist, or a Kennedy.
| 30 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:16:47am |
Unfortunately, this is not a new issue in the GOP. As I remembered this morning on the DT, James Watt, Pres. Reagan's first Secretary of the Interior, said something along the lines of using natural resources as if the future is limited.
| 31 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:16:54am |
| 32 |
loppyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:17:32am |
re: #26 taxfreekiller
Of some note:
The msm is once more attempting to pick the candidate for the R's just like they did with McCain.
The thing to look for is who they never talk about, that person is the real threat to the commie loon Democrats and the msm cuts them out by never using their name.
like that is how they do part of it,
use your on mind, shun any and all msm input, it is all lies
Of course they are. They want RINO Charlie Christ.
| 33 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:17:39am |
re: #29 Peacekeeper
I'd rather have a creationist for a neighbor than an atheist, or a socialist, or a Kennedy.
I don't care what someone believes as a religious tenet as long as she or he doesn't try to force it down the throats of kids in public schools.
| 34 |
tedzilla99 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:17:40am |
re: #27 loppyd
McCain did NOT lose for being too conservative.
EXACTLY - take Palin away and he barely hits 40%.
| 36 |
the_flying_pig Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:17:47am |
| 37 |
nbenhaim Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:17:54am |
hmm, so if the GOP wouldn't have been in any way affiliated with "Creationism", then all would have been well. Internet chatter isn't a good way to gauge the American people. Besides, didn't Charles post something recently that showed that only a small fraction of Americans believe in evolution? Don't get me wrong, I'm one of them, but all I'm saying is that this issue is not the deciding factor for upcoming elections
| 39 |
debutaunt Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:17:57am |
re: #5 MrSilverDragon
This is all a plot of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I know it.
Did Kilgore blab again?
| 40 |
Oh no...Sand People! Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:18:09am |
re: #29 Peacekeeper
I'd rather have a creationist for a neighbor than an atheist, or a socialist, or a Kennedy.
Give me an Athiest any day of the week over the other 3. I could at least have a conversation then.
| 41 |
Ward Cleaver Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:18:28am |
re: #32 loppyd
Of course they are. They want RINO Charlie Christ.
It's Crist. Freudian slip there? ;-)
| 42 |
Peacekeeper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:18:32am |
McCain was about as ashamed of being Republican as you can get this side of Cape Cod and he still lost. You're drawing the wrong conclusion.
| 43 |
Ben Hur Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:18:45am |
Nobody knows, eh?
What do you think?
Do the Republican elected officials REALLY believe in Creationism, or are they pandering to 50 million Evangelicals (or whoever) for their votes and support?
| 44 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:18:50am |
re: #19 tedzilla99
So Charles is only bashing Christians by exaggerating a non-existent problem, eh?
Get used to a Socialist America with a denial factor that strong.
| 46 |
loppyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:19:10am |
re: #34 tedzilla99
EXACTLY - take Palin away and he barely hits 40%.
Yup. I went to rallies for both....lets just say I didn't have to wait in line for almost 3 hours at the McCain rally.
| 47 |
Peacekeeper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:19:19am |
re: #33 MandyManners
I don't care what someone believes as a religious tenet as long as she or he doesn't try to force it down the throats of kids in public schools.
That reminds me, OR A CLINTON.
| 48 |
Sharmuta Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:19:22am |
re: #38 smokefire
Please get your own blog so we can come over and tell you what to do.
| 50 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:19:58am |
re: #43 Ben Hur
Nobody knows, eh?
What do you think?
Do the Republican elected officials REALLY believe in Creationism, or are they pandering to 50 million Evangelicals (or whoever) for their votes and support?
Does it matter WHAT they believe as long as they don't try to force the rest of the nation to beleve that way?
| 51 |
the_flying_pig Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:20:01am |
re: #29 Peacekeeper
If your creationist neigbhor is on the local school board, then you have a difficult case.
| 52 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:20:12am |
| 53 |
Peacekeeper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:20:20am |
re: #40 Oh no...Sand People!
Give me an Athiest any day of the week over the other 3. I could at least have a conversation then.
But not about God. :)
| 54 |
Wendya Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:20:37am |
re: #43 Ben Hur
Nobody knows, eh?
What do you think?
Do the Republican elected officials REALLY believe in Creationism, or are they pandering to 50 million Evangelicals (or whoever) for their votes and support?
It's all pandering. Even if they believe in creationism, they ought to have enough sense to know imposing a specific religious belief on other people's children isn't acceptable. Unfortunately, many of their voters see no problem with it.
| 55 |
Ben Hur Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:20:46am |
re: #50 MandyManners
Does it matter WHAT they believe as long as they don't try to force the rest of the nation to beleve that way?
What?
| 57 |
zombie Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:20:58am |
#38:
I realize your comment will most likely soon be deleted, but I'll respond anyway:
This IS how we are dealing with the important issues. Becasue if the Republicans are saddled with something that will totally discredit them, then they'll never get re-elected and never be able to address the problems. Can't you understand that?
| 58 |
loppyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:21:09am |
re: #41 Ward Cleaver
It's Crist. Freudian slip there? ;-)
Could be. Or it could be that I am delirious. Entering my 4th week of being sick. Now I have a stomach bug. Lucky me!
It has forced me to call in sick for the first time in years.
| 59 |
Nevergiveup Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:21:12am |
re: #48 Sharmuta
Please get your own blog so we can come over and tell you what to do.
I don't think that is what he is saying.
| 61 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:21:20am |
| 63 |
Randall Gross Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:21:47am |
All of the stuff about "well we didn't run a true conservative" is belied by the voter registration trends the last four years, the doubters need to realize that the numbers have tipped in the D's favor dramatically, and that trend is not abating. This is one of the factors driving defections.
| 64 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:21:52am |
re: #42 Peacekeeper
McCain was about as ashamed of being Republican as you can get this side of Cape Cod and he still lost. You're drawing the wrong conclusion.
No, he is still proud of being a Republican, he is just very ashamed of having shown conservative tendencies in the past. Republicanism is no longer a party that accepts and promotes conservatism.
Promoting Creationism is not conservative.
| 65 |
DaddyG Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:22:02am |
A candidate with any strong "-ism" other than conservatism attached to them is going to be bad news. If the GOP wants to stop the bleeding they need to focus on the core issues of smaller government and the basic freedoms our founding fathers established (speech, defense, religion or lack therof...) Instead they seem to want to replace one kind of government meddling and with another.
| 66 |
nyc redneck Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:22:02am |
is is possible to get any of these creationists to see the big picture here.
or do we just lose them all. is anyone explaining science to them?
somehow we are going to have to come together as a party.
or the libs will have free reign to wantonly bankrupt and destroy america at will.
we are so going backwards at this rate.
| 68 |
Peacekeeper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:22:34am |
re: #51 the_flying_pig
If your creationist neigbhor is on the local school board, then you have a difficult case.
School boards? They're nuttier than squirrel poop. Sex ed for kindergarden, diversity for training for second graders. Alternative lifestyles for junior high.
| 69 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:22:35am |
re: #51 the_flying_pig
If your creationist neigbhor is on the local school board, then you have a difficult case.
Only if the creationist tries to force it to be taught in public schools.
| 70 |
subsailor68 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:22:41am |
re: #53 Peacekeeper
But not about God. :)
Reminds me of the old story about the dyslexic atheist who tragically wasted his entire life trying to prove there was no such thing as dog.
| 71 |
Ringo the Gringo Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:22:48am |
Even if you personally do not place this issue high on your list of pressing concerns, the Democrats will never-the-less use this issue to portray all conservatives as as a bunch of backwards, stump-toothed, snake-handling religious loonies.
And they will succeed.
Pushing phoney science - especially the "young earth" crap - makes all conservatives look like idiots.
I've been registered as a Republican since 1999, but I'll quit the party if they continue down this road.
| 72 |
NYCHardhat Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:22:50am |
re: #57 zombie
#38:
I realize your comment will most likely soon be deleted, but I'll respond anyway:
This IS how we are dealing with the important issues. Becasue if the Republicans are saddled with something that will totally discredit them, then they'll never get re-elected and never be able to address the problems. Can't you understand that?
Or is other words....No one will let you babysit their kids if you are Michael Jackson.
That was horrible ...I know.
| 73 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:23:39am |
re: #55 Ben Hur
What?
I apologize if I wasn't plain enough in what I posted. How could I make it clearer?
| 74 |
Oh no...Sand People! Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:23:45am |
re: #53 Peacekeeper
But not about God. :)
I'm completely fine with philosophy, weather, a lil sports, some science, cartoons, jokes etc. God comes up and 'I'm going to hell'. That sums it up for the most part. People just come away offended or they will not approach the topic of religion in complete honesty. It's just a giant 'one up' contest. I've played it myself. Goes nowhere fast. If groups could stick to the facts and own up to their faults we could get a head a lot faster..IMO.
| 76 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:24:14am |
re: #60 tedzilla99
The media is the one taking the nutcases and making them the face of the Republicans. Even FNC is gleefully doing it.
| 77 |
Sharmuta Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:24:21am |
re: #66 nyc redneck
There's still a lot of ignorance out there about evolution- people just don't take the time to read up on just how validated the theory has been in the last few decades. There's plenty of resources out there for people to learn about it.
And it's this lack of understanding of the theory that plays right into the DI's hands.
| 78 |
Guanxi88 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:24:24am |
re: #70 subsailor68
Reminds me of the old story about the dyslexic atheist who tragically wasted his entire life trying to prove there was no such thing as dog.
Yes, he tried to end it all by throwing himself behind a bus.
| 79 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:24:30am |
re: #59 Nevergiveup
I don't think that is what he is saying.
He attacked Charles for Charles' choice of topic.
| 80 |
tedzilla99 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:24:36am |
re: #63 Thanos
All of the stuff about "well we didn't run a true conservative" is belied by the voter registration trends the last four years, the doubters need to realize that the numbers have tipped in the D's favor dramatically, and that trend is not abating. This is one of the factors driving defections.
Registration numbers don't equate to turnout on election day... since in some states, you can change registration to vote in the primary for your opposite party. And ACORN has skewed registrations to be completely unreliable. AND someone who did not vote does not count as a defection...I was very tempted not to vote for president at all this past year.
| 81 |
Bumr50 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:24:43am |
I'm not going to write people off unless they firmly believe that creationism should be taught as a legit alternative to evolution in public schools. Period.
Let's hope that they'll be wary of carefully crafted legislation to push forward such incentives.
I'm still mystified at all this at times, and that's why you'll rarely hear me opine on these threads.
I'm just not seeing it here.
My younger brother is a firm evolutionist, and graduated with honors from a Catholic school. I'm a Christian evolutionist, and almost everyone that I know, liberal or conservative (or sadly more often than not, too unaware to know the REAL differences) of the Christian faith is not a Creationist in the capital "C" sense of the word.
Maybe it's more of a Southern thing.
Just sayin', coming from Pittsburgh, MUCH bigger fish to fry here.
//Get it. Fish. Lent... I tried.//
| 82 |
yma o hyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:24:58am |
re: #26 taxfreekiller
Of some note:
The msm is once more attempting to pick the candidate for the R's just like they did with McCain.
The thing to look for is who they never talk about, that person is the real threat to the commie loon Democrats and the msm cuts them out by never using their name.
like that is how they do part of it,
use your on mind, shun any and all msm input, it is all lies
Agree - especially with the sentence I bolded!
Time to look for the real people - not for someone who might win 'american idol', and as Zombie said above: the time to start is now!
| 83 |
notutopia Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:25:07am |
re: #38 smokefire
No one is blind here. All the US and World problems are being considered and our Economic and Financial portfolios are living testimonies for reality!
Don't you tell me that we need to stop discussing ANYTHING, much less the important relevance of having another LOSER run as our GOP candidate.
If we are to support a candidate for the GOP, he/she had better earn that support, and one of the important issues here is whether or not they will support SCIENCE and keep religion out of our public school curriculum and textbooks.
Our country is now falling far behind other countries in college graduates in the fields of science. This is going to kill our future progress as a country.
| 84 |
harlemghost Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:25:25am |
On Creationism LGF is spot on to ridicule it as illogical and anti-science. Of course man made global warming is just as anti-science and belief based as creationism so it would be nice if LGF hit the liberals just as hard on their belief based "science".
I say reject creationism and AGW in the same breath, they are both belief based and both ignore actual empirical evidence to the contrary.
| 85 |
subsailor68 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:25:37am |
re: #78 Guanxi88
Yes, he tried to end it all by throwing himself behind a bus.
Okay, now that's funny!
:-)
| 86 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:25:39am |
re: #65 DaddyG
A candidate with any strong "-ism" other than conservatism attached to them is going to be bad news. If the GOP wants to stop the bleeding they need to focus on the core issues of smaller government and the basic freedoms our founding fathers established (speech, defense, religion or lack therof...) Instead they seem to want to replace one kind of government meddling and with another.
I couldn't have said it better.
| 88 |
jaunte Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:26:03am |
re: #69 MandyManners
Here's a local case, from my email this morning. Terri Leo, of the Texas State Board of Education, is pursuing the Discovery Institute's agenda to change science teaching standards in Texas. It's a dishonest effort to claim that opponents are trying to stifle scientific debate.
[Link: www.thsc.org...]
| 90 |
Randall Gross Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:26:27am |
re: #80 tedzilla99
Registration numbers don't equate to turnout on election day...
Wake up. Who holds Congress? Who is the President? Quit repeating mantras and think.
| 91 |
Emperor Norton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:28:37am |
It ain't necessarily so.
It ain't necessarily so.
The things that you're liable
To read in The Bible,
It ain't necessarily so.
--Ira Gershwin
| 92 |
kafir lover Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:28:39am |
For conservatives, I think we are facing a much bigger problem with the attempt to wrest the census away from the Dept. of Commerce. I am banking on a sizable backlash in 2010 to restore order to this country, but the current government is actively trying to change the playing field. I don't see any other reason why this is being attempted if not to solidify democratic party rule, does anyone else?
| 93 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:28:47am |
re: #71 Ringo the Gringo
Even if you personally do not place this issue high on your list of pressing concerns, the Democrats will never-the-less use this issue to portray all conservatives as as a bunch of backwards, stump-toothed, snake-handling religious loonies.
And they will succeed.
Pushing phoney science - especially the "young earth" crap - makes all conservatives look like idiots.
I've been registered as a Republican since 1999, but I'll quit the party if they continue down this road.
It's already starting. The AP seems to be the one who chose the "top three" GOP governors. I wonder how they chose them. This morning, CNN said that Jindal was the leading contender, then went on to mention--apropos of nothing I could figure out--that he spoke to a conservative, Christian group right after the election.
| 94 |
redc1c4 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:29:23am |
re: #34 tedzilla99
EXACTLY - take Palin away and he barely hits 40%.
take Palin away, i likely would have left that office blank on my ballot.
| 95 |
fish Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:29:34am |
re: #63 Thanos
All of the stuff about "well we didn't run a true conservative" is belied by the voter registration trends the last four years, the doubters need to realize that the numbers have tipped in the D's favor dramatically, and that trend is not abating. This is one of the factors driving defections.
I refuse to believe that any one out there has said to themselves: "Well, I like lower taxes, want a smaller government, and an end to the welfare/nany state mentality. But too many R's have said things in a debate or in private about creationism so I guess I just have to vote for the Dems now"
| 96 |
zombie Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:29:37am |
Coincidentally, this article appeared this morning at the SF Chronicle, about the California Republican party convention, with this money-quote:
"We're losing market share at an alarming rate," she warned, noting Republican party registration is now barely at 31 percent in California, "13 points below Democrats - and dropping."
Predictably, they spent the convention bickering with each other and pointing fingers over trivial issues.
Frankly, in California, the Republicans are looking like they don't have a future.
And that may in fact be happening nationwide -- unless we can clean up and change the Republican image. Which is what Charles is trying to do, in some small way. Can you blame him?
| 97 |
Sharmuta Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:29:42am |
re: #81 Bumr50
I'm not going to write people off unless they firmly believe that creationism should be taught as a legit alternative to evolution in public schools. Period.
And many of them do. Quite a few in elected office to boot.
| 98 |
Occasional Reader Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:29:51am |
re: #73 MandyManners
I apologize if I wasn't plain enough in what I posted. How could I make it clearer?
Interpretive dance.
| 99 |
Wendya Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:30:49am |
It's a shame any politician feels the need to push creationism in schools to pick up votes but when you consider that Gallup poll from this month that shows only 39% of those polled believe in evolution, they obviously feel there are votes to be mined from the left, right and the middle.
| 101 |
tedzilla99 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:30:54am |
re: #90 Thanos
Wake up. Who holds Congress? Who is the President? Quit repeating mantras and think.
You mentioned registrations - if someone registers democrat to vote against barry in the primary and then votes for Palin in the general, then what is your point, exactly? If ACORN turns in 1 million fraudulent registrations and the dems still win, is there a correlation or just coincidence?
I understand that the trend has gone to dem and it can be placed squarely at the feet of liberal GOP politicians who squandered their majority since '94. And again, you can't count a GOP voter who stays home as a defection. Read what I type rather than jump on my back, please.
| 102 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:31:05am |
re: #81 Bumr50
I'm not going to write people off unless they firmly believe that creationism should be taught as a legit alternative to evolution in public schools. Period.
Let's hope that they'll be wary of carefully crafted legislation to push forward such incentives.
I'm still mystified at all this at times, and that's why you'll rarely hear me opine on these threads.
I'm just not seeing it here.
My younger brother is a firm evolutionist, and graduated with honors from a Catholic school. I'm a Christian evolutionist, and almost everyone that I know, liberal or conservative (or sadly more often than not, too unaware to know the REAL differences) of the Christian faith is not a Creationist in the capital "C" sense of the word.
Maybe it's more of a Southern thing.
Just sayin', coming from Pittsburgh, MUCH bigger fish to fry here.
//Get it. Fish. Lent... I tried.//
Have you not been paying attention to the explosion of bills in various states to allow the teaching of creationism?
| 103 |
Peacekeeper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:31:17am |
California is not currently known for its strict conservative tradition. I'm looking at you Ahnold.
| 104 |
Gordon Marock Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:31:42am |
If Bobby Jindal was still a Hindu, I could vote for him, cuz he wouldn't be pushing his Creationist agenda on schools. However, if he was still a Hindu, he would never have been Governor of Louisiana.
| 105 |
redc1c4 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:31:58am |
re: #53 Peacekeeper
But not about God. :)
that's all they ever want to talk about: why there isn't one.
my atheist associates get all wound when i tell them it's just another religion.
| 107 |
Randall Gross Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:32:02am |
re: #95 fish
I refuse to believe
Why is Red state Kansas sporting a Democrat Governor? Why do I have a D for Congresscritter in Johnson county? Why has Kansas turned Purple?
You can refuse to believe all you want, that's not going to stop the trend.
| 108 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:32:31am |
re: #84 harlemghost
On Creationism LGF is spot on to ridicule it as illogical and anti-science. Of course man made global warming is just as anti-science and belief based as creationism so it would be nice if LGF hit the liberals just as hard on their belief based "science".
I say reject creationism and AGW in the same breath, they are both belief based and both ignore actual empirical evidence to the contrary.
Climate change has more basis in science than creationism.
| 109 |
Amer-I-Can Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:32:56am |
Religion+Politics = Eye off the ball.... EVERY TIME!
| 110 |
Perplexed Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:32:59am |
The way I read the comments here, is that if anyone espouses creationism in any way shape or form and also seeks higher office that they are untouchable until they change their beliefs. Furthermore if they are the next presidential candidate, so called conservative voters will sit out the election thereby giving the socialist party another four years. Isn't that like cutting off your nose to spite your face?
I voted McCain Palin and held my nose while doing so. McCain was nothing more than a media selected candidate who was a darling of the press as long as he wasn't running. The second he became a candidate the press tore into him. Heard much from the press as to how evil McCain is today? Was Regan perfect? Nope. Was Lincoln perfect? Nope. We've got to elect a capable person, warts and all to run this country.
Schools are filled with so much state mandated crap that it is a wonder that children learn anything.
| 111 |
redc1c4 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:32:59am |
re: #96 zombie
Coincidentally, this article appeared this morning at the SF Chronicle, about the California Republican party convention, with this money-quote:
Predictably, they spent the convention bickering with each other and pointing fingers over trivial issues.
Frankly, in California, the Republicans are looking like they don't have a future.
And that may in fact be happening nationwide -- unless we can clean up and change the Republican image. Which is what Charles is trying to do, in some small way. Can you blame him?
here it's demographics: who's giving up and moving, and who's staying.
| 112 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:33:19am |
re: #87 tedzilla99
I read it as a general statement, since he didn't mention him by name. Why was it deleted?
Because he told Charles what to post on his blog. Charles has REPEATEDLY told people he would delete such posts.
| 113 |
Randall Gross Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:33:20am |
re: #101 tedzilla99
The turnout of R's was bigger in this election that Bush's last. You are denying reality.
| 115 |
redc1c4 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:33:56am |
re: #95 fish
I refuse to believe that any one out there has said to themselves: "Well, I like lower taxes, want a smaller government, and an end to the welfare/nany state mentality. But too many R's have said things in a debate or in private about creationism so I guess I just have to vote for the Dems now"
or we just don't vote for either, because a "lesser evil" is still evil.
| 116 |
Gordon Marock Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:34:13am |
re: #106 smokefire
Just my feeling that the attention to Creationism vis a vi real problems, is out of balance, and Charles, [bless his heart] is letting it cloud his judgment.
It seems that vitriol regarding Creationism is over stated when there are some really serious situations that go unchecked.
Wrong, Charles has hit on Creationism as being the symptom of a major problem for the Republicans. Belief in God is absolutely fine with me, but if you truly believe that the Earth is really 6,000 years old, I don't want you waiting on my table, much less running my government.
| 117 |
notutopia Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:34:18am |
re: #108 MandyManners
re: #108 MandyManners
Climate change has more basis in science than creationism.
This piece from this mornings Science news.
Expert: Climate Change Could Mean 'Extended World War'
[Link: www.foxnews.com...]
| 118 |
MrSilverDragon Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:34:21am |
| 119 |
loppyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:34:23am |
re: #113 Thanos
The turnout of R's was bigger in this election that Bush's last. You are denying reality.
Link to that please?
| 120 |
Oh no...Sand People! Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:34:24am |
re: #110 Perplexed
The way I read the comments here, is that if anyone espouses creationism in any way shape or form and also seeks higher office that they are untouchable until they change their beliefs. Furthermore if they are the next presidential candidate, so called conservative voters will sit out the election thereby giving the socialist party another four years. Isn't that like cutting off your nose to spite your face?
I voted McCain Palin and held my nose while doing so. McCain was nothing more than a media selected candidate who was a darling of the press as long as he wasn't running. The second he became a candidate the press tore into him. Heard much from the press as to how evil McCain is today? Was Regan perfect? Nope. Was Lincoln perfect? Nope. We've got to elect a capable person, warts and all to run this country.
Schools are filled with so much state mandated crap that it is a wonder that children learn anything.
Nope. Keep the beliefs, just keep them out of school. It's not that much to ask.
| 121 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:34:25am |
re: #88 jaunte
Here's a local case, from my email this morning. Terri Leo, of the Texas State Board of Education, is pursuing the Discovery Institute's agenda to change science teaching standards in Texas. It's a dishonest effort to claim that opponents are trying to stifle scientific debate.
[Link: www.thsc.org...]
Oh, yes, it is extremely dishonest. Notice how Leo tries to use Darwin to argue for the teaching of non-science?
| 122 |
redc1c4 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:34:53am |
re: #93 MandyManners
It's already starting. The AP seems to be the one who chose the "top three" GOP governors. I wonder how they chose them. This morning, CNN said that Jindal was the leading contender, then went on to mention--apropos of nothing I could figure out--that he spoke to a conservative, Christian group right after the election.
shape the battlefield
| 123 |
NYCHardhat Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:34:59am |
| 124 |
Wendya Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:35:13am |
re: #108 MandyManners
Climate change has more basis in science than creationism.
Man made climate change?
Bad science isn't made good just because someone throws up a computer model.
| 125 |
june_july Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:35:22am |
As an outside (Canadian) supporter of conservative thinking, I have watched with dismay as the Republican party has become tarnished as the "anti-science" party in the course of trying to pander to the significant number of their supporters who are biblical in their thinking.
In the long run this kind of primitive thinking cannot be successful. Human progress will come through scientific advancement, not interpretation and reinterpretation of the bible and its tenets. Science has its perils and those who would misuse it, but can anyone seriously want to stop its progress? Yet, anyone who pays attention to current affairs will find that republicans and religious fundamentalists are widely seen as opposed to much of the research which has a potential to improve the human condition. It may not be entirely true or as simple as black and white, but those are certainly the optics.
We criticize the muslims for having a 7th century religion, but the Republican party is trying to use contortions of logical thinking to mollify people who genuinely believe that an anthropomorphic god created the earth several thousand years ago, and what's worse this belief is entering the political agenda.
Again, I am an outside observer. I do not get to vote in US elections, so you all can tell me to STFU. But if the republican party becomes identified as an anti-progress bible thumping party, then it will have no future. Your elections are decided based on a swing vote of 10-20% of what are largely non-religious middle class voters who mostly are educated and self-sufficient. All other things being reasonably close to equal, they will vote against a party which accepts magical thinking it its platform.
If a third party is what is necessary to "exorcise" this problem, then perhaps Republicans who wish to form such a party should accept being in the woods for a decade or two in order to do so, because in the long run the demoncats will have a blank cheque against a party whose leaders largely live in the 18th century. Or, in the unlikely event that an anti-progress party comes to power again, it will be a long step forward towards destroying the greatest nation on Earth.
| 126 |
Sharmuta Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:35:25am |
re: #106 smokefire
Then start your own blog- then you can draw all the attention you want to those issues you feel are important.
| 127 |
Peacekeeper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:35:38am |
LGF CELEBRITY TAG TEAM DEATH MATCH FEATURING:
JERRY FALWELL AND PAT ROBERTSON
VERSUS
CHARLES DARWIN AND TRAVIS THE CHIMP
| 128 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:35:46am |
| 129 |
redc1c4 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:35:50am |
re: #108 MandyManners
Climate change has more basis in science than creationism.
what doesn't have more basis in science?
| 130 |
Honorary Yooper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:35:57am |
re: #114 NYCHardhat
I miss Reagan.
I think most of us here do; however, we all need to look forward, not backward. Part of looking forward means cleaning out the skeletons in our own closet first, and one of those skeletons, whether the religious right likes it or not, is YEC and forcing it into schools via ID and the DI.
| 131 |
NYCHardhat Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:36:16am |
| 132 |
Seeandhear Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:36:19am |
Is light made of Wave or Particle?
Can Imaginary Numbers be taught in schools?
Can division by zero be accomplished with calculus method?
Why does creation and evolution cause you so much distress?
| 133 |
tedzilla99 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:36:41am |
re: #113 Thanos
You keep contradicting yourself - either GOP voters defected or they turned out more than ever. The key for the loss in 2006 congressional election was conservative voters staying home.
| 134 |
Sharmuta Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:36:57am |
re: #110 Perplexed
Furthermore if they are the next presidential candidate, so called conservative voters will sit out the election thereby giving the socialist party another four years. Isn't that like cutting off your nose to spite your face?
And that's what many republicans did this last election. And when fiscal conservatives are pissed, and stay home, democrats win. Gee- maybe the fis-cons should be listened to?
| 135 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:37:24am |
re: #110 Perplexed
The way I read the comments here, is that if anyone espouses creationism in any way shape or form and also seeks higher office that they are untouchable until they change their beliefs.
Jindal doesn't just believe it. He allowed it to be taught in public schools.
| 137 |
Honorary Yooper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:37:30am |
| 138 |
SummerSong Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:37:31am |
Trillion dollar bailout game
[Link: www.addictinggames.com...]
| 139 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:37:59am |
re: #117 notutopia
re: #108 MandyManners
This piece from this mornings Science news.
Expert: Climate Change Could Mean 'Extended World War'
[Link: www.foxnews.com...]
Now, that's just polticized bullshit.
| 142 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:38:17am |
re: #110 Perplexed
I don't personally care what your beliefs as long just so you don't try to make them policy in the public arena.
Creationism is religious belief, not science, and does not belong in the public school system science curriculum.
| 143 |
Pyrocles Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:38:19am |
The media, the educational system, and the entertainment industry are all owned by the Democrats... Republicans are really the underdogs, now. With everything in our culture against them, I'm surprised Republicans have been as successful as they have been until now.
re: #76 FurryOldGuyJeans
The media is the one taking the nutcases and making them the face of the Republicans. Even FNC is gleefully doing it.
| 145 |
Honorary Yooper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:38:57am |
re: #134 Sharmuta
And that's what many republicans did this last election. And when fiscal conservatives are pissed, and stay home, democrats win. Gee- maybe the fis-cons should be listened to?
Too true. John McCain is hardly a fiscal conservative. He was about as bad a candidate as I've seen, and there were times when I wondered if he even really wanted the position.
| 146 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:39:04am |
re: #122 redc1c4
shape the battlefield
BINGO!
Don't let the enemy choose the candiates or the issues! Don't let the enemy write the dictionary!
| 147 |
albusteve Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:39:21am |
re: #132 Seeandhear
Is light made of Wave or Particle?
Can Imaginary Numbers be taught in schools?
Can division by zero be accomplished with calculus method?
Why does creation and evolution cause you so much distress?
someone no doubt will explain it again to you...but your questions seems disingenuous to me...are you really that out of touch?
| 148 |
Nevergiveup Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:39:54am |
re: #79 MandyManners
He attacked Charles for Charles' choice of topic.
I think he was trying to say there are more important topics. Look I would pretty just stay out of it if I don't like the subject, but I don't think he was way out of line.
| 149 |
Gordon Marock Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:39:54am |
re: #112 MandyManners
Because he told Charles what to post on his blog. Charles has REPEATEDLY told people he would delete such posts.
Charles, I hereby DEMAND that you post more stuff about Maple Syrup (which I love).
| 150 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:40:06am |
re: #141 tedzilla99
He actually didn't, and didn't mention Charles by name. Try again?
Charles found the comment UNACCEPTABLE. That is the only criteria needed.
| 151 |
gonecamping Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:40:12am |
Perish the thought. Charlie hustle is an awful governor, yet the MSM have polls showing how great he is (no one polled me).
re: #32 loppyd
Of course they are. They want RINO Charlie Christ.
| 152 |
notutopia Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:40:25am |
re: #139 MandyManners
Now, that's just polticized bullshit.
Agree. It however, is being "expertly" validated for political advatage of course, that it is science.
This is an example of pseudoscience by opinion.
| 153 |
Rexatosis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:40:27am |
Here in the Northeast (especially NE) any Republican who runs is tarred with this creationist/religious right tag and it is killing the GOP here. I know far too many moderate to conservative (economic/foreign policy) voters who will not vote the GOP candidate if that candidate has any leanings (suggested or real) towards the evangelical right. Currently there are zero Republicans in the House of Reps. from NE and only 3 Senators. All of New England is in danger of becoming a one party state. (that is about 35 or so electoral votes).
| 154 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:40:31am |
re: #124 Wendya
Man made climate change?
Bad science isn't made good just because someone throws up a computer model.
I have no idea how much AGW is true, and neither does anyone else. I deplore the reworking of our entire science, society and economy to fit a politicized notion. It's as if this is the new way to subvert democracy since straight-out Communism failed.
| 155 |
Honorary Yooper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:40:57am |
re: #117 notutopia
re: #108 MandyManners
This piece from this mornings Science news.
Expert: Climate Change Could Mean 'Extended World War'
[Link: www.foxnews.com...]
Interesting, but they forget that the last two world wars had little to do with climate, and everything to do with nationalism and the world of ideas, not to mention a complete mad man in the last one.
| 156 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:41:24am |
| 157 |
NYCHardhat Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:42:07am |
re: #134 Sharmuta
And that's what many republicans did this last election. And when fiscal conservatives are pissed, and stay home, democrats win. Gee- maybe the fis-cons should be listened to?
Agreed. I still don't know why you would cut your nose off to spite your face. When in doubt, you vote for the tax cutter.
| 158 |
Honorary Yooper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:42:14am |
re: #149 Gordon Marock
Charles, I hereby DEMAND that you post more stuff about Maple Syrup (which I love).
I DEMAND more posts about kittens!
/sarc
| 159 |
Steve Rogers Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:42:30am |
Several things will have to happen in order to save the GOP:
Responsible people will have to run for - and win - school board elections, keeping the theocrats off school boards so this issue won't weigh down the Republicans.
Responsible people will have to write many letters to many elected Republicans urging them to get back to their alleged principles and uphold the First Amendment and remind them that we are a Constitutional Republic, not a theocracy.
A charismatic, strong leader will have to take control of the Republican Party from within and seer it away from the cliff the theocrats are determined to take it over.
Republicans of all stripes have to be reminded over and over again that people can be moral without religion, and that religion does not necessarily make a person moral. And for those who want to accept religion as their moral compass, they need to be told that believing in the scientifically wrong 6,000 year old Earth and Universe has NOTHING whatsoever to do with morality. Likewise, they need to be told and come to accept that believing in the fact of evolution is not immoral.
Until all of these things start happening on a decent scale, the Republicans will continue to lose ground to the Democrats. And the Democrats will make damn sure to structure the laws keeping the down-and-out Republicans from ever again rising to any prominence on a national scale while also keeping any third party from taking the place of the Republican's.
| 160 |
Guanxi88 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:42:35am |
re: #154 MandyManners
I have no idea how much AGW is true, and neither does anyone else. I deplore the reworking of our entire science, society and economy to fit a politicized notion. It's as if this is the new way to subvert democracy since straight-out Communism failed.
Yes, your friend and mine, the watermelon metaphor: green on the outside, red in the middle.
| 161 |
MrSilverDragon Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:43:09am |
| 162 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:43:12am |
re: #141 tedzilla99
He actually didn't, and didn't mention Charles by name. Try again?
He ddin't need to mention Charles by name.
| 163 |
wwhsv Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:43:13am |
barack obama creationism - 11,700,000 results
hillary clinton creationism - 3,440,000 results
What does this mean? Anything?
| 164 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:43:33am |
re: #143 Pyrocles
The media, the educational system, and the entertainment industry are all owned by the Democrats... Republicans are really the underdogs, now. With everything in our culture against them, I'm surprised Republicans have been as successful as they have been until now.
I have been saying that privately for a number of years. Sadly the GOP now is what the Dems were in the 1960's. Both parties act as if they are fond of Socialism, the degree is the only sticking point.
| 165 |
Peacekeeper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:43:36am |
re: #153 Rexatosis
I don't see any evidence of that. This whole region is dominated by Boston and New York elites.
| 166 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:43:46am |
re: #158 Honorary Yooper
I DEMAND more posts about kittens!
/sarc
Oh sure. And next, you'll be wanting to see cats at the Westminister Dog Show.
| 167 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:43:50am |
re: #144 smokefire
You just told Charles that his couch sucks and that his carpet is hideously ugly.
| 168 |
Ford_Prefect Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:44:31am |
re: #161 MrSilverDragon
Karma: -5
Seeandhear
Registered since: Jul 22, 2007 at 11:45 am
No. of comments posted: 1
No. of links posted: 0
Does that answer your question?
| 169 |
redc1c4 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:44:51am |
re: #145 Honorary Yooper
Too true. John McCain is hardly a fiscal conservative. He was about as bad a candidate as I've seen, and there were times when I wondered if he even really wanted the position.
i was pretty sure he didn't, so the next question is, why did he run? what was his payoff?
| 170 |
subsailor68 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:44:57am |
OT. but referring to Ronald Reagan.
I just bought Bill Buckley's book "The Reagan I Knew." Haven't finished it, but what I've read is terrific, especially the story about their first meeting in 1961.
Reagan was slated to introduce Buckley at a speech. They got to the auditorium and realized the mike didn't work. After trying to contact someone to get a key to the A/V room, Reagan realized he could get there by going out a second story window and walking on the ledge. He punched out the window to the A/V room, and a few minutes later, the mike was up and running.
What a guy he was!
| 171 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:44:58am |
re: #148 Nevergiveup
I think he was trying to say there are more important topics. Look I would pretty just stay out of it if I don't like the subject, but I don't think he was way out of line.
With all due respect, that is not his job. Time and time again, Charles has told Lizards that he will delete posts that tell him what to post and what not to post.
| 172 |
Wendya Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:44:59am |
re: #132 Seeandhear
Is light made of Wave or Particle?
Can Imaginary Numbers be taught in schools?
Can division by zero be accomplished with calculus method?
Why does creation and evolution cause you so much distress?
1. Both
2. Yes
3. Not directly
4. Creationism presupposes the existence of a creator. Without that belief, the rest falls apart. That is not science and it's not testable.
| 173 |
Sharmuta Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:45:01am |
re: #157 NYCHardhat
Agreed. I still don't know why you would cut your nose off to spite your face. When in doubt, you vote for the tax cutter.
Don't look at me! I voted for Sarah.
But the GOP has to stop taking my vote for granted, and my political philosophy doesn't include shoving religion down the throats of other people. I'm not cool with that. It's a line in the sand, and they better figure it out or they'll keep losing elections. Rational people want nothing to do with this.
| 174 |
vxbush Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:45:15am |
re: #77 Sharmuta
There's still a lot of ignorance out there about evolution- people just don't take the time to read up on just how validated the theory has been in the last few decades. There's plenty of resources out there for people to learn about it.
And it's this lack of understanding of the theory that plays right into the DI's hands.
I would have to agree here. Being in the math field, I heard over and over from students that once they finished their math, they were planning on forgetting it all. I think the same thing happens with evolution--students just figure it isn't going to help them in a job, so they reallocate memory cells.
| 175 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:45:38am |
re: #159 Steve Rogers
Several things will have to happen in order to save the GOP:
Responsible people will have to run for - and win - school board elections, keeping the theocrats off school boards so this issue won't weigh down the Republicans.
Responsible people will have to write many letters to many elected Republicans urging them to get back to their alleged principles and uphold the First Amendment and remind them that we are a Constitutional Republic, not a theocracy.
Won't happen. Just like the left hides behind their "can't we all just get along" mantra, the majority hides behind "it's g-d's will" mantra.
A charismatic, strong leader will have to take control of the Republican Party from within and seer it away from the cliff the theocrats are determined to take it over.Republicans of all stripes have to be reminded over and over again that people can be moral without religion, and that religion does not necessarily make a person moral. And for those who want to accept religion as their moral compass, they need to be told that believing in the scientifically wrong 6,000 year old Earth and Universe has NOTHING whatsoever to do with morality. Likewise, they need to be told and come to accept that believing in the fact of evolution is not immoral.
Until all of these things start happening on a decent scale, the Republicans will continue to lose ground to the Democrats. And the Democrats will make damn sure to structure the laws keeping the down-and-out Republicans from ever again rising to any prominence on a national scale while also keeping any third party from taking the place of the Republican's.
| 176 |
Peacekeeper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:45:41am |
re: #166 Walter L. Newton
Oh sure. And next, you'll be wanting to see cats at the Westminister Dog Show.
Don't start with that cat versus dog debate...
| 177 |
MrSilverDragon Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:45:43am |
re: #168 Ford_Prefect
Does that answer your question?
It was more of a rhetorical question, but yes. :)
| 178 |
Randall Gross Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:45:59am |
re: #119 loppyd
Link to that please?
I got that one wrong , I was going off another article I read post election, I'll dig it up. Here's what CNN says:
[Link: politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...]
Here's the post I was remembering, since then the numbers have refined:
[Link: biglizards.net...]
Essentially the numbers were only 1.3 percent down for R's, but enough R's voted for O to put him over. They didn't vote for O because "McCain wasn't conservative enough".
| 179 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:46:14am |
re: #152 notutopia
Agree. It however, is being "expertly" validated for political advatage of course, that it is science.
This is an example of pseudoscience by opinion.
It's a consensus!
Gee. Science by consensus. Good thing that Galileo didn't think that way.
| 181 |
loppyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:46:58am |
re: #144 smokefire
Don't bother. You are going to get dinged down by the cartel no matter what you say.
| 182 |
Nevergiveup Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:47:01am |
re: #171 MandyManners
With all due respect, that is not his job. Time and time again, Charles has told Lizards that he will delete posts that tell him what to post and what not to post.
I understand and that's why I don't. But I am not sure his post said not to post on that topic, but that it might be overstated? But since it was deleted, I can't really remember what it said.
| 183 |
Killgore Trout Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:47:03am |
re: #163 wwhsv
hillary clinton creationism- 3,440,000 results
Did you look at those results? The first page is loaded with results about Palin's creationism. These article also happen to mention Clinton because dshe was also running in the election. I think this prove Charles' point.
| 184 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:47:06am |
re: #160 Guanxi88
Yes, your friend and mine, the watermelon metaphor: green on the outside, red in the middle.
I've never heard that before. It fits.
| 186 |
Teh Flowah Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:47:16am |
re: #4 Wendya
I would not support any GOP member who wanted creationism taught as science but I'm not going to shun someone who personally believes in ID or creationism yet has no intention of forcing that belief on America's schoolchildren.
I will. Just as I would shun someone who thought the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth. Because I don't enjoy associating myself with ignorant idiots.
@Charles
I would agree creationism is a losing issue for Republicans, as in, it's an issue for losers and an issue that Republicans in general are more friendly towards it than Democrats. However, I would also dispute that it was even a minor contributing factor to the political races of 2008. Polls of the United States public at large show that Creationism, or some form of it, is the belief system of the majority of Americans, and that there is a pervasive skepticism of evolution throughout the nation.
That is a sad reality, but one that shows the reason the GOP lost so big in 2008 was not because of creationism, but due to several other factors.
I would cite voter ignorance, the economy, the War, and President Bush.
The push poll by Zogby did have one very interesting question that I could not perceive a bias in. "Which party currently controls Congress." The majority of responses thought that the Republicans did. And clearly, dissatisfaction with Congress is at an all time high. Does this help Republicans? Surely not.
The economy started to tank publicly in September. Maybe the worst timing ever for McCain. Basically, if the economy tanks that visibly under the watch of X party's president, you can rest assured that X party will not win the upcoming election, especially when the election is only a couple months away.
The War has become less and less popular. Initial mishandling of the war has seen to that. Even though McCain should have been praised for his understanding of the Surge and pushing for it even when it was massively unpopular, it never was enough to overcome the economy hurdle.
Whether or not you personally like George W. Bush, you cannot deny that he has been one of the most unpopular presidents in American history. Simply being in the same party as him hurt McCain. Obama's constant around the clock message of "McSame" repeated as a mantra by the Left at every turn further solidified that in the minds of many Americans, probably the same ones who though that Republicans controlled Congress.
My point is, creationism, although I consider it to be an embarrassing issue for Republicans, is most likely not a contributing factor to their losses.
| 187 |
Honorary Yooper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:47:32am |
| 188 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:48:25am |
| 189 |
jcm Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:48:33am |
re: #132 Seeandhear
Is light made of Wave or Particle?
Can Imaginary Numbers be taught in schools?
Can division by zero be accomplished with calculus method?
Why does creation and evolution cause you so much distress?
Have you taken physics?
Have you taken math?
Have you taken math?
Can you distinguish between faith and science?
| 190 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:48:45am |
| 191 |
MrSilverDragon Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:49:13am |
re: #188 MandyManners
Cats rule. Dogs drool.
You've never met my cat, she can "shoestring" with the best of 'em.
| 192 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:49:18am |
re: #182 Nevergiveup
I understand and that's why I don't. But I am not sure his post said not to post on that topic, but that it might be overstated? But since it was deleted, I can't really remember what it said.
He told Charles what to not post.
I don't want to argue about this, please.
| 193 |
transient Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:49:22am |
re: #136 buzzsawmonkey
You are stepping into dangerously philosophical territory. This is an issue not only for US creationists, but for people all over the world who have problems dealing with the rapid rate of technological and cultural change--including Islamic extremists (although their versions of 'acting out' are more lethal).
If anyone could come up with an answer as to how to deal with this insecurity without throwing away the future--humanity would stand in awe and gratitude.
| 194 |
NYCHardhat Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:49:40am |
re: #173 Sharmuta
Don't look at me! I voted for Sarah.
But the GOP has to stop taking my vote for granted, and my political philosophy doesn't include shoving religion down the throats of other people. I'm not cool with that. It's a line in the sand, and they better figure it out or they'll keep losing elections. Rational people want nothing to do with this.
Again. Agreed. But where else are we going to go? We only have two putrid parties. The smurf party? If you're there, I'm fucking going.
| 195 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:49:48am |
| 196 |
Wendya Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:49:49am |
re: #186 Teh Flowah
I will. Just as I would shun someone who thought the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth. Because I don't enjoy associating myself with ignorant idiots.
I can't go there because it is a religious belief. If I shunned people who had religious beliefs I personally thought were "stupid" I'd end up living a very isolated life.
| 197 |
TimC Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:49:59am |
Absolutely, the GOP needs to wake up from the days of Reagan (who brought God into the white house in a big way) as well as Nixon (price controls, foreshadowing neconservatism, and yes, the drug war) and Bush (total neocon liberal fascist, Obama is fascinating mix of Carter and W). Personally, I think this coverage by Charles is great, as I hope that at least a few conservatives are taking a good hard look at the parts of conservatism that are bad and destroying America instead of conserving anything....
| 198 |
Randall Gross Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:50:15am |
Loppyd: Here's the part that has me most concerned, it should have raised more eyebrows:
Let's hop aboard my Syllogismobile and go for a ride...
34% of voters called themselves "conservatives."
Of that 34%, 20% voted for Barack H. Obama; that means 6.8% of the electorate both called themselves conservatives and also voted for Obama. (Would that include Christopher Buckley and his ilk?)
Contrariwise, only 10% of self-dubbed liberals voted for John S. McCain. Conservatives defected at twice the rate of liberals.
Suppose, just for a giggle, conservatives had only voted for Obama at the same percentage that liberals voted for McCain... in other words, that conservatives were no more likely to defect than liberals. In that case, half of the conservative defectors would have remained loyal, and 3.4% of votes would shift from Obama to McCain.
According to the most recent quasi-official unofficial tally, the popular tallies for the two nominees were 52.6% for Obama and 46.1% for McCain.
Switching 3.4% from left to right yields 49.2% for Obama and 49.5% for McCain. (Note McCain number higher than Obama number.)
Conclusion: Had conservatives defected at the same rate as liberals, instead of twice the rate, then John McCain would have won this election
| 199 |
loppyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:50:25am |
re: #178 Thanos
I got that one wrong , I was going off another article I read post election, I'll dig it up. Here's what CNN says:
[Link: politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...]
Here's the post I was remembering, since then the numbers have refined:
[Link: biglizards.net...]
Essentially the numbers were only 1.3 percent down for R's, but enough R's voted for O to put him over. They didn't vote for O because "McCain wasn't conservative enough".
Thanks for those.
Is that in the poll? I only ask because I am not wearing my glasses and not feeling well so the less reading the better. As it is I should be in bed.
| 200 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:50:33am |
re: #191 MrSilverDragon
You've never met my cat, she can "shoestring" with the best of 'em.
She out-drools a dog?
Well, that just proves my point that cats rule.
| 201 |
Peacekeeper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:50:50am |
All this guff about what the "republicans must do" boils down to being more like Democrats-which is a lot of shit.
McCain lost because people were sick of Bush, the collapse of the stock market- they weren't worried about the Louisiana school board.
| 202 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:50:58am |
re: #196 Wendya
I can't go there because it is a religious belief. If I shunned people who had religious beliefs I personally thought were "stupid" I'd end up living a very isolated life.
The key for me is taking private religious belief and shoving into the public arena telling everyone this is how to believe.
| 203 |
tfc3rid Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:51:06am |
This issue is a touchy one but if my choice in 2012 comes between me havign to vote for Obama the Socialist versus someone like Jindal, creationist or not, I vote for Jindal.
For me, it's all about national security...
| 205 |
Sharmuta Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:51:14am |
re: #194 NYCHardhat
Again. Agreed. But where else are we going to go? We only have two putrid parties. The smurf party? If you're there, I'm fucking going.
I'm going where ever the rationalists show up.
| 206 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:51:22am |
People who use the website I pay for and the software I wrote to insult me are going to lose their accounts.
| 207 |
sillyquiet Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:51:34am |
There were two problems with McCain:
1.) He was not a conservative.
2.) His running mate was selected on the assumption that Conservative == Christian Right (not knocking her, just saying).
This assumption is incorrect. Being conservative does NOT mean pushing prayer in schools, and mandating that creationism be taught in science class. It means just the opposite, as a matter of fact. Until the Republican PTB realize this, they will continue to lose election after election.
| 208 |
Wendya Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:52:02am |
re: #191 MrSilverDragon
You've never met my cat, she can "shoestring" with the best of 'em.
Yeah, but can she shake her head and fling slime 7 feet up your walls?
| 209 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:52:02am |
| 210 |
Kenneth Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:52:11am |
re: #132 Seeandhear
Pretty darn good karma for your first post. Keep up the good work!
Karma: -10
Seeandhear
Registered since: Jul 22, 2007 at 11:45 am
No. of comments posted: 1
No. of links posted: 0
| 211 |
redc1c4 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:52:15am |
re: #132 Seeandhear
interesting choice for an initial post:
Seeandhear
Registered since: Jul 22, 2007 at 11:45 am
No. of comments posted: 1
No. of links posted: 0
long lag time too
| 212 |
Peacekeeper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:52:25am |
re: #188 MandyManners
Cats rule. Dogs drool.
America has chosen dogs: if cats want to ever get back into the house they must learn to fetch and shake hands.
| 213 |
NYCHardhat Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:52:25am |
re: #206 Charles
People who use the the website I pay for and the software I wrote to insult me are going to lose their accounts.
That is pretty understandable.
| 214 |
Desert Dog Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:52:35am |
The right needs to run on a positive, consistent and clear message about what we want to do and who we are. Think back to the Newt Gingrich era when the Republicans came into power. The Contract with America worked. We need to come up with some basic points and HAMMER THEM over and over and over...
Of course, once they got in, they all turned to the dark side and started spending like Democrats....
The Dems rule now. They will try to blame Bush for whatever comes up over the next few years. We have to stop that nonsense right away. This mess will be theirs, they own it. We will have an opportunity to win in the mid-term election. I just hope we do not put up a bunch of loonies.
| 215 |
loppyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:52:38am |
re: #207 sillyquiet
There were two problems with McCain:
1.) He was not a conservative.
2.) His running mate was selected on the assumption that Conservative == Christian Right (not knocking her, just saying).
This assumption is incorrect. Being conservative does NOT mean pushing prayer in schools, and mandating that creationism be taught in science class. It means just the opposite, as a matter of fact. Until the Republican PTB realize this, they will continue to lose election after election.
I think she was chosen because she is a pro-life woman. I guess that may be one and the same?
| 216 |
yma o hyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:52:44am |
re: #161 MrSilverDragon
1. Both
2. Yes
3. No.
4. Why does this sound trollish?
Perhaps because of this?
Karma: -10
Seeandhear
Registered since: Jul 22, 2007 at 11:45 am
No. of comments posted: 1
No. of links posted: 0
| 217 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:53:09am |
re: #204 taxfreekiller
Mandy, sorry you just got the first down ding from tfk in 5 years.
The Al Gore global warming is all fraud all the time, has been from day one is now and will go into the books as the largest lie ever told.
I simply said that the climate is changing. I didn't say that it is our fault!
| 218 |
Wendya Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:53:13am |
re: #202 FurryOldGuyJeans
The key for me is taking private religious belief and shoving into the public arena telling everyone this is how to believe.
Like I said, I don't care what religious beliefs people hold as long as they don't try to force me to accept them through legislation.
| 219 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:54:06am |
re: #212 Peacekeeper
America has chosen dogs: if cats want to ever get back into the house they must learn to fetch and shake hands.
Why? They've tasked the dogs to do that. They have better thing to do like catch mice and sleep.
| 220 |
Amer-I-Can Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:54:29am |
re: #149 Gordon Marock
Charles, I hereby DEMAND that you post more stuff about Maple Syrup (which I love).
What about Chocolate Chip Cookies? We need more posts about Cookies too!
| 221 |
dentate Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:54:32am |
re: #186 Teh Flowah
My point is, creationism, although I consider it to be an embarrassing issue for Republicans, is most likely not a contributing factor to their losses.
It may not have been this time. But I think that creationism/ID by itself is not the issue. It is the thought processes, attitudes, and motivations of someone who publicly espouses these beliefs and publicly calls them "science" that is dangerous. So, yes, it may be a litmus test--it is testing for corrosive properties that will be exposed in many other ways during a campaign.
| 225 |
Peacekeeper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:54:57am |
re: #219 MandyManners
Why? They've tasked the dogs to do that. They have better thing to do like catch mice and sleep.
There goes the mouse vote...
| 226 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:55:18am |
re: #212 Peacekeeper
America has chosen dogs: if cats want to ever get back into the house they must learn to fetch and shake hands.
America chose Obama also.
| 227 |
Randall Gross Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:55:21am |
I demand a post on the recipe for martyr cookies.
| 228 |
Wendya Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:55:24am |
re: #219 MandyManners
Why? They've tasked the dogs to do that. They have better thing to do like catch mice and sleep.
My dogs catch mice.
And Prairie Dogs.
| 230 |
Desert Dog Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:55:27am |
| 231 |
Honorary Yooper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:55:27am |
re: #217 MandyManners
I simply said that the climate is changing. I didn't say that it is our fault!
What I've alway found fanny about it, is that the climate has never been static. Change for it is the status quo.
| 232 |
sillyquiet Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:55:52am |
re: #215 loppyd
In this case, yes. The abortion issue is outside of what it means to be conservative, and it is not, like it or not, a defining issue for most of the socially liberal otherwise conservative (for lack of a better term) people that make up the majority of voters in this country.
| 234 |
ILoveIsrael Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:56:01am |
On a completely unrelated note, who would support a call for disbanding the U.N. Yes, I said it. I think the United Nations is composed of self-righteous assholes, and they should be disbanded. At the very least, the United States should not support them financially. Who's with me?
| 236 |
notutopia Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:56:10am |
| 237 |
right Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:56:12am |
google search: ronald reagan creationism =4,440,000 results
Thank goodness we didn't nominate THAT wacko.
| 239 |
Honorary Yooper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:56:39am |
re: #231 Honorary Yooper
PIMF: fanny = funny.
/HY holds head in facepalm realizing what was said.
| 241 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:57:05am |
re: #218 Wendya
Like I said, I don't care what religious beliefs people hold as long as they don't try to force me to accept them through legislation.
And THAT is exactly what some groups are trying to do, mandate religion in the guise of science. And doing so in a exceedingly deceptive manner.
UN-AC-CEPT-ABLE.
| 243 |
loppyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:57:12am |
re: #199 loppyd
Thanks for those.
Is that in the poll? I only ask because I am not wearing my glasses and not feeling well so the less reading the better. As it is I should be in bed.
I just read them both. I wish there had been a direct question regarding whether McCain wasn't conservative enough....it would be helpful moving forward!
| 244 |
subsailor68 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:57:19am |
re: #206 Charles
People who use the the website I pay for and the software I wrote to insult me are going to lose their accounts.
Couldn't agree more! I've seen folks disagree with you on issues, but do so in a civil way. I don't recall you deleting posts just because someone had a different opinion - and I do recall you responding on many occasions.
On the other hand, folks who think simply insulting someone is the same thing as civil discourse probably need to be somewhere else...anywhere else.
| 245 |
Amer-I-Can Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:57:24am |
re: #208 Wendya
Yeah, but can she shake her head and fling slime 7 feet up your walls?
I know my Shar Pei can! And if you don't get it while it's wet, it turns to concrete.
| 246 |
fish Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:57:40am |
re: #77 Sharmuta
There's still a lot of ignorance out there about evolution- people just don't take the time to read up on just how validated the theory has been in the last few decades. There's plenty of resources out there for people to learn about it.
And it's this lack of understanding of the theory that plays right into the DI's hands.
I agree there is a lot of ignorance out there.
For example I think on of the biggest problems for Republicans is the problem that I have recently discovered about my own conversations on the topic. Namely what I call Itelligent Design and what I am thinking about when discussing it, is not the same thing that other people think of. I wholeheartedly believe that if Jindal, Palin and the others knew that when they said ID, people were hearing "the Earth is only 6000 years old and made by magic" they would stay away from the topic. I have posted before my understanding and feelings of ID, so there is no need to go in to it here. Suffice it to say I know the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and that Natural Selection and Evolution have shaped every living thing on this and any other planet. I am pretty sure that Jindal and Palin know this as well (Although I have never spoken to either of them on the topic)
It comes back to the nature of the debate, While there are those on the fringes (Disco Institute et al.) Who do believe in YEC, I think there are many more like me who want to make sure that as our understanding changes our teaching changes with it.
However, right now when I say "Intelligence" many hear "creator" and still others hear "God" and they fight me. If the debate were not so bitter, both sides might hear what the other was saying and realize they are not as far apart as thought.
| 248 |
tfc3rid Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:57:46am |
re: #241 FurryOldGuyJeans
And THAT is exactly what some groups are trying to do, mandate religion in the guise of science. And doing so in a exceedingly deceptive manner.
UN-AC-CEPT-ABLE.
Just like Man-made Climate Change...
| 250 |
gonecamping Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:58:24am |
I'll take a few chocolate chip cookies with a bowl of vanilla ice cream!
re: #220 Amer-I-Can
What about Chocolate Chip Cookies? We need more posts about Cookies too!
| 251 |
Teh Flowah Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:58:27am |
re: #196 Wendya
I can't go there because it is a religious belief. If I shunned people who had religious beliefs I personally thought were "stupid" I'd end up living a very isolated life.
Calling something a "religious belief" doesn't make it immune from being ridiculous or stupid or worthy of ridicule. Flat earthers believe such on the basis of religion, that makes them no less idiots. I will continue to ridicule Muslims who think that honor killings are called for in the Quran, and I will continue to ridicule all scientologists.
Likewise for creationism. Millions upon millions of Christians, Jews, and Muslims found some magical and unexplainable way to make peace between rationality and faith, science and religion. That some others cannot only shows how truly backwards they are.
They take the greatest gift God ever gave them and bury it in the ground never to develop. Points to whoever catches the Biblical reference.
| 252 |
NYCHardhat Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:58:30am |
| 253 |
loppyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:58:37am |
re: #232 sillyquiet
In this case, yes. The abortion issue is outside of what it means to be conservative, and it is not, like it or not, a defining issue for most of the socially liberal otherwise conservative (for lack of a better term) people that make up the majority of voters in this country.
not going there! :)
| 254 |
redc1c4 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:58:40am |
OT:
Index Value: 7,200.88
Trade Time: 12:57pm ET
Change: Down 164.79 (2.24%)
Prev Close: 7,365.67
Open: 7,365.99
Day's Range: 7,197.85 - 7,441.02
52wk Range: 7,226.29 - 13,191.50
/AHWOOOGHA! AHWOOOGHA! DIVE! DIVE! DIVE!
| 255 |
sillyquiet Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:58:43am |
re: #237 right
That's a bit weasely, that was a completely different political climate.
| 257 |
Oh no...Sand People! Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:59:00am |
There are points when the 'religious' minded person really does want to 'walk the walk'. What happens then is we take every rule we can think of and do all we can to be our 'best' in observing them. If that's as far as it went..no harm, no foul.
It's when it translates into, "HEY! If I live like this...you should too!", that it becomes an issue. So we get all crazy and want to 'save' someone. Some take it to the extreme and justify the 'means' to reach the 'end'. In this case 'creationism'. An example: "My religious opinion is that Jesus saves!" (That actually is my opinion personally...now just define 'saves'...) It then becomes entrenched to no longer be an opinion of faith, but of knowledgeable fact. Then even the 'believer' will justify doing illegitimate things to push their belief in 'saving their neighbor'. "If I can just somehow get "Jesus" into the classroom by any means possible...think of how many souls I can save once they get to know about 'Intelligent Design'. etc. If we just change the constitution."
In the mind of the 'I.D.'er the mentality can lapse into 'God being the highest authority...God therefore trumps the current legal framework'. Hence the 'end' justifies the 'means'. Changing the constitution is my favorite... "I can't play by the rules so I'll just change them..."
Believe how you want. Just don't force it onto people. Is there still 'missionary work'? 'Debates' and discussion? People looking for and actively seeking 'religion'? Absolutely. The latter party are usually the only one's who really care to hear what you have to say for the most part anyway.
But don't use the government institutions as the means for driving it. Anyone can believe how they want in America under the constitution.
| 258 |
Killgore Trout Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:59:16am |
re: #190 Walter L. Newton
So, for me a new question arises. Is the Island good for man or bad for man? Is Ben, the Others and Mrs. Hawking trying to actually protect the world FROM the Island. The Island keeps healing Locke’s leg, but it seems something (fate, destiny, the Universe) keeps trying to put John “back in disorder.”
It all makes me wonder if for almost 4 1/2 seasons, we have been looking at the Island as if it needs to be “protected” or “saved” from someone, something. Maybe the world needs to be protected from the Island?
Interesting. I'm getting a little more comfortable with the mysticism of Lost. Although it often appears the writers are using it as a cheap crutch they do seems to be working from some sort of construct.
| 259 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:59:21am |
re: #246 fish
If it gets them votes, magic will be fine for them.
| 260 |
sillyquiet Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:59:22am |
re: #253 loppyd
Well, maybe to be general I should have said, 'religion is outside of what it means to be conservative'.
| 262 |
NYCHardhat Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:59:30am |
re: #254 redc1c4
OT:
Index Value: 7,200.88
Trade Time: 12:57pm ET
Change: Down 164.79 (2.24%)
Prev Close: 7,365.67
Open: 7,365.99
Day's Range: 7,197.85 - 7,441.02
52wk Range: 7,226.29 - 13,191.50/AHWOOOGHA! AHWOOOGHA! DIVE! DIVE! DIVE!
The bright side of this is I'm buying more shares.
| 263 |
tfc3rid Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:59:51am |
re: #254 redc1c4
Obama's economic team and that Spendulus package that we just HAD to move forward or else, CATASTROPHE!
Well, we get the catastrophe anyway!
YAY!
When can we gloat that we were right, again?
| 264 |
Randall Gross Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:00:11am |
re: #237 right
and the net's had 20+ years instead of 8 months for R, Sarah's catching him pretty darned fast...
| 265 |
redc1c4 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:00:14am |
re: #234 ILoveIsrael
On a completely unrelated note, who would support a call for disbanding the U.N. Yes, I said it. I think the United Nations is composed of self-righteous assholes, and they should be disbanded. At the very least, the United States should not support them financially. Who's with me?
we just pay 1/164th, or what ever the total membership is, and take back the land in NYC for something useful, like a parking lot.
| 266 |
subsailor68 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:00:21am |
re: #254 redc1c4
OT:
Index Value: 7,200.88
Trade Time: 12:57pm ET
Change: Down 164.79 (2.24%)
Prev Close: 7,365.67
Open: 7,365.99
Day's Range: 7,197.85 - 7,441.02
52wk Range: 7,226.29 - 13,191.50/AHWOOOGHA! AHWOOOGHA! DIVE! DIVE! DIVE!
Oh it's flooding main ballast as we speak - just dropped below 7200 at 12:59
| 267 |
vxbush Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:00:28am |
re: #251 Teh Flowah
They take the greatest gift God ever gave them and bury it in the ground never to develop. Points to whoever catches the Biblical reference.
The servant with one talent...
| 269 |
abaleh Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:01:02am |
re: #117 notutopia
re: #108 MandyManners
This piece from this mornings Science news.
Expert: Climate Change Could Mean 'Extended World War'
[Link: www.foxnews.com...]
Maintaining poverty conditions for billions of people through artificial restrictions on their development is a surer way to cause mass migrations and a hypothetical World War.
The mass migration of Africans to Europe is not happening because of environmental factors, but because of their desire for a better future and greater economic and personal security for themselves and their children (which of course they then totally endanger by trying to change the societies that adopted them, but that's another story).
| 270 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:01:07am |
| 271 |
redc1c4 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:01:14am |
re: #239 Honorary Yooper
PIMF: fanny = funny.
/HY holds head in facepalm realizing what was said.
but it was funny.
| 272 |
Honorary Yooper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:01:23am |
re: #254 redc1c4
OT:
Index Value: 7,200.88
Trade Time: 12:57pm ET
Change: Down 164.79 (2.24%)
Prev Close: 7,365.67
Open: 7,365.99
Day's Range: 7,197.85 - 7,441.02
52wk Range: 7,226.29 - 13,191.50/AHWOOOGHA! AHWOOOGHA! DIVE! DIVE! DIVE!
I fear the Dow is playing the limbo right now.
| 273 |
gonecamping Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:01:27am |
How much money do we give the UN each year?
Put that money to better use and charge rent for the building they use, or kick em out and sell the building.
re: #234 ILoveIsrael
On a completely unrelated note, who would support a call for disbanding the U.N. Yes, I said it. I think the United Nations is composed of self-righteous assholes, and they should be disbanded. At the very least, the United States should not support them financially. Who's with me?
| 274 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:01:40am |
re: #258 Killgore Trout
OT-
Well, I hope so, because the show has always been a mix of both. First two seasons, magic, 3 and 4, science and it looks like for 5 and 6, we are going to get a chance to see which one wins, or a little of both.
| 275 |
redc1c4 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:01:46am |
re: #266 subsailor68
Oh it's flooding main ballast as we speak - just dropped below 7200 at 12:59
what's the crush depth on this pig?
| 276 |
golly Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:01:50am |
Some days, saying that you are a Republican is tantamount to announcing you have a bats**t crazy uncle. These guys need to go, or stop trying to legislate their beliefs onto all of us. It is embarrassing to have a Libtard nah nah nay you over this, because there is no defense except to say that they don't speak for you. That defense ain't going win hearts and minds.
| 277 |
Kragar Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:02:01am |
Personally, I'v loving the fact the the media dubbed GOP "Top Contenders" aren't even on my radar as choices. They just want to pick easy targets for the Dems to compete against come the next election.
| 278 |
subsailor68 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:02:19am |
| 280 |
DaddyG Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:02:38am |
The DeMedia is going to take any conservative candidate and try to define them as marginal or strange. That is where the game is played. Open advocacy of a religious viewpoint is political death for any Repub. candidate because it will at the very least peel off a marginal amount of voters (and marginal amounts is what gets people elected these days). Even if a candidate strays away from defining themselves with that kind of stance the press will happily do it for them. Palin is a good example. She didn't run on religion but before the interviews were over her stance on creationism was headlined.
As sad as it is, one of the reasons Obama got elected is that he steadfastly avoided being narrowly defined, and as a result a large portion of the electorate projected their hopes on his blank slate.
We are back to Alynski basics here.
| 281 |
albusteve Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:02:42am |
re: #263 tfc3rid
Obama's economic team and that Spendulus package that we just HAD to move forward or else, CATASTROPHE!
Well, we get the catastrophe anyway!
YAY!
When can we gloat that we were right, again?
it's exactly what he wants....he is struggling mightily to undo the massive damage caused by Bush and conservative policy...it's a winner for BO the commie
| 282 |
Sharmuta Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:02:47am |
re: #246 fish
The Discovery Institute is intentionally obfuscating Theistic Evolution with Intelligent Design so that they can get people to support them. Distortions and untruths is their default setting. They lie about their real intentions, they lie about science, they even lie about themselves. There is nothing "conservative" about their agenda- they are undermining the principles this party used to stand for.
| 283 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:02:50am |
re: #256 taxfreekiller
McCain was not selected by Republicans, let alone conservative Republicans, he was selected by the workings of the two party evil money cult and the hacks of the msm.
Elect people who know how to add and subtract.
Elect people who are not full raging commies.
Elect people who can read the Bible and not then use it as the Constitution.Never ever believe one word from the msm, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, PBS,
the AP, AND ALL THE NEWS WIPES.Talk to one another.
Believe in yourselves.
AMEN!
| 284 |
Desert Dog Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:03:15am |
re: #279 Killgore Trout
Heading towards Dow 7,000.
At what point does the buy low and sell high rule come into effect? Soon, I hope, because that is pretty darn low.
| 286 |
Ford_Prefect Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:03:20am |
re: #266 subsailor68
Oh it's flooding main ballast as we speak - just dropped below 7200 at 12:59
Charles, you need to stop with these threads. Look what it is doing to the market.
//
| 287 |
Dianna Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:03:36am |
re: #268 Iron Fist
In California, Republicans probably don't have a future. The people in California are extremely out of touch with the rest of America on most, if not all, issues. Hollywood and the MSM pretend all of America is like them, and they are pretty constant in getting that message across.
But they are starting to slip. The crazier Left California goes, the more they marginalize themselves. Its a big
AsylumState with lots ofinmatesresidents, but it isn't the torch tahat is going to lead us into the future.
No, most Californians are not out of touch with reality.
However, the voting is so gerrymandered that we are governed by the insane.
| 288 |
ConservatismNow! Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:03:48am |
re: #14 Alouette
I voted for Rudy in the primary, before he folded up like a paper napkin.
Jeez I did not even get the chance to vote for my candidate. I was going for Duncan Hunter but every candidate except Mitt, Huck, and McCain had folded by the time Oklahoma came around.
| 289 |
loppyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:03:57am |
re: #260 sillyquiet
Well, maybe to be general I should have said, 'religion is outside of what it means to be conservative'.
I understand what you're saying. But until we stop saying the Pledge and remove all mentions of God from our government/politics I can't say religion is outside of either party.
| 290 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:04:00am |
re: #254 redc1c4
This is just my opinion, but, since I don't know any other way for me personally to make an impact on the criminals in Washington, I'm hoping the whole thing crashes and burns.
Yes, I know, that will hurt a lot of innocent people. Well, when innocent people get hurt hard enough, that is usually the turning point for change, real change.
| 291 |
Leonidas Hoplite Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:04:02am |
re: #262 NYCHardhat
The bright side of this is I'm buying more shares.
Dollar cost averaging and time will work in your favor (I hope b/c I am doing the same thing)
| 292 |
NYCHardhat Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:04:17am |
Hey Fist,
Where can I get cheap bulk 9mm ammo?
| 293 |
fish Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:04:21am |
re: #107 Thanos
Why is Red state Kansas sporting a Democrat Governor? Why do I have a D for Congresscritter in Johnson county? Why has Kansas turned Purple?
You can refuse to believe all you want, that's not going to stop the trend.
Becuase Republicans have become too liberal. Did either your Governor or Congresscritter turn D because the R was talking about ID or because they weren't cutting spending and taxes like they had promised? Heck, I would vote for a D if he made me believe he was going to be more conservative than the R.
| 294 |
Nevergiveup Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:04:23am |
re: #279 Killgore Trout
Heading towards Dow 7,000.
I'm not worried, I have less and less to lose each day. Hum? How come I'm happy?
| 295 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:04:26am |
| 296 |
sillyquiet Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:04:35am |
re: #268 Iron Fist
As a transplanted Californian, I have to defend my new state by saying that California is the U.S. in miniature... the coast consists of out-of-touch detritus from all over, while the interior counties are pretty much sane, in a red-blooded gun-toting kind of way. Don't get me started on those jackasses in Sac though. They couldn't find their asshole with both hands.
| 297 |
redc1c4 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:04:49am |
re: #266 subsailor68
Oh it's flooding main ballast as we speak - just dropped below 7200 at 12:59
come to think of it, i believe the main induction is open...... who called a green board?
| 298 |
Killgore Trout Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:04:50am |
re: #286 Ford_Prefect
If I had spare cash I'd be putting it in now but that;s just me.
| 299 |
Guanxi88 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:04:51am |
re: #292 NYCHardhat
Hey Fist,
Where can I get cheap bulk 9mm ammo?
Looking for some ballistic wampum, are we?
| 300 |
NYCHardhat Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:04:58am |
re: #291 Leonidas Hoplite
Dollar cost averaging and time will work in your favor (I hope b/c I am doing the same thing)
Yeah, I got about 25 until retirement.
| 301 |
Ford_Prefect Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:05:21am |
re: #285 NYCHardhat
“It’s not nationalization, it’s protecting the taxpayers’ interests,” Reid (D-Nev.) told MSNBC’s Morning Joe program on Monday.
Because it is all about perception not reality. /
| 302 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:05:21am |
re: #261 buzzsawmonkey
Neither philosophical nor dangerous territory, in my view--rather, intensely practical. I want to see it possible for people who may be conservative but not religious to work with those who are conservative and religious for the betterment of the country. That will not be possible if people insist on making religion a dividing line.
The sad thing is, the dividing line need not exist. It is being fomented by some cynical leaders on the religious side, but that cynical activity is, alas, being embraced and exacerbated by some on the side of keeping science scientific who also have their own agenda of squashing religion and any expression of it like a bug.
It is a mistake to believe that everyone on the right side of the creationism fight is there from simon-pure motives, for that is quite clearly untrue--and giving a pass to the intentionally inflammatory utterances of those who see the enemy not as the comingling of creationism with science, but the existence of religious belief itself, is short-sighted and destructive. It makes impossible any agreement between those seeking to ensure that religion is kept out of science class, and those religious people who might possibly be persuaded that doing so is not a threat and indeed something they can in good conscience support.
It's also being fomented by the DNC through the MFM.
| 303 |
subsailor68 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:05:26am |
re: #286 Ford_Prefect
Charles, you need to stop with these threads. Look what it is doing to the market.
//
LOL! I think it'd be great if Charles designed a bumper sticker that said "The only creationism I support is the creation of wealth."
| 304 |
tfc3rid Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:05:38am |
re: #281 albusteve
it's exactly what he wants....he is struggling mightily to undo the massive damage caused by Bush and conservative policy...it's a winner for BO the commie
And trying to undo everything of Clinton (that was created by the Contract with America) and Reagan...
Methinks The One is attempting to destory any vestiage of the Reagan Revolution.
| 305 |
redc1c4 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:05:44am |
re: #276 golly
Some days, saying that you are a Republican is tantamount to announcing you have a bats**t crazy uncle. These guys need to go, or stop trying to legislate their beliefs onto all of us. It is embarrassing to have a Libtard nah nah nay you over this, because there is no defense except to say that they don't speak for you. That defense ain't going win hearts and minds.
i tell people i'm a conservative.
(not that they listen here in Cali %-)
| 306 |
Nevergiveup Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:05:56am |
re: #300 NYCHardhat
Yeah, I got about 25 until retirement.
Haven't you heard, there is no more thing called retirement?
| 307 |
Honorary Yooper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:06:27am |
re: #266 subsailor68
Oh it's flooding main ballast as we speak - just dropped below 7200 at 12:59
Has our illustrious Secretary of the Treasury opened his mouth yet? He was supposed to give a statement today, IIRC.
| 308 |
albusteve Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:06:33am |
| 309 |
abaleh Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:06:36am |
| 310 |
Killgore Trout Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:06:44am |
re: #298 Killgore Trout
If I had spare cash I'd be putting it in now but that;s just me.
Let me amend that: I'd do dollar/cost averaging. Take your money and split it up into 6-8 chunks. Invest a chunk every 4-6 weeks.
| 311 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:06:48am |
re: #277 Kragar (proud to be kafir)
Personally, I'v loving the fact the the media dubbed GOP "Top Contenders" aren't even on my radar as choices. They just want to pick easy targets for the Dems to compete against come the next election.
The MFM are setting up the election with the tactic of repeating something often enough tends to make it reality.
| 312 |
Kragar Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:07:06am |
re: #287 Dianna
No, most Californians are not out of touch with reality.
However, the voting is so gerrymandered that we are governed by the insane.
Agreed. There are a lot of very conservative areas of CA, but we're cut to shreds by means of districting.
| 313 |
Sharmuta Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:07:18am |
re: #293 fish
Becuase Republicans have become too liberal. Did either your Governor or Congresscritter turn D because the R was talking about ID or because they weren't cutting spending and taxes like they had promised? Heck, I would vote for a D if he made me believe he was going to be more conservative than the R.
No- it's because the Discovery Institute forced the issue in Kansas even before the Dover trial. Now reasonable independents in Kansas are probably thinking republicans = young earth creationists.
| 314 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:07:23am |
re: #307 Honorary Yooper
Has our illustrious Secretary of the Treasury opened his mouth yet? He was supposed to give a statement today, IIRC.
And Barry is speaking tomorrow night. On Wed. we should see some interesting stock market numbers.
| 315 |
subsailor68 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:07:23am |
re: #297 redc1c4
come to think of it, i believe the main induction is open...... who called a green board?
The new guy who's been on board for about a month and is already behind in his quals.
;-)
| 316 |
Randall Gross Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:07:48am |
re: #293 fish
Sorry your argument is flawed by the fact that a steady parade of "Conservative" creationists have been run against Sebelius and Moore, with a lot of big "L"s in the R column. I think they are going to try Brownback next, if they do I"ll vote for friggin Sebellius.
| 317 |
Oh no...Sand People! Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:07:50am |
re: #310 Killgore Trout
Let me amend that: I'd do dollar/cost averaging. Take your money and split it up into 6-8 chunks. Invest a chunk every 4-6 weeks.
Wealthy Barber approved.
| 318 |
NYCHardhat Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:07:53am |
re: #306 Nevergiveup
Haven't you heard, there is no more thing called retirement?
I may be the only one able to.
| 319 |
Ford_Prefect Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:07:54am |
re: #309 abaleh
It's not a dictatorship, it's a Democratic People's Republic.
/
No it's the People's Democratic Republic!
/
| 320 |
Honorary Yooper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:07:59am |
re: #314 Walter L. Newton
And Barry is speaking tomorrow night. On Wed. we should see some interesting stock market numbers.
Dow 6,000, here we come! :-P
| 322 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:08:40am |
| 323 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:08:43am |
re: #314 Walter L. Newton
And Barry is speaking tomorrow night. On Wed. we should see some interesting stock market numbers.
He spoke this morning.
| 324 |
Sharmuta Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:09:01am |
What do these terms even mean anymore? Republicans becoming too liberal? What does that mean? Ideologically speaking? Creationism is hardly liberal.
| 325 |
Nevergiveup Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:09:04am |
| 326 |
Sharmuta Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:09:38am |
re: #321 topazpilot
I don't know- it's like there a clue bat being swung around here or something.
| 327 |
Ford_Prefect Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:09:39am |
re: #306 Nevergiveup
Haven't you heard, there is no more thing called retirement?
Sure there is. That is when the Government Medical Expenses Committee decides that you are no longer worth paying for treatments for.
| 328 |
Killgore Trout Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:09:56am |
re: #317 Oh no...Sand People!
It's Bob Brinker's position as well.
| 329 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:10:26am |
re: #275 redc1c4
what's the crush depth on this pig?
Zero.
I would bet all those yuppies that thought O was better at fixing the economy might be in a tiff now that he has said the best way to fix things is to "raise taxes on the rich".
It only took a month for that monster to rear its ugly head.
| 330 |
Oh no...Sand People! Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:10:34am |
re: #324 Sharmuta
What do these terms even mean anymore? Republicans becoming too liberal? What does that mean? Ideologically speaking? Creationism is hardly liberal.
I can only look at it in terms of fiscal policy. Preach 'small government' then pass 'big spending'. Actions speak louder than words...or at least I thought they did.
| 331 |
Nevergiveup Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:10:43am |
re: #327 Ford_Prefect
Sure there is. That is when the Government Medical Expenses Committee decides that you are no longer worth paying for treatments for.
Great point!
| 332 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:10:53am |
re: #325 Nevergiveup
Why do you say that?
This is just my opinion, but, since I don't know any other way for me personally to make an impact on the criminals in Washington, I'm hoping the whole thing crashes and burns.
Yes, I know, that will hurt a lot of innocent people. Well, when innocent people get hurt hard enough, that is usually the turning point for change, real change.
| 333 |
Guanxi88 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:10:53am |
| 334 |
sillyquiet Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:11:29am |
re: #329 FurryOldGuyJeans
What's funny is the latest meme coming out of the liberal fever swamps is "The Republicans are deliberately sabotaging the stimulus, and not giving it a chance".
| 335 |
Oh no...Sand People! Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:11:39am |
re: #332 Walter L. Newton
This is just my opinion, but, since I don't know any other way for me personally to make an impact on the criminals in Washington, I'm hoping the whole thing crashes and burns.
Yes, I know, that will hurt a lot of innocent people. Well, when innocent people get hurt hard enough, that is usually the turning point for change, real change.
The hope is with the 'proles'.
| 336 |
Honorary Yooper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:11:44am |
| 337 |
Amer-I-Can Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:11:56am |
re: #277 Kragar (proud to be kafir)
You are dead on the money there! That's how we got McCain to begin with. He was the MSM "darling", and they shoved him in our faces. They will try the same crap with the next election, trying to sway the uninformed to pick the candidate that the Dems think will be easiest to beat.
| 338 |
itellu3times Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:12:01am |
re: #310 Killgore Trout
Let me amend that: I'd do dollar/cost averaging. Take your money and split it up into 6-8 chunks. Invest a chunk every 4-6 weeks.
Yeah I was doing that, and now I'm blowing chunks in another direction entirely.
| 339 |
Ford_Prefect Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:12:08am |
| 341 |
Nevergiveup Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:12:26am |
re: #332 Walter L. Newton
This is just my opinion, but, since I don't know any other way for me personally to make an impact on the criminals in Washington, I'm hoping the whole thing crashes and burns.
Yes, I know, that will hurt a lot of innocent people. Well, when innocent people get hurt hard enough, that is usually the turning point for change, real change.
I understand your sentiment. But if our economy really tanks even worse than it is now, then we will not be able to pay for national defense, etc. It would not be pretty.
| 342 |
subsailor68 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:12:52am |
re: #329 FurryOldGuyJeans
Zero.
I would bet all those yuppies that thought O was better at fixing the economy might be in a tiff now that he has said the best way to fix things is to "raise taxes on the rich".
It only took a month for that monster to rear its ugly head.
Very good point. It's almost as if Obama and his financial advisers are reading Amity Schlae's book "The Forgotten Man", and every time they get to the next chapter they go 'Ooooh, let's try that!"
Hey boys, here's a tip. Skip to the end and find out how it all turned out.
| 343 |
Sharmuta Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:12:57am |
When political ideologies start getting tossed around with slurs- I just have to ask what is meant by that. Like "RINO" and "liberal" Please define so we're all on the same page.
/Except marxism. That's an acceptable slur.
| 344 |
Oh no...Sand People! Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:13:16am |
re: #328 Killgore Trout
It's Bob Brinker's position as well.
I liked listening to him. Too bad I never take his advice...well... not me but my...well, I'll stop right there.
| 345 |
albusteve Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:13:21am |
re: #332 Walter L. Newton
This is just my opinion, but, since I don't know any other way for me personally to make an impact on the criminals in Washington, I'm hoping the whole thing crashes and burns.
Yes, I know, that will hurt a lot of innocent people. Well, when innocent people get hurt hard enough, that is usually the turning point for change, real change.
like nationalization of industry and banking? rationing? travel restrictions? hard working patriots on the streets?...wholesale crash and burn is insane...no good will come of it
| 346 |
Leonidas Hoplite Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:13:33am |
re: #341 Nevergiveup
I understand your sentiment. But if our economy really tanks even worse than it is now, then we will not be able to pay for national defense, etc. It would not be pretty.
The government will print money to pay for everything. Dollar devaluation is coming.
| 347 |
redc1c4 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:13:36am |
re: #312 Kragar (proud to be kafir)
Agreed. There are a lot of very conservative areas of CA, but we're cut to shreds by means of districting.
even at the local level..... you should see my council district.
| 348 |
NYCHardhat Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:13:36am |
"I think there are some very legitimate concerns on the part of some about the sustainability of expanding unemployment insurance. What hasn't been noted is that that is $7 billion of a $787 billion program. And it's not even the majority of the expansion of unemployment insurance," Obama said.
He added, "If we agree on 90 percent of this stuff, and we're spending all our time on television arguing about 1, 2, 3 percent of the spending in this thing, and somehow it's being characterized in broad brush as wasteful spending, that starts sounding more like politics. And that's what right now we don't have time to do."
OMG.
| 349 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:13:36am |
re: #334 sillyquiet
What's funny is the latest meme coming out of the liberal fever swamps is "The Republicans are deliberately sabotaging the stimulus, and not giving it a chance".
That was being said from the get-go, during the first porkulus bill was being debated before O was anointed and enthroned.
| 350 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:13:55am |
re: #335 Oh no...Sand People!
The hope is with the 'proles'.
Well, no. According to Blair's concept in the book, even that "hope" was manufactured by the government. It was sort of a helpful way to shake out mentally ill people like Winston.
| 351 |
transient Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:14:07am |
re: #261 buzzsawmonkey
Neither philosophical nor dangerous territory, in my view--rather, intensely practical. I want to see it possible for people who may be conservative but not religious to work with those who are conservative and religious for the betterment of the country. That will not be possible if people insist on making religion a dividing line.
(I was being a bit hyperbolic in speaking 'dangerously,' but let it stand.)
We would all like to see a practical solution. It's a bit of a vicious circle in this country. The politicians are IMO largely pandering; they are cynically interested in their own power. If they thought the vast majority of Americans knew creationism and ID were trash science and wanted nothing to do with it, they would not be offering these wishy washy pro-creationist statements to the press. But unfortunately a significant proportion of American voters seem to believe that creationism/ID is true, or at least that it is "fair" to teach ID along with evolution. And I suspect that those voters are disproportionately on the conservative side of the spectrum.
The answer ultimately must be education, which is why this is so difficult, and why the road may be a long one. This is why it is so important to maintain quality science standards in schools, and why LGF and perhaps other websites have their part to play.
| 352 |
Sharmuta Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:14:15am |
re: #330 Oh no...Sand People!
I can only look at it in terms of fiscal policy. Preach 'small government' then pass 'big spending'. Actions speak louder than words...or at least I thought they did.
I don't disagree- I just want some definitions, because I've seen "real conservative" used, and it's helpful to know exactly what the poster means by that. Sometimes they're confused.
| 353 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:14:21am |
re: #341 Nevergiveup
I understand your sentiment. But if our economy really tanks even worse than it is now, then we will not be able to pay for national defense, etc. It would not be pretty.
I'm not expecting it to be.
| 354 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:14:34am |
re: #337 Amer-I-Can
You are dead on the money there! That's how we got McCain to begin with. He was the MSM "darling", and they shoved him in our faces. They will try the same crap with the next election, trying to sway the uninformed to pick the candidate that the Dems think will be easiest to beat.
And a good chunk of the electorate will fall for it; hook, line, and sinker.
| 355 |
topazpilot Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:14:36am |
re: #326 Sharmuta
Are you serious? Do you seriously believe that one of the major reasons Republicans lost was b/c of the Discovery Institute? If what has been offered is a "clue bat" then it needs to be send back to single A b/c it doesn't belong in the major leagues!
| 356 |
redc1c4 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:14:45am |
re: #314 Walter L. Newton
And Barry is speaking tomorrow night. On Wed. we should see some interesting stock market numbers.
i do not think that word means what you think it means.......
| 357 |
Honorary Yooper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:14:46am |
re: #342 subsailor68
Very good point. It's almost as if Obama and his financial advisers are reading Amity Schlae's book "The Forgotten Man", and every time they get to the next chapter they go 'Ooooh, let's try that!"
Hey boys, here's a tip. Skip to the end and find out how it all turned out.
It does seem like Obama stole Hoover's and FDR's playbooks and is now trying them out again on us.
| 358 |
Nevergiveup Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:14:51am |
A routine archeological excavation ahead of private construction in an Arab neighborhood on the outskirts of Jerusalem has uncovered a series of seal impressions from the reign of the Biblical King Hezekiah nearly 3,000 years ago, the Israel Antiquities Authority announced Monday.
[Link: www.jpost.com...]
| 359 |
Oh no...Sand People! Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:14:58am |
re: #350 Walter L. Newton
Well, no. According to Blair's concept in the book, even that "hope" was manufactured by the government. It was sort of a helpful way to shake out mentally ill people like Winston.
Oh yeah, I did forget my sarc tag...
/The matrix is real.
| 360 |
vxbush Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:14:59am |
re: #348 NYCHardhat
"I think there are some very legitimate concerns on the part of some about the sustainability of expanding unemployment insurance. What hasn't been noted is that that is $7 billion of a $787 billion program. And it's not even the majority of the expansion of unemployment insurance," Obama said.
He added, "If we agree on 90 percent of this stuff, and we're spending all our time on television arguing about 1, 2, 3 percent of the spending in this thing, and somehow it's being characterized in broad brush as wasteful spending, that starts sounding more like politics. And that's what right now we don't have time to do."
OMG.
I'm sorry, but my Obama filter isn't working right now and is out for maintenance. Could you please translate that?
| 361 |
sillyquiet Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:15:00am |
re: #349 FurryOldGuyJeans
Must be nice to have a built in failure excuse.
| 362 |
johnnyreb Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:15:01am |
re: #337 Amer-I-Can
You are dead on the money there! That's how we got McCain to begin with. He was the MSM "darling", and they shoved him in our faces. They will try the same crap with the next election, trying to sway the uninformed to pick the candidate that the Dems think will be easiest to beat.
I knew we had lost when my LLL paper endorsed him early on. For the last 15 years, 75% of the republicans they endorse for any office have lost.
| 363 |
albusteve Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:15:10am |
| 364 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:15:13am |
re: #345 albusteve
like nationalization of industry and banking? rationing? travel restrictions? hard working patriots on the streets?...wholesale crash and burn is insane...no good will come of it
How are we going to stop it?
| 365 |
yma o hyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:15:15am |
re: #346 Leonidas Hoplite
The government will print money to pay for everything. Dollar devaluation is coming.
Joining the ££ - here, the Bank of England is being 'allowed' to print more money. Its called 'quantitative easing' ...
| 366 |
ilzito guacamolito Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:15:20am |
re: #285 NYCHardhat
“It’s not nationalization, it’s protecting the taxpayers’ interests,” Reid (D-Nev.) told MSNBC’s Morning Joe program on Monday.
Yeah, right, he's so concerned with the taxpayers' interests.
| 367 |
Ojoe Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:15:22am |
| 368 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:15:36am |
re: #332 Walter L. Newton
This is just my opinion, but, since I don't know any other way for me personally to make an impact on the criminals in Washington, I'm hoping the whole thing crashes and burns.
Yes, I know, that will hurt a lot of innocent people. Well, when innocent people get hurt hard enough, that is usually the turning point for change, real change.
You want to see thousands and thousands of elderly people homeless? You want to see farms lie fallow? You want to see millions thrown out of work with no health insurance, no homes and no savings for their children's futures?
| 369 |
Amer-I-Can Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:16:04am |
| 370 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:16:08am |
| 371 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:16:34am |
re: #361 sillyquiet
Must be nice to have a built in failure excuse.
So far it has worked swimmingly for the Dems for a number of years.
| 372 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:16:35am |
Comments complaining about threads related to creationism will be deleted.
As I have posted at least a hundred times now.
| 373 |
Kragar Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:16:39am |
re: #358 Nevergiveup
A routine archeological excavation ahead of private construction in an Arab neighborhood on the outskirts of Jerusalem has uncovered a series of seal impressions from the reign of the Biblical King Hezekiah nearly 3,000 years ago, the Israel Antiquities Authority announced Monday.
[Link: www.jpost.com...]
How were the Israelis able to sneak those artifacts under the Arab section of town?
///
| 374 |
albusteve Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:16:40am |
| 376 |
Bob Dillon Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:16:57am |
re: #206 Charles
People who use the website I pay for and the software I wrote to insult me are going to lose their accounts.
It is constantly amazing to me - the lack of common courtesy and respect by some.
As children when we went over to other kids homes to play - we could play, tussle, even argue. But piss of their mom or dad and guess what? We got sent home. How many times did it take when not only sent home but told we were not welcome at their home anymore, for us to get it?
And they did not clearly explain their boundaries and criteria to us ahead of time.
I'm sure not perfect and still screw up now and again - but basic manners?
Rant off.
| 377 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:17:23am |
re: #355 topazpilot
Are you serious? Do you seriously believe that one of the major reasons Republicans lost was b/c of the Discovery Institute? If what has been offered is a "clue bat" then it needs to be send back to single A b/c it doesn't belong in the major leagues!
Who has said it was one of the "major" reasons? Please, don't put words in anyone's mouth. It's intellectually dishonest and tends to blur others' vision of any good points you might make.
| 378 |
Leonidas Hoplite Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:17:28am |
re: #365 yma o hyd
Joining the ££ - here, the Bank of England is being 'allowed' to print more money. Its called 'quantitative easing' ...
As bad as things are now it's going to get worse.
| 379 |
abaleh Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:17:29am |
re: #358 Nevergiveup
A routine archeological excavation ahead of private construction in an Arab neighborhood on the outskirts of Jerusalem has uncovered a series of seal impressions from the reign of the Biblical King Hezekiah nearly 3,000 years ago, the Israel Antiquities Authority announced Monday.
[Link: www.jpost.com...]
He was Palestinian, right?
/
| 380 |
jimc Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:17:29am |
Actually, isn't the properly formulated search:
+sarah +palin +creationism
This search results less than half the hits.
| 381 |
Sharmuta Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:17:33am |
re: #355 topazpilot
You have completely misconstrued my comment. You asked why there were so many threads on this issue. It's my opinion that it's because maybe someone is trying to get an important point across.
| 382 |
subsailor68 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:17:51am |
re: #357 Honorary Yooper
It does seem like Obama stole Hoover's and FDR's playbooks and is now trying them out again on us.
Exactly. Cases in point - Smoot-Hawley in Hoover's day, "Buy American" component of the stimulus bill. Holding agriculture prices up artificially in FDR's day; holding housing prices up artificially (with the mortgage package) today. Increasing taxed on the "rich" in FDR's day....oops.
| 383 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:17:54am |
re: #368 MandyManners
You want to see thousands and thousands of elderly people homeless? You want to see farms lie fallow? You want to see millions thrown out of work with no health insurance, no homes and no savings for their children's futures?
I don't want to see it at all, but, tell me, how are we going to stop it. I'm only making an observation of the obvious right now. If I see some indication of a possible change, or somebody points me in a reasonable direction, then I reconsider.
Right now, it doesn't look like it can be saved to me.
| 384 |
vagabond trader Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:18:00am |
re: #83 notutopia
We're losing science graduates because your public schools are too busy teaching the importance of multicult bullsheet, rather than making sure "Johnnie" knows how to read and use good old fashioned critical thinking skills.
| 385 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:18:20am |
re: #355 topazpilot
Do you seriously believe that one of the major reasons Republicans lost was b/c of the Discovery Institute?
Who has said it was one of the "major" reasons? Please, don't put words in anyone's mouth. It's intellectually dishonest and tends to blur others' vision of any good points you might make.
| 386 |
topazpilot Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:18:28am |
re: #343 Sharmuta
By the way I read the link provided to the Volokh Conspiracy and it offers no evidence that creationism is the reason why Republicans are losing. It links right back to LGF and offers no analysis, no statistics, no explanations to support this hypothesis. Where is the "clue bat?"
I'm fighting really hard to think about creationism as a major issue of 2008 and I can't find it. Sorry, I'm not even sure if it was mentioned on a national scale. Waiting for the proof and I hope there is more offered than the Volokh link.
| 387 |
yma o hyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:18:32am |
re: #367 Ojoe
A storm closes in on the San Gabriel Mountains of California.
Storms closing in on the economies across the western world as well, alas ...
(Thanks - I love seeing that view!)
| 388 |
NYCHardhat Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:19:05am |
re: #360 vxbush
I'm sorry, but my Obama filter isn't working right now and is out for maintenance. Could you please translate that?
Ok. I'll give it a try.
Ummm...We need to, uhhh spend more of the tax...uhhh taxpayers money,, to ummmm, Look! An elephant! (Obama running off)
| 389 |
redc1c4 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:19:09am |
re: #360 vxbush
I'm sorry, but my Obama filter isn't working right now and is out for maintenance. Could you please translate that?
"pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
| 390 |
debutaunt Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:19:28am |
| 391 |
Ojoe Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:19:30am |
re: #384 vagabond trader
Try engineering a structure with "multiculturalism".
| 392 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:19:46am |
re: #386 topazpilot
By the way I read the link provided to the Volokh Conspiracy and it offers no evidence that creationism is the reason why Republicans are losing. It links right back to LGF and offers no analysis, no statistics, no explanations to support this hypothesis. Where is the "clue bat?"
I'm fighting really hard to think about creationism as a major issue of 2008 and I can't find it. Sorry, I'm not even sure if it was mentioned on a national scale. Waiting for the proof and I hope there is more offered than the Volokh link.
How about you do a little searching on LGF, or maybe around the net in general, and then come back and talk about it. Why in the world do you expect everyone to do your footwork for you?
| 393 |
topazpilot Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:19:48am |
re: #381 Sharmuta
My apologies. I misunderstood. Ignore the last two posts.
| 394 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:19:48am |
re: #367 Ojoe
A storm closes in on the San Gabriel Mountains of California.
No matter how chilly it is here, I always feel warmer by looking at all that snow up there.
| 395 |
itellu3times Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:19:57am |
re: #384 vagabond trader
We're losing science graduates because your public schools are too busy teaching the importance of multicult bullsheet, rather than making sure "Johnnie" knows how to read and use good old fashioned critical thinking skills.
We are losing science graduates because corporate America gives million dollar bonuses to wall street geniuses but not lab scientists. Instead, they bring in foreign workers.
| 396 |
Rednek Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:20:10am |
re: #334 sillyquiet
What's funny is the latest meme coming out of the liberal fever swamps is "The Republicans are deliberately sabotaging the stimulus, and not giving it a chance".
File this next to "Socialism never failed. It just hasn't been done properly, yet."
| 399 |
Sharmuta Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:20:40am |
re: #386 topazpilot
Why don't you go interview a few left-wingers? See if they think the GOP is a bunch of Bible thumpers. Because I know lefties who do think that, and I'm tired of it.
| 400 |
Leonidas Hoplite Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:21:03am |
re: #383 Walter L. Newton
I don't want to see it at all, but, tell me, how are we going to stop it. I'm only making an observation of the obvious right now. If I see some indication of a possible change, or somebody points me in a reasonable direction, then I reconsider.
Right now, it doesn't look like it can be saved to me.
It can't be saved by the politicians. It collapses, and then rebuilds itself - if allowed to do so. The stimulus + class warfare + hyper inflation (it's coming) will prolong the downturn and delay recovery.
| 401 |
Ford_Prefect Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:21:37am |
re: #389 redc1c4
"pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
That's what the guy in the adult bookshop said.
| 402 |
yma o hyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:21:37am |
re: #378 Leonidas Hoplite
As bad as things are now it's going to get worse.
One thing the clever people - be it in your Congress or in our Parliament - have not been thinking about with all this stimulus/porkulus is that the income from taxation is already going down. That ought to have been foreseen - but hey, a billion less or more is neither ehre nor there if you're in a safe seat and remote from the life of your constituents.
It is indeed going to get worse, not just for savers and investors.
| 404 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:22:16am |
re: #394 MandyManners
No matter how chilly it is here, I always feel warmer by looking at all that snow up there.
Well, come to Golden. Will be in the 70's here Wed. It's snowing 30 miles west from here, but on the east side of the state, the fronts have been stalling, so, not much going on.
It happens, it's not "global warming" it's normal, but I hate it. I love winter, and I want a lot of it. But I can't afford to live in the hills.
| 405 |
Ojoe Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:22:27am |
re: #387 yma o hyd
The highest mountain in the picture is 10,080 feet or 3,072 meters above sea level. (Mt. San Antonio).
| 406 |
kynna Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:22:36am |
There will be no reason for dems not to cross over in open primaries for the next presidential election and they've proven a strong willingness to do so. Because the GOP has shown no interest in changing the system where it's broken we will not get a good candidate in 2012.
| 407 |
Honorary Yooper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:22:39am |
re: #399 Sharmuta
Why don't you go interview a few left-wingers? See if they think the GOP is a bunch of Bible thumpers. Because I know lefties who do think that, and I'm tired of it.
It's one reason why it is hard to bring in scientists and others who would normally be full-fledged fiscal conservatives who wish for the Constitution to be respected. They view themselves as having no party to go to, so either they sit out or hold their nose when they vote Republican or Democrat.
| 408 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:22:42am |
re: #386 topazpilot
By the way I read the link provided to the Volokh Conspiracy and it offers no evidence that creationism is the reason why Republicans are losing. It links right back to LGF and offers no analysis, no statistics, no explanations to support this hypothesis. Where is the "clue bat?"
I'm fighting really hard to think about creationism as a major issue of 2008 and I can't find it. Sorry, I'm not even sure if it was mentioned on a national scale. Waiting for the proof and I hope there is more offered than the Volokh link.
It's not just creationism. It is the FACT that the GOP has been infiltrated by forces which seek to turn this nation into a Theocracy. Moderates are not stupid. They can see this.
| 409 |
albusteve Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:22:42am |
re: #383 Walter L. Newton
I don't want to see it at all, but, tell me, how are we going to stop it. I'm only making an observation of the obvious right now. If I see some indication of a possible change, or somebody points me in a reasonable direction, then I reconsider.
Right now, it doesn't look like it can be saved to me.
small business employs the most people...if enough businesses threw in together to represent a coupla million tax payers, then refused the govt their money, the feds would go nuts...they work for us...the general public would support it bigtime and it would become so massive so fast that the feds would have to respond with policy change...imo
| 410 |
Amer-I-Can Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:23:22am |
re: #362 johnnyreb
I knew we had lost when my LLL paper endorsed him early on. For the last 15 years, 75% of the republicans they endorse for any office have lost.
It's the same for the Falling Star here in KC. Their endorsement of a conservative is the kiss of death.
| 411 |
topazpilot Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:23:30am |
re: #392 Walter L. Newton
Maybe I can't find it b/c it isn't there! I could go looking for unicorns as well but what's the point? I'm not asking anyone to do my footwork but offer a little more hard evidence to support the belief that creationism is causing Republicans to lose. If you have anything to add or aid in the matter it would be appreciated but snarky little posts that are passive aggressive aren't much help.
| 413 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:23:45am |
re: #399 Sharmuta
Why don't you go interview a few left-wingers? See if they think the GOP is a bunch of Bible thumpers. Because I know lefties who do think that, and I'm tired of it.
How about regular moderates? Those are the people we need to reach.
| 414 |
albusteve Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:23:50am |
re: #395 itellu3times
We are losing science graduates because corporate America gives million dollar bonuses to wall street geniuses but not lab scientists. Instead, they bring in foreign workers.
excellent point
| 415 |
yma o hyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:23:52am |
re: #382 subsailor68
Exactly. Cases in point - Smoot-Hawley in Hoover's day, "Buy American" component of the stimulus bill. Holding agriculture prices up artificially in FDR's day; holding housing prices up artificially (with the mortgage package) today. Increasing taxed on the "rich" in FDR's day....oops.
Good of you to put 'rich' in scare quotes: for commies like PB0 and Gord ehre, everybody who isn't relying on state handouts is "rich".
Expectaatxes to rise to make up for the shortfall due to increased joblessness, failing businesses, house reposessions ...
| 416 |
Sharmuta Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:23:54am |
re: #393 topazpilot
My apologies. I misunderstood. Ignore the last two posts.
Fair enough, but I stand by my comments.
This has been a cumulative process to the point where now moderates and independents do think the GOP is a bunch of religious fundamentalists, and the zany creationists who actually do want a theocracy push their followers to vote republican.
| 417 |
Ford_Prefect Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:24:17am |
The thing that some people don't seem to understand, is that while you have the right to speak your mind and say what you want, Charles has the right to tell you to say it somewhere else. Show some respect people. you are in Charles' house.
| 418 |
DaddyG Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:24:21am |
re: #353 Walter L. Newton
I'm not expecting it to be.
Misery loves company? Crisis creates Caesars it does not return the populace to the "good old days".
| 419 |
Sharmuta Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:24:45am |
re: #413 MandyManners
How about regular moderates? Those are the people we need to reach.
Good point!
| 420 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:25:00am |
re: #410 Amer-I-Can
It's the same for the Falling Star here in KC. Their endorsement of a conservative is the kiss of death.
Falling Star? Is that a play on the name of the local rag?
| 421 |
transient Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:25:14am |
This isn't really my debate, but how can Rep evolution supporters wrest control, or at least gain significant influence, over their candicates? Especially when significant numbers of Republicans are pro-creationism/ID or don't care about this issue?
How do you rebuild a Rep party based (partly) on moving forward with real science, not science in service of (one particular) religion? How do you convince them that creation/ID is not "conservative values"?
Inquiring minds want to know.
| 422 |
loppyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:25:20am |
re: #413 MandyManners
How about regular moderates? Those are the people we need to reach.
Not to build a base.
| 423 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:25:52am |
Well, looks like we have had at least one melt-down.
| 424 |
redc1c4 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:26:02am |
re: #401 Ford_Prefect
That's what the guy in the adult bookshop said.
we won't ask how you know......
DADT!
| 425 |
notutopia Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:26:11am |
re: #343 Sharmuta
When political ideologies start getting tossed around with slurs- I just have to ask what is meant by that. Like "RINO" and "liberal" Please define so we're all on the same page.
/Except marxism. That's an acceptable slur.
This is the core of the problem Sharmuta. Republicans cannot define themselves. They can tell you what they don't want, but are not willing to say what they will support at this time.
We're in deep doodoo right now. And, unless we can come to some agreements quickly, the Dems are going to hold this country captive with their fascist stronghold votes in 2012.
End social welfare spending, stop enabling people to become dependents on the government for their livelihoods. Focus on Fiscal responsibility. Stop taxing and funding for pork projects. Focus on enforcing the immigration laws we already have on the books. Stop creating more laws that take away our individual freedoms. This includes abortion and religion. Allow, Self determination. Keep religion OUT of our public school systems. Stop bankrolling the UN. Enforce term limits. Open up free economic trade again and stop trying to micromanage capitalism, by squashing profits to corporations and regulation. Get rid of Acorn.
Do not nationalize the US banking system, and the stock markets.
| 426 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:26:19am |
re: #411 topazpilot
Maybe I can't find it b/c it isn't there! I could go looking for unicorns as well but what's the point? I'm not asking anyone to do my footwork but offer a little more hard evidence to support the belief that creationism is causing Republicans to lose. If you have anything to add or aid in the matter it would be appreciated but snarky little posts that are passive aggressive aren't much help.
How much have you read on this topic? Throughout those threads--especially the one about the GOP governors yesterday--Charles has posted some good links about those who wish to turn this nation into a Theocracy.l
| 427 |
yma o hyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:26:30am |
re: #405 Ojoe
The highest mountain in the picture is 10,080 feet or 3,072 meters above sea level. (Mt. San Antonio).
Bit higher than MT Snowdon ...
;-)
| 428 |
fish Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:26:35am |
re: #282 Sharmuta
The Discovery Institute is intentionally obfuscating Theistic Evolution with Intelligent Design so that they can get people to support them. Distortions and untruths is their default setting. They lie about their real intentions, they lie about science, they even lie about themselves. There is nothing "conservative" about their agenda- they are undermining the principles this party used to stand for.
I agree completely.
| 429 |
subsailor68 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:26:39am |
re: #415 yma o hyd
Good of you to put 'rich' in scare quotes: for commies like PB0 and Gord ehre, everybody who isn't relying on state handouts is "rich".
Expectaatxes to rise to make up for the shortfall due to increased joblessness, failing businesses, house reposessions ...
Yep. I heard one commentator (sorry, can't remember where) point out that we finally know what 'rich' means - folks with incomes over $72,000 (approx.) would not be eligible for the tax rebates/stimulus. (I'm paraphrasing here.)
(I'll try to find a link.)
| 430 |
Oh no...Sand People! Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:26:49am |
| 431 |
Honorary Yooper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:27:02am |
re: #423 FurryOldGuyJeans
Well, looks like we have had at least one melt-down.
I counted at least two, with one whom I honored with Queen and "Another One Bites the Dust".
| 432 |
Nevergiveup Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:27:23am |
re: #431 Honorary Yooper
I counted at least two, with one whom I honored with Queen and "Another One Bites the Dust".
2 people got banned?
| 433 |
Ford_Prefect Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:27:25am |
re: #424 redc1c4
we won't ask how you know......
DADT!
I just went in asking for directions...wait...that doesn't sound right either.
| 434 |
Honorary Yooper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:27:31am |
re: #418 DaddyG
Misery loves company? Crisis creates Caesars it does not return the populace to the "good old days".
In fact, Rahm Emanuel is rather famous for not wanting to waste a crisis.
| 435 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:27:35am |
re: #411 topazpilot
Maybe I can't find it b/c it isn't there! I could go looking for unicorns as well but what's the point? I'm not asking anyone to do my footwork but offer a little more hard evidence to support the belief that creationism is causing Republicans to lose. If you have anything to add or aid in the matter it would be appreciated but snarky little posts that are passive aggressive aren't much help.
Well of course they are helpful. They help me. Look, Charles has posted a number of threads over the years on LGF. And he has links, and users here have posted links, and you can use the "tag" cloud option above to find subjects and so on and so on.
You can't find it because you are a lazy ass. Whoops, did I say that?
| 436 |
redc1c4 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:27:36am |
re: #402 yma o hyd
One thing the clever people - be it in your Congress or in our Parliament - have not been thinking about with all this stimulus/porkulus is that the income from taxation is already going down. That ought to have been foreseen - but hey, a billion less or more is neither ehre nor there if you're in a safe seat and remote from the life of your constituents.
It is indeed going to get worse, not just for savers and investors.
they've got a fix for that: they're raising taxes.....
/problem solved!
| 437 |
thatemailname Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:27:38am |
"Everything the media tried to pin on Sarah Palin, [Bobby] Jindal actually did"
So now we are taking our cues from the media? "Media" say creationism bad, therefore, creationism bad!
This is NOT a winning strategy, people. It is NOT!
| 438 |
vagabond trader Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:27:39am |
re: #399 Sharmuta
Why do you care what lefties think?
| 439 |
realwest Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:27:57am |
re: #186 Teh Flowah
Well, aren't you all sweetness and light
re: #4 WendyaI would not support any GOP member who wanted creationism taught as science but I'm not going to shun someone who personally believes in ID or creationism yet has no intention of forcing that belief on America's schoolchildren.
I will. Just as I would shun someone who thought the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth. Because I don't enjoy associating myself with ignorant idiots.
So if someone personally believes in creationism, EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T INTEND TO FORCE IT ON SOME ONE ELSE THROUGH THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, you would shun them.
Nice. Every Christian I know believes that God is the creator - how and why He created the Universe is an unknown to most of us. And most Christians, including myself, believe in Evolution. And you make that comment and folks wonder why some people think that Christian bashing goes on at LGF.
Indeed, Lalo Stinky has said, repeatedly, that believe in Evolution doesn't preclude a belief in a Creator nor does belief in a Creator preclude a belief in Evolution.
Shun away, please.
| 440 |
loppyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:28:01am |
| 441 |
albusteve Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:28:10am |
re: #421 transient
This isn't really my debate, but how can Rep evolution supporters wrest control, or at least gain significant influence, over their candicates? Especially when significant numbers of Republicans are pro-creationism/ID or don't care about this issue?
How do you rebuild a Rep party based (partly) on moving forward with real science, not science in service of (one particular) religion? How do you convince them that creation/ID is not "conservative values"?
Inquiring minds want to know.
let's try and talk it to death....
| 442 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:28:12am |
re: #422 loppyd
Not to build a base.
A base with little on top doesn't reach far.
That said, the moderates CAN become the base.
| 443 |
Honorary Yooper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:28:13am |
| 444 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:28:16am |
re: #399 Sharmuta
Why don't you go interview a few left-wingers? See if they think the GOP is a bunch of Bible thumpers. Because I know lefties who do think that, and I'm tired of it.
It isn't just left-wingers. My mother, who is a member of the local Republican Women's group, sees too many Bible thumpers in control.
| 445 |
Randall Gross Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:28:26am |
re: #408 MandyManners
It's not just creationism. It is the FACT that the GOP has been infiltrated by forces which seek to turn this nation into a Theocracy. Moderates are not stupid. They can see this.
You can say that again. It's not just that one thing, it's the total effect of "Science = teh bad" in the Republican base. Demographics have changed dramatically, and the reason Red States are going purple is because of the proffessionals who have moved to those "new tech" areas. Most of them are small business types but many are among the 20 percent of conservatives who voted for Obama.
We lost this election in the suburbs and the tech pockets. The purpling of red states will continue as long as the R's stay on an anti-science path.
| 446 |
quickjustice Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:28:31am |
Limbaugh just praised Jindal as a "young Ronald Reagan". Too bad. Reagan may have been a creationist, but he never demanded that his beliefs be enacted into law.
| 447 |
loppyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:28:51am |
re: #442 MandyManners
A base with little on top doesn't reach far.
That said, the moderates CAN become the base.
But then it isn't a conservative base....
| 448 |
jcm Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:28:56am |
re: #372 Charles
Comments complaining about threads related to creationism will be deleted.
As I have posted at least a hundred times now.
43 Threads tagged Creationism in the last 60 days.
9 Threads tagged Charles Darwin in the last 60 days.
27 Threads tagged Disco Institute in the last 60 days.
57 Threads tagged Charles Darwin in the last 60 days.
Probably a lot of overlap in those....
128 Threads tagged Terrorism in the last 60 days.
112 Threads tagged Palestinians in the last 60 days.
125 Threads tagged Israel in the last 60 days.
129 Threads tagged Hamas in the last 60 days.
All you whiners complain Charles isn't paying attention to the "important" issues. First You are flat out wrong. Second, THIS IS NOT YOUR BLOG!
Charles has invited you into his (internet) house and you have the mitigated gall to complain about his hospitality.
| 449 |
Who Watches the Watchmen? Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:29:06am |
| 450 |
Randall Gross Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:29:17am |
re: #420 MandyManners
KC Star, a McClatchy paper I believe. Very LLL
| 451 |
Sharmuta Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:29:29am |
re: #438 vagabond trader
For one- I'm related to a number of them.
Also- some of them are convertible, but not if we're a party pushing irrationality.
| 452 |
Nevergiveup Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:29:35am |
re: #440 loppyd
I think that just means Biden is kinda gonna watch that the money is spend well? Which really means I think that they are going to hide him in a small room in the basement.
| 454 |
Ford_Prefect Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:29:43am |
re: #440 loppyd
Great. /
Gaffulus is in charge of stimulus?
It is getting hot in this hand basket again.
| 455 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:29:45am |
re: #437 thatemailname
"Everything the media tried to pin on Sarah Palin, [Bobby] Jindal actually did"
So now we are taking our cues from the media? "Media" say creationism bad, therefore, creationism bad!
This is NOT a winning strategy, people. It is NOT!
*blink*
Huh?
| 456 |
Oh no...Sand People! Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:29:51am |
re: #437 thatemailname
"Everything the media tried to pin on Sarah Palin, [Bobby] Jindal actually did"
So now we are taking our cues from the media? "Media" say creationism bad, therefore, creationism bad!
This is NOT a winning strategy, people. It is NOT!
When the zombie voter we have to win over watches the MFM...we don't have too many options.
| 457 |
Honorary Yooper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:30:00am |
| 458 |
DaddyG Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:30:06am |
re: #434 Honorary Yooper
In fact, Rahm Emanuel is rather famous for not wanting to waste a crisis.
I was thinking of the Roman Empire and Napoleon but you bring up a more contemporary and salient example. Is that chill up my spine a unicorn breathing down my neck?
| 459 |
Who Watches the Watchmen? Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:30:07am |
| 460 |
jcm Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:30:10am |
re: #448 jcm
43 Threads tagged Creationism in the last 60 days.
9 Threads tagged Charles Darwin in the last 60 days.
27 Threads tagged Disco Institute in the last 60 days.
57 Threads tagged Charles Darwin in the last 60 days.Probably a lot of overlap in those....
128 Threads tagged Terrorism in the last 60 days.
112 Threads tagged Palestinians in the last 60 days.
125 Threads tagged Israel in the last 60 days.
129 Threads tagged Hamas in the last 60 days.All you whiners complain Charles isn't paying attention to the "important" issues. First You are flat out wrong. Second, THIS IS NOT YOUR BLOG!
Charles has invited you into his (internet) house and you have the mitigated gall to complain about his hospitality.
PIMF
57 Threads tagged Evolution in the last 60 days.
| 461 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:30:17am |
re: #411 topazpilot
Maybe I can't find it b/c it isn't there! I could go looking for unicorns as well but what's the point? I'm not asking anyone to do my footwork but offer a little more hard evidence to support the belief that creationism is causing Republicans to lose. If you have anything to add or aid in the matter it would be appreciated but snarky little posts that are passive aggressive aren't much help.
See, JCM has some stats.
43 Threads tagged Creationism in the last 60 days.
9 Threads tagged Charles Darwin in the last 60 days.
27 Threads tagged Disco Institute in the last 60 days.
57 Threads tagged Charles Darwin in the last 60 days.
Probably a lot of overlap in those....
128 Threads tagged Terrorism in the last 60 days.
112 Threads tagged Palestinians in the last 60 days.
125 Threads tagged Israel in the last 60 days.
129 Threads tagged Hamas in the last 60 days.
You're dishonest. The info is available if you honestly want it.
| 462 |
Nevergiveup Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:30:17am |
re: #443 Honorary Yooper
Yep. Tedzilla and Smokefire.
Smoke fire got the stick or just his comments deleted?
| 463 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:30:22am |
| 464 |
GreatDane Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:30:22am |
I believe the factors that caused the election results were
The Bush Legacy
The Obama Effect
MSM negative coverage of GOP compared to DEM
McCain as a candidate (primarily age)
Creationism
Other issues
In the above order of importance.
| 465 |
Russkilitlover Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:30:33am |
re: #304 tfc3rid
Methinks The One is attempting to destory any vestiage ofthe Reagan RevolutionAmerica.
Fixed.
| 466 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:30:37am |
re: #397 redc1c4
"interesting"
"May you live in interesting times." Chinese curse
The word cuts both ways.
| 467 |
Big Steve Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:30:37am |
re: #114 NYCHardhat
I miss Reagan.
I don't miss Reagan on this issue........
“ Well, it`s a theory, it is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science and is not yet believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was believed. But if it was going to be taught in the schools, then I think that also the biblical theory of creation, which is not a theory but the biblical story of creation, should also be taught”
- Ronald Reagan
| 468 |
transient Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:30:40am |
| 469 |
Who Watches the Watchmen? Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:30:41am |
re: #452 Nevergiveup
I think that just means Biden is kinda gonna watch that the money is spend well? Which really means I think that they are going to hide him in a small room in the basement.
Does he get a green eye shade?
| 470 |
Randall Gross Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:30:48am |
re: #447 loppyd
Loppy, if you go back to what we were talking about earlier even the "1.3 Pct" stay at homes would not have won the election for McCain with a 20 pct crossover for Obama from self identified conservatives.
| 471 |
Pyrocles Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:30:52am |
Oh, it's common knowledge in academic circles that true Communism has never been implemented before. All previous attempts at Communism resulted in dictatorships; not actual Communism.
And don't believe that real Communism is impossible because it violates human nature/instincts! "Human nature" doesn't exist, and humans do not have "instincts". Humans are infinitely adaptable, and can be educated to practice any lifestyle. Therefore, true Communism is possible - we'll get it right next time!
////Spouting things I learned in Sociology...
re: #396 Rednek
File this next to "Socialism never failed. It just hasn't been done properly, yet."
| 472 |
Amer-I-Can Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:31:02am |
re: #384 vagabond trader
We're losing science graduates because your public schools are too busy teaching the importance of multicult bullsheet, rather than making sure "Johnnie" knows how to read and use good old fashioned critical thinking skills.
The advantage of living in a smaller community is that we don't have to put up with nearly as much of this BS as larger towns. That said, I try to emphasize engineering, science and math to my children whenever possible. I don't depend on the local schools to get in all the info that I want in there... I shove some of it in myself.
Of course, the down side to that is that my children hate me (not really) and the school board shuts the doors every time they see me coming. I have to sneak up on both of them to get my points across.
| 473 |
nyc redneck Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:31:04am |
re: #384 vagabond trader
We're losing science graduates because your public schools are too busy teaching the importance of multicult bullsheet, rather than making sure "Johnnie" knows how to read and use good old fashioned critical thinking skills.
i was talking w/ a friend the other day. she was describing a shopping trip w/ her daughter to the grocery store. her 10 yr. old daughter was so hip on what products were p.c. to purchase. certain brands of ice cream were off limits.
other cereals and crackers because of bad affiliations. the little girl even passed on her favorite candy because of "greedy corporations."
we now have children dictating what foods their parents are allowed to buy because of b.s. foisted on these kids in school. this is beyond the pale.
this should not be a worry for kids. and certainly not a role for teachers.
the enemy has control of our children.
we need to take our education system back asap.
| 474 |
Rednek Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:31:20am |
BTW
I think that gorilla should be named "Shuggles".
It is a mixture of "sugar" and "snuggles"
| 475 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:31:28am |
re: #445 Thanos
You can say that again. It's not just that one thing, it's the total effect of "Science = teh bad" in the Republican base. Demographics have changed dramatically, and the reason Red States are going purple is because of the proffessionals who have moved to those "new tech" areas. Most of them are small business types but many are among the 20 percent of conservatives who voted for Obama.
We lost this election in the suburbs and the tech pockets. The purpling of red states will continue as long as the R's stay on an anti-science path.
Starting in the first Reagan Administration, ultra socons have worked their way into the fabric of the GOP.
| 476 |
Guanxi88 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:31:28am |
re: #466 FurryOldGuyJeans
"May you live in interesting times." Chinese curse
The word cuts both ways.
"May you come to the attention of powerful people."
"May you find what you deserve."
- Two other such curses.
| 477 |
loppyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:31:41am |
| 478 |
Sharmuta Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:31:57am |
re: #437 thatemailname
Creationism is bad- it's not rational. People who subscribe to it look weird to the rest of us.
| 479 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:31:57am |
re: #431 Honorary Yooper
I counted at least two, with one whom I honored with Queen and "Another One Bites the Dust".
I did say "at least". I only saw the one and belatedly discovered the second reading comments by others.
| 481 |
Kragar Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:32:18am |
| 483 |
redc1c4 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:32:31am |
re: #437 thatemailname
thatemailname
(Logged in)
Registered since: Dec 10, 2007 at 6:04 pm
No. of comments posted: 9
No. of links posted: 0
i'll fire up the grill
| 484 |
vagabond trader Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:32:37am |
re: #451 Sharmuta
Jaysus, the ones I know are completely irrational, The Obama is their religion.
| 485 |
yma o hyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:32:38am |
| 486 |
albusteve Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:32:55am |
the GOP should have filed 50 lawsuits against ACORN...one for each state...
the GOP should have put their own asses on the line and pounded the MSM for it's obvious bias...
the GOP should have attacked BO with the same vengence expressed by the dems
| 487 |
MrSilverDragon Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:32:56am |
re: #437 thatemailname
Who said anything about taking cues? And besides, a "belief" should not be taught as "truth".
| 488 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:32:59am |
re: #447 loppyd
But then it isn't a conservative base....
Doesn't it depend on what kind of conservative you're talking about? I see the moderates wanting limited government and limited taxation.
| 489 |
DaddyG Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:32:59am |
re: #448 jcm
Charles has invited you into his (internet) house and you have the mitigated gall to complain about his hospitality.
...well we are running a bit low on spinich puffs. And when is someone going to refill my drink?
/
| 490 |
Ford_Prefect Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:33:01am |
re: #443 Honorary Yooper
Yep. Tedzilla and Smokefire.
Shame. Don't know Tedzilla, but Smokefire seemed nice.
Oh well. Next!
| 491 |
kynna Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:33:07am |
re: #399 Sharmuta
Why don't you go interview a few left-wingers? See if they think the GOP is a bunch of Bible thumpers. Because I know lefties who do think that, and I'm tired of it.
It's not going to stop regardless of whether it's true or not.
Look at how Bill Clinton had photo op after photo op with his 80 lb bible. Prayed in speeches, on camera, photo ops of him in prayer. They gave him a complete pass on that.
George Bush didn't do nearly as much in-your-face religion (if he did any -- frankly I found him to be very humble on that score) and he was excoriated as a religious lunatic who was going to make this country a theocracy.
Lawmakers need to understand what's being whispered in their ears so they know better than to follow the Jindal highway to obscurity. A polite e-mail for starters, perhaps? But the MSM isn't going to stop and it doesn't always come from truth.
| 492 |
Sharmuta Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:33:12am |
re: #478 Sharmuta
Creationism is bad- it's not rational. People who subscribe to it look weird to the rest of us.
DISCLAIMER- people have the right to believe whatever they want, however- it doesn't stop others from looking at you weird, nor does it give anyone the right to push it off on other people's children in public school science classrooms.
| 493 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:33:18am |
re: #482 neverquit
Ha, jerk. it's not even funny.
| 494 |
Steve Rogers Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:33:30am |
re: #185 redc1c4
I'm not saying these things are going to happen. I'm just saying that something like them needs to happen - and happen soon - if the Republican Party is ever going to lose its image among moderate voters as a party of scientifically illiterate, busy-bodies who act holier-than-thou to everyone who doesn't accept the Bible as some sort of science textbook. And until that image is purposely changed by the Republican Party itself, they will continue to lose elections.
The change might happen. It might not. If the Republicans don't change, we get the Democrat's socialism. If the Republicans have the testicular fortitude to change, they can put up a decent fight against the Democrats. What the "creationists" have to understand is that the U.S. will never be the theocracy they want it to be. Too many moderates, all liberals and all libertarians will not allow that. But most of the liberals and enough of the moderates can be seduced to the false promises of statism that the unintended consequence of the "creationists'" actions will - and is - bringing about socialism.
| 496 |
Wendya Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:34:38am |
re: #471 Pyrocles
Oh, it's common knowledge in academic circles that true Communism has never been implemented before. All previous attempts at Communism resulted in dictatorships; not actual Communism.
And don't believe that real Communism is impossible because it violates human nature/instincts! "Human nature" doesn't exist, and humans do not have "instincts". Humans are infinitely adaptable, and can be educated to practice any lifestyle. Therefore, true Communism is possible - we'll get it right next time!
////Spouting things I learned in Sociology...
OF course communism has been implemented and it always breaks down because of human nature. The only way to keep communism as a system is through dictatorial leaders. This is true on both the small and large scale.
| 497 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:34:45am |
re: #450 Thanos
KC Star, a McClatchy paper I believe. Very LLL
Ah. McClatchy, the employer of Dion who kicks it with Samir.
| 498 |
neverquit Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:34:51am |
| 499 |
yma o hyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:34:57am |
re: #440 loppyd
Oh my goodness!
This means PB0 is already bored with this 'catastrophe' and is looking for a new crisis.
Also, cleverly - he now can't be blamed when things go wrong.
| 500 |
kansas Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:34:58am |
re: #481 Kragar (proud to be kafir)
We're fucked
Well, let's see how the market responded to that. Yep. We're fucked.
| 501 |
topazpilot Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:35:07am |
re: #416 Sharmuta
I understand your point, but I don't think that those conservatives who support ID are negatively affecting the party to that degree. First, who cares what left wingers think about the party? They aren't going to vote for Republicans anyway and so any attempt to include them in a broader coalition is doomed to failure. Second, if I remember correctly the exit polls for the last presidential election in which voters were asked their top issue had religion way way way down the list. The economy, foreign policy, Iraq, and reform topped the list by wide margins.
I'm just not finding it plausible that this is that big of a problem and, contrary to what Newton believes, I am looking!
| 502 |
Amer-I-Can Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:35:09am |
re: #420 MandyManners
Falling Star? Is that a play on the name of the local rag?
LOL, it's the Kansas City Star, but their readership has been dwindling so fast that it has gained a new "Local" name. It is one of the worst liberal rags I have ever read. I now only buy the Sunday paper for the grocery adds and the funnies... the rest is used to clean my windows.
| 503 |
jcm Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:35:21am |
re: #489 DaddyG
...well we are running a bit low on spinich puffs. And when is someone going to refill my drink?
/
Hatchlings are whining and not lending a hand. What is this generation coming to?
;-P
| 504 |
Leonidas Hoplite Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:35:25am |
re: #473 nyc redneck
i was talking w/ a friend the other day. she was describing a shopping trip w/ her daughter to the grocery store. her 10 yr. old daughter was so hip on what products were p.c. to purchase. certain brands of ice cream were off limits.
other cereals and crackers because of bad affiliations. the little girl even passed on her favorite candy because of "greedy corporations."
we now have children dictating what foods their parents are allowed to buy because of b.s. foisted on these kids in school. this is beyond the pale.
this should not be a worry for kids. and certainly not a role for teachers.
the enemy has control of our children.
we need to take our education system back asap.
I flew into Newark last night with my family after a week of vacation. I took my son to pick up our car and since it hadn't been run in a week, and the air temperature was about 25 degrees, I let it warm up for a few minutes.
My son, age 7, asked me if I was wasting gas. I explained to him that the car runs more efficiently when it is warmed up. It's going to be a long tough fight to keep him from getting brainwashed in school.
| 505 |
Big Steve Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:35:31am |
re: #482 neverquit
Again.......when I see this "too much time" comments on Charles's links on Intelligent design, I want to tear out what hair I have left. Charles frequently posts stats and this subject is NOT the major source of posts. Besides his blog, his rules. This is a real issue and if you are not interested just tune it out.
| 506 |
Honorary Yooper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:35:31am |
re: #482 neverquit
Something tells me you may be deleted.
| 507 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:35:33am |
re: #422 loppyd
Not to build a base.
Reagan said the Republican party was the inclusive party. Moderates are exactly what we need to create a wide and stable base. Cut the platform back to the core of what has succeeded in the past, fiscal conservatism and smaller government, and jettison the rest.
| 509 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:35:44am |
| 510 |
Oh no...Sand People! Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:35:44am |
re: #489 DaddyG
...well we are running a bit low on spinich puffs. And when is someone going to refill my drink?
/
LOL!
| 511 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:35:58am |
| 513 |
Scion9 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:36:04am |
re: #293 fish
Becuase Republicans have become too liberal. Did either your Governor or Congresscritter turn D because the R was talking about ID or because they weren't cutting spending and taxes like they had promised? Heck, I would vote for a D if he made me believe he was going to be more conservative than the R.
I hate to break this to you, but Bobby Jindal and his ilk are basically Christian Socialists. Jindal agrees with every damn thing the Dems have to say that really matters. The Dems are Hegelian-interpreted mainline Protestants sans God (AKA Marxists). You put the God back in the equation and you got the Discovery Institute and their ilk. The Creationist, populist rabble are constantly going off on rants against "Corporatism", etc. They are not fiscally conservative; they are not conservative at all.
As for Kansas, the reason the state was lost is because the Dems are simply going in and running without touching abortion, ID, or anything else that doesn't fucking matter. The Republicans go in and run off at the mouth about things that only a bunch of lunatic religious reactionaries give a shit about; completely missing any opportunity to rebut the Dems on policy issues that actually effect peoples lives. They don't do it, because they can't. Dems say they want socialism and advocate collectivism, and how can the Christian Socialists rebut that? They want it too.
There is whole fucking Michael Moore style documentary coming out about Kansas this year. Maybe you should go check it out.
| 514 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:36:27am |
re: #501 topazpilot
Walter L. Newton. Please, report the mane correctly :)
| 515 |
topazpilot Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:36:32am |
re: #435 Walter L. Newton
Yes you did say that. Thanks for the tip anyway.
| 516 |
Nevergiveup Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:36:35am |
re: #493 Walter L. Newton
Ha, jerk. it's not even funny.
I saw the "never" part and thought "shit what did I say now"?
| 517 |
quickjustice Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:36:39am |
I have no problem having religious people in the fold. (After all, I'm a Christian myself.) I think religion and atheism should be excluded from any science curriculum. That's what I'm looking for in a politician on this issue.
| 518 |
loppyd Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:36:45am |
re: #488 MandyManners
Doesn't it depend on what kind of conservative you're talking about? I see the moderates wanting limited government and limited taxation.
My feeling is if a moderate wants to be included in a party then the party should welcome them, but not change core values to look more like the other party in order to do so.
| 519 |
Honorary Yooper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:37:27am |
re: #490 Ford_Prefect
Shame. Don't know Tedzilla, but Smokefire seemed nice.
Oh well. Next!
Yeah, he just blew a gasket over the topic and had no clue when to just walk away from the thread.
| 520 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:37:44am |
re: #478 Sharmuta
Creationism is bad- it's not rational. People who subscribe to it look weird to the rest of us.
Why does belief matter as long as people don't try to force others to believe it?
| 521 |
fish Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:37:56am |
re: #316 Thanos
Sorry your argument is flawed by the fact that a steady parade of "Conservative" creationists have been run against Sebelius and Moore, with a lot of big "L"s in the R column. I think they are going to try Brownback next, if they do I"ll vote for friggin Sebellius.
If they are running as creationists I stand corrected. If they said something in passing that was then taken out of context, amplified and repeated by their opponents then that is entirely different.
If someone is running as a creationist I will vote against them.
If someone else is telling me that person is a creationist and wants to teach my kids that the Earth is 6000 years old and made by magic, well I would look very closely at who was saying that and why.
| 525 |
callahan23 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:38:35am |
re: #466 FurryOldGuyJeans
"May you live in interesting times." Chinese curse
The word cuts both ways.
When I lived in Ethiopia, Ethiopians used to ask me what i would think of their country.
My answer was "Interesting". Deliberately, without offending the Ethiopians as they didn't understand the sarcasm.
| 526 |
transient Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:38:38am |
re: #437 thatemailname
So now we are taking our cues from the media? "Media" say creationism bad, therefore, creationism bad!
No one is taking cues from the media. We are taking our cues from science. Creationism is not science, it is thinly disguised religion, and as such it has no role in science class. Period.
| 527 |
kansas Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:39:23am |
re: #523 taxfreekiller
#511
that alone should be good for a 200 point drop in the DOW
Gibbs says they don't look to the market for their economic direction. Now that we all have retirement funds there, why should they? Fuckers.
| 528 |
Oh no...Sand People! Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:39:25am |
re: #513 Scion9
I hate to break this to you, but Bobby Jindal and his ilk are basically Christian Socialists. Jindal agrees with every damn thing the Dems have to say that really matters. The Dems are Hegelian-interpreted mainline Protestants sans God (AKA Marxists). You put the God back in the equation and you got the Discovery Institute and their ilk. The Creationist, populist rabble are constantly going off on rants against "Corporatism", etc. They are not fiscally conservative; they are not conservative at all.
As for Kansas, the reason the state was lost is because the Dems are simply going in and running without touching abortion, ID, or anything else that doesn't fucking matter. The Republicans go in and run off at the mouth about things that only a bunch of lunatic religious reactionaries give a shit about; completely missing any opportunity to rebut the Dems on policy issues that actually effect peoples lives. They don't do it, because they can't. Dems say they want socialism and advocate collectivism, and how can the Christian Socialists rebut that? They want it too.
There is whole fucking Michael Moore style documentary coming out about Kansas this year. Maybe you should go check it out.
As long as fiscally conservative can be translated into: "Send your donations to (fill in the blank) ministries" then they are quite fiscally conservative...
| 529 |
so.cal.swede Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:39:26am |
re: #513 Scion9
I hate to break this to you, but Bobby Jindal and his ilk are basically Christian Socialists. Jindal agrees with every damn thing the Dems have to say that really matters. The Dems are Hegelian-interpreted mainline Protestants sans God (AKA Marxists). You put the God back in the equation and you got the Discovery Institute and their ilk. The Creationist, populist rabble are constantly going off on rants against "Corporatism", etc. They are not fiscally conservative; they are not conservative at all.
As for Kansas, the reason the state was lost is because the Dems are simply going in and running without touching abortion, ID, or anything else that doesn't fucking matter. The Republicans go in and run off at the mouth about things that only a bunch of lunatic religious reactionaries give a shit about; completely missing any opportunity to rebut the Dems on policy issues that actually effect peoples lives. They don't do it, because they can't. Dems say they want socialism and advocate collectivism, and how can the Christian Socialists rebut that? They want it too.
There is whole fucking Michael Moore style documentary coming out about Kansas this year. Maybe you should go check it out.
Wait! Hold on. You just said "Michael Moore" and "Documentary" in the same sentence...
Something's wrong.
| 530 |
MandyManners Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:39:29am |
re: #518 loppyd
My feeling is if a moderate wants to be included in a party then the party should welcome them, but not change core values to look more like the other party in order to do so.
What core values?
| 531 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:39:31am |
re: #517 quickjustice
I have no problem having religious people in the fold. (After all, I'm a Christian myself.) I think religion and atheism should be excluded from any science curriculum. That's what I'm looking for in a politician on this issue.
When is the last time you saw atheism being taught in a science class? And, I'm asking an honest question. And I mean, as an actual text book item, as part of the class. Not some dumb ass teachers opinion.
Creationist want to make it part of the class itself, in the textbooks etc.
| 533 |
Sharmuta Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:40:20am |
re: #501 topazpilot
OK- so you read my comment- but did you comprehend it? This has been a cumulative process that's been ongoing for quite some time. In the minds of many voters GOP = religious right, when the GOP is about much more than that- or used to be, anyways.
| 534 |
Oh no...Sand People! Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:40:24am |
re: #520 MandyManners
Why does belief matter as long as people don't try to force others to believe it?
Ding! Ding!
/As I run around stark naked swinging from a chandelier with nothing but a fez.
| 535 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:40:33am |
re: #501 topazpilot
I understand your point, but I don't think that those conservatives who support ID are negatively affecting the party to that degree.
A lot of people I know would disagree with you, myself included. Religious Zealotry is a problem for the GOP.
| 536 |
albusteve Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:40:56am |
the GOP has nothing to lose by going public, nationwide, disclaiming creationists moving on public education...open up the party and refute this as any sort of accepted party policy...pressers, talk shows, radio....officially sever this harmful shit and put on notice any Republicans that disavow the notion of complete separation of church and state are no longer welcome in the party...just do it
| 538 |
sillyquiet Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:41:56am |
re: #522 Iron Fist
Well, I am here only because of my job. And the weapon restrictions are driving me batty as well.
| 540 |
Randall Gross Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:42:12am |
re: #521 fish
Sam Brownback pretty much runs the R party in Kansas, avowed creationist. It's so bad that there is an actual schism, and a separate party org split off. This continues and Texas flips next.
| 541 |
Ford_Prefect Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:42:15am |
re: #534 Oh no...Sand People!
Ding! Ding!
/As I run around stark naked swinging from a chandelier with nothing but a fez.
You chandelier has nothing but a fez? Not very bright.
| 542 |
Scion9 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:42:36am |
re: #529 so.cal.swede
Wait! Hold on. You just said "Michael Moore" and "Documentary" in the same sentence...
Something's wrong.
You're right. I have shamed myself.
/hang head...
| 543 |
so.cal.swede Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:43:03am |
re: #539 buzzsawmonkey
With that in mind, I would like to see any politician who was asked about "creationism" say the following: "Are you asking what I believe, or what my position is as a public servant? What I believe personally is not material. As a public servant, I believe that religion and religiously-based doctrines should be excluded from science classes, and that is what I stand for as a candidate for office, and what I will stand for if elected."
That should do it.
Only, in reality, he'd be slaughtered by the Creationists for not being true to the cause. And slaughtered by MSM for being a closet creationist.
| 544 |
Big Steve Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:43:17am |
For those who are wishy washy on this debate I would encourage you to actually read what Charles posts to. To be honest, Charles does all the work here and all we have to do is read. On the creationism/ID/evolution threads I have spent hundreds of hours actually reading the threads. Some (like the experiment on the REPEATABLE bacteria evolution) I have linked to the actual paper and struggled through the thick terminology just to understand and form my own opinion.
So I would encourage you all to recognize the gift you are getting here.....someone who spends hours searching the Internet for good, sound links.
| 545 |
vagabond trader Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:43:19am |
re: #473 nyc redneck
Don't know about the rest of the country, but this is the most pervasive form of brainwashing present in our school systems on the East Coast.It certainly isn't creationism. The religion of pc reigns supreme here, to the point of cultism, imho.
| 546 |
Oh no...Sand People! Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:43:34am |
re: #541 Ford_Prefect
You chandelier has nothing but a fez? Not very bright.
I keep the lights dim. The crowd in attendance prefers it also.
///
| 547 |
Golem Akbar Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:43:37am |
re: #522 Iron Fist
I've liked California the times I've been out there. It is beautiful country, especially if you get out of the huge urban population centers.
I just couldn't live there. Between the weapons restrictions, self-defense restritions, and looney Leftists I'd wind up in prison before I'd been there a year.
California isn't a bad place to live. There are plenty of great non-liberal/non-loony people out here. Liberals may outnumber conservatives and moderates, but not by so much. Remember, most mod-cons are busy working, raising and nurturing their families, and just living, to be political. There are plenty of good communities out here. Plenty of challenges, too, but tell me where there isn't.
| 548 |
Honorary Yooper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:44:02am |
re: #513 Scion9
Very true. The modern Democratic Party is descended from the early 20th Century Progressives. The Progressives believed it was their Christian duty to change the world and create an Eden on Earth (sound somewhat familiar?). They were the reason behind Prohibition as well as Wilson and FDR. After WWII, this modified a bit as they lost the Christ and God parts of it, but maintained on the same path. Jindal and others like him are remnants of that earlier period.
| 549 |
Amer-I-Can Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:44:04am |
| 550 |
realwest Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:44:07am |
This is a re-post from the Three Govenors thread last night:
"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."
| 551 |
albusteve Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:44:31am |
re: #539 buzzsawmonkey
With that in mind, I would like to see any politician who was asked about "creationism" say the following: "Are you asking what I believe, or what my position is as a public servant? What I believe personally is not material. As a public servant, I believe that religion and religiously-based doctrines should be excluded from science classes, and that is what I stand for as a candidate for office, and what I will stand for if elected."
That should do it.
it's too simple and honest, not enough confrontation and phony drama...so it won't happen
| 552 |
calcajun Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:44:35am |
This is not only for Charles, but to the rest of the Lizard Corps.
I do not disagree with Charles' assessment and his rationale for these threads--and I'm a fundamentalist Christian. Any steps whereby theology is introduced into the classroom can only serve to later bite us in the ass with any shift in demographics. The more immediate concern is the data which is linked to this thread. If this aspect of values/social conservatism cost the party in the last two election cycles (I do think there were other major factors apart from this) then it needs to be corrected.
The critique I would offer is that there seems to be no solution offered, especially to the people for whom this is a closely held belief. You cannot simply tell them they are wrong in their pursuit and expect them to react favorably--people do not like turds dropped in their punchbowls. What I do not see--and perhaps I am not well-informed (and I expect correction if I am in error) --ares any solid attempts to re-direct their passion to the greater issue, which is the overall deplorable state of the education system in this country. We can ill-afford to have this block of voters simply sit at home on election day. The question is how to re-direct this voting block without losing them. Telling them to "shut up and get to the back of the bus" is not a viable, long term answer.
I do appreciate the venom which has been hurled back onto Charles and others by so-called Christians. I have no real words of comfort and would not presume to tell anyone what would be a proper way of dealing with being the target of such invective. I can only recall the example of Ronald Reagan who smiled his way through the manue-sling he endured for eight years and beyond.
Well, back to the salt mines!
| 553 |
kynna Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:44:38am |
re: #534 Oh no...Sand People!
Ding! Ding!
/As I run around stark naked swinging from a chandelier with nothing but a fez.
What religion is that?
| 555 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:44:50am |
re: #534 Oh no...Sand People!
Ding! Ding!
/As I run around stark naked swinging from a chandelier with nothing but a fez.
You ain't nekkid if you are wearing a hat. ;)
| 556 |
transient Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:45:05am |
re: #448 jcm
43 Threads tagged Creationism in the last 60 days.
9 Threads tagged Charles Darwin in the last 60 days.
27 Threads tagged Disco Institute in the last 60 days.
57 Threads tagged Charles Darwin in the last 60 days.Probably a lot of overlap in those....
128 Threads tagged Terrorism in the last 60 days.
112 Threads tagged Palestinians in the last 60 days.
125 Threads tagged Israel in the last 60 days.
129 Threads tagged Hamas in the last 60 days.All you whiners complain Charles isn't paying attention to the "important" issues. First You are flat out wrong. Second, THIS IS NOT YOUR BLOG!
Also remember that this year is the 150th anniversary of the publication of the Origin of Species, and this month is the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birthday, so the number of Darwin/ Evo threads is probably greater than baseline simply on that account. If you did a comparison to last year, or conduct a prospective study into next year, I suspect you would/will find the ratio of non-evo to evo threads to be even larger.
| 557 |
Kenneth Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:45:20am |
| 558 |
Vicious Babushka Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:45:22am |
re: #532 MandyManners
Dryer buzzer's buzzing. bbiab
My dryer buzzer just went off too!
Count your socks. I'll count mine, and let you know if I find any non-matching.
| 559 |
johnnyreb Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:46:03am |
re: #464 GreatDane
I believe the factors that caused the election results were
The Bush Legacy
The Obama Effect
MSM negative coverage of GOP compared to DEM
McCain as a candidate (primarily age)
Creationism
Other issuesIn the above order of importance.
I think #1 was the most important myself. I can't recall how many anti-Bush op-ed's and letters/articles in my LLL paper in his last two years.
| 560 |
kansas Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:46:09am |
| 561 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:46:22am |
re: #525 callahan23
When I lived in Ethiopia, Ethiopians used to ask me what i would think of their country.
My answer was "Interesting". Deliberately, without offending the Ethiopians as they didn't understand the sarcasm.
I have at times chosen "fascinating" for the same reasons.
| 562 |
redc1c4 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:46:26am |
re: #494 Steve Rogers
i was supporting you, in my typically white smoke way.....
| 563 |
callahan23 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:46:29am |
re: #544 Big Steve
For those who are wishy washy on this debate I would encourage you to actually read what Charles posts to. To be honest, Charles does all the work here and all we have to do is read. On the creationism/ID/evolution threads I have spent hundreds of hours actually reading the threads. Some (like the experiment on the REPEATABLE bacteria evolution) I have linked to the actual paper and struggled through the thick terminology just to understand and form my own opinion.
So I would encourage you all to recognize the gift you are getting here.....someone who spends hours searching the Internet for good, sound links.
Agree 100%.
And a million thanks for CHARLES' work and dedication.
| 564 |
so.cal.swede Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:46:30am |
re: #554 buzzsawmonkey
I think that if a politician made, and stuck to, such a statement--and continued to do so through any media storm which followed--he or she would earn the respect of the voters.
We'll he'd earn my respect for being honest, that's for sure. But I don't think the voting majority is immune to MSM / community opinion.
| 565 |
kansas Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:46:41am |
| 566 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:46:43am |
re: #521 fish
If they are running as creationists I stand corrected. If they said something in passing that was then taken out of context, amplified and repeated by their opponents then that is entirely different.
If someone is running as a creationist I will vote against them.
If someone else is telling me that person is a creationist and wants to teach my kids that the Earth is 6000 years old and made by magic, well I would look very closely at who was saying that and why.
Every one of the governors I mentioned in the article that led to this thread is in favor of teaching creationism in schools, and Bobby Jindal has signed legislation that will allow it.
| 568 |
dentate Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:47:20am |
re: #539 buzzsawmonkey
With that in mind, I would like to see any politician who was asked about "creationism" say the following: "Are you asking what I believe, or what my position is as a public servant? What I believe personally is not material. As a public servant, I believe that religion and religiously-based doctrines should be excluded from science classes, and that is what I stand for as a candidate for office, and what I will stand for if elected."
That should do it.
The problem is, if someone truly believes in literal creationism, then he also truly believes that children are being taught falsehood in the classroom. Is it a good thing if he "knows" that lies are being taught and does nothing about it? There's more than one problem here. Separation of church and state is one thing. Inability to understand what science is may be even worse. Basic to creationism is denial of scientific fact, and lack of understanding of science. I am just not comfortable with the idea of an avowed creationist being in a position to make public policy. I also think that creationist beliefs do not occur in a vacuum, and are likely part and parcel of a set of beliefs that run counter to science and logical thinking. So I will have to respectfully disagree with you here.
| 569 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:48:15am |
re: #520 MandyManners
Why does belief matter as long as people don't try to force others to believe it?
Unfortunately there are people, especially the FMSM, using certain beliefs as a stink bomb to befoul even the possibility of civil discourse.
| 570 |
callahan23 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:48:19am |
re: #561 FurryOldGuyJeans
I have at times chosen "fascinating" for the same reasons.
Isn't that what 'Spock' of Startrek fame always used to say?
| 571 |
Oh no...Sand People! Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:48:45am |
re: #553 kynna
What religion is that?
LDS, and you've never been in our temples apparently...
///////
| 572 |
Kenneth Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:48:49am |
re: #556 transient
2009 is also the International Year of Astronomy, marking the 400th anniversary of Galileo's invention of the telescope.
(ok, he didn't invent it, but he greatly improved the existing designs and turned a toy into a tool)
| 573 |
subsailor68 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:48:58am |
re: #554 buzzsawmonkey
I think that if a politician made, and stuck to, such a statement--and continued to do so through any media storm which followed--he or she would earn the respect of the voters.
Or perhaps something like this?
"My personal belief is that by running for this office, my duty is to protect, defend, uphold, and use as my guide the Constitution of the United States of America. I will support those issues that meet those conditions, and will oppose those issues that do not."
(Yeah, I know...probably a little too simplistic.)
| 574 |
Oh no...Sand People! Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:49:30am |
| 575 |
albusteve Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:49:34am |
re: #569 FurryOldGuyJeans
Unfortunately there are people, especially the FMSM, using certain beliefs as a stink bomb to befoul even the possibility of civil discourse.
right...it is simply another weapon the MSM uses to mould opnion...
| 578 |
fish Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:50:24am |
re: #513 Scion9
I hate to break this to you, but Bobby Jindal and his ilk are basically Christian Socialists. Jindal agrees with every damn thing the Dems have to say that really matters. The Dems are Hegelian-interpreted mainline Protestants sans God (AKA Marxists). You put the God back in the equation and you got the Discovery Institute and their ilk. The Creationist, populist rabble are constantly going off on rants against "Corporatism", etc. They are not fiscally conservative; they are not conservative at all.
As for Kansas, the reason the state was lost is because the Dems are simply going in and running without touching abortion, ID, or anything else that doesn't fucking matter. The Republicans go in and run off at the mouth about things that only a bunch of lunatic religious reactionaries give a shit about; completely missing any opportunity to rebut the Dems on policy issues that actually effect peoples lives. They don't do it, because they can't. Dems say they want socialism and advocate collectivism, and how can the Christian Socialists rebut that? They want it too.
There is whole fucking Michael Moore style documentary coming out about Kansas this year. Maybe you should go check it out.
Well I would have to agree with you. If the choice is between a Secular Marxist Dictatorship and a Thoecratical Marxist Dictatorship, you have to go for the secular. But that doesn't change my tenant that if a Candidate is running as a conservative on the real "Bread and Butter" issues: Taxes, Spending, Defense, reducing government, ect; they should win.
| 579 |
Wendya Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:50:41am |
| 580 |
NYCHardhat Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:50:55am |
re: #480 Iron Fist
That is a hard question. You might could get it at Wal Mart, but you might not be able to. It seems hit and miss at Wal Mart where I live. Gunshops are expensive on their ammo, and that is still only if they have it. Somebody (I forget who or I'd give the hat tip :-) told me to try Cheaper than dirt! I've done business with them on other things, but they always are pretty reasonable if they have any to sell. Bravo Company is another site I've dealt with, but I couldn't find ammunition in a quick once-over. They are good for parts, especially if you have an AR-15 or M-4.
The problem is basic supply and demand. Ammunition manufacturers can only pump the shit out so fast. We are in a time of was, so a lot of what we'd want is being diverted to military use. This is a good thing, but it leaves the market stretched kind of thin. The mid-level distributors are out of stock on many items. I've had a ghost ring site system on backorder from Wilson Combat for about a month now. Even good combat knives are either sold out or ungodly expensive.
Here's a basic search. I can't give you anyone is specific. I've never bought ammunition from the web, but you aren't seeing bulk ammo at gun shows the way you used to. Other than that, I'm afraid that I'm in the same boat everyone else is. Fortunately for me, I saw this coming if Obama won, and I tried to act as accordingly as I could afford to.
I still wish I had, say, a quarter of a million dollars tax free to drop on guns and ammunition. I'd single-handedly try to stimulate the market. What doesn't go for weapons could be spent on tattoos, so I'd be helping a number of markets. Are you listening Herr Obama? Where's my bailout?
Thanks!
| 581 |
Cato the Elder Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:50:56am |
Book Lovers' Alert:
The Nanny State goes mad and bans all children's books published before 1985.
Why?
Because they may contain miniscule and absolutely harmless traces of lead in the pigments.
Not. A. Joke.
| 582 |
Ward Cleaver Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:51:03am |
| 584 |
Oh no...Sand People! Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:51:10am |
re: #576 buzzsawmonkey
I think it is past time that we all stopped assuming everyone else is stupider than we are. That sort of thinking--the notion that we are just too damned stupid to make our own decisions and live with them--is what the Democrats use to justify passing nanny-state laws.
Yes, there are a lot of people dumber than we here discussing things. But the way to elevate those of such condition with whom we might come in contact is to be able to praise such honesty as honesty, and express respect for it. That alone will help free many people's minds.
Don't get out much do ya?
////////
| 585 |
Ford_Prefect Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:51:15am |
My feeling is this. I am not a very religious person, but I have no problem with a candidate who is devoutly religious, as long as that candidate also has a deep respect for, and understanding of, our Constitution. It isn't religion that is the problem. It is the attempt to legislate religion that is the problem. I don't claim to know enough about the governors that have been discussed here to say if that applies to them or not. I just hope that someones personal religious beliefs alone will not be enough to make people vote against them. If they have a history of trying to legislate those beliefs, then that is a different story.
| 586 |
calcajun Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:51:31am |
re: #550 realwest
I agree with you. The problem is that the Creationists are fighting the right war, but the wrong battle. How do you get them to disengage and redirect their attack on the larger issue--the Socialization of the American students, though. As with many causes, a lot of the rank and file believers have an emotional investment; they will not easily abandon their pursuit unless there is one ready and waiting for them to join.
| 587 |
wrenchwench Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:52:01am |
re: #567 taxfreekiller
some in the past were our good friends and supporters, but once we
take them on in the ID or such, now they are not so fond of us.
Yep, and "or such" includes racism and neo-fascism. Some may come around, and we can work with them, but sometimes good friends and supporters need to be left in the past.
| 588 |
kynna Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:52:15am |
re: #571 Oh no...Sand People!
LDS, and you've never been in our temples apparently...
///////
Actually I have. And the Jesus statue looked like he belonged on the cover of a romance novel. I wanted to put my jacket over him, but it wouldn't have covered his bulging pecs.
It was disturbing. o_O
But if I'd known about the naked chandelier swinging, I might have stayed for 'fellowship'.
| 589 |
Kragar Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:52:42am |
Well, I just found out our team lead, whom we had dubbed "Nowhere Man", since he routinely ducked calls, never responded to emails, never offered guidance and delegated all his duties to team members on top of their regular workload will be moving on to a new contract. Apparently, his entire stint on our team was simply to build his resume while he looked for greener pastures and he is leaving us with a shit sandwich to deal with since he wasn't passing information effectively.
YAY!
| 590 |
Shanimal1918 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:52:52am |
I've been believing that this issue isn't important but I now see that I wasn't looking at the bigger picture. By even commenting on ID or creationism, the GOP pols look like fools. That is the bigger issue I was missing. Thanks to LGF and Charles I'm starting to come around. They do need to drop this issue or the media will continue to pounce on it and use it to discredit the GOP candidates/politicians, and helping the Dems to gain even more control. Thank you for keeping on this issue.
| 591 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:53:20am |
re: #566 Charles
Every one of the governors I mentioned in the article that led to this thread is in favor of teaching creationism in schools, and Bobby Jindal has signed legislation that will allow it.
People here who want to criticize you Charles fail to see the distinction you are making all the time, active and overt promotion of religion into the public arena in the guise of being science.
| 592 |
scottishbuzzsaw Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:53:20am |
re: #555 FurryOldGuyJeans
You ain't nekkid if you are wearing a hat. ;)
He's nekkid enough...now could you just move to side, you're blocking the view...
| 593 |
dentate Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:53:58am |
re: #583 Iron Fist
So what you are saying is that you'd favor a religious test for, say, school teachers? If they answered "Yes" to certain religious questions you would deny them employment?
Fascinating...
No, this is not a religious test at all. It is a test of understanding of science. Religion and science are compatible. Creationism and science are not. Moreover, I don't care if the math teacher believes the earth is flat. But my kids' biology teacher had damned well better have a background in and understanding of science, the scientific method, and the FACT of evolution.
| 594 |
realwest Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:54:11am |
re: #485 yma o hyd
Hi {yma} Thank you. Based on everything I recall Charles ever saying out here, comments like that one make LGF look bad.
And it's a shame. Whether or not you would personally shun Christians is frankly irreverent to this topic and I believe antithetical to what Charles (or Lalo Stinky) stands for.
There has been a lot of great, intelligent debate and discussion on this thread. Truly. While I may not - in fact do not - agree with some of what has been said, I don't think that comment was particularly helpful to the discussion at all.
| 595 |
right_wing2 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:54:17am |
I say we need to have evolution taught in schools, absolutely. But we need to avoid teaching things in evolutionary theory that have been debunked.
We also need to look at some of the questions in evolution that haven't been fully answered, like the pre-Cambrian explosion of species.
I don't have any doubt that there have been changes within species, responding to changes in the environment, for example. But I have a hard time accepting that after thousands (or millions) of years, some species completely changed all their characteristics and became an entirely new species.
Scientists experimenting with fruit flies, for example, can cause radical changes in its appearance with genetic modifications. But once those stimuli are taken away, in a few generations, the fly reverts to its former appearance. The birds Darwin cited as changing due to decreased rainfall (stronger, thicker beaks) had their beaks return to their former size once the rain returned to the area.
Absolutely, conservatives need to focus on more than just the evolution/intelligent design debate. We need to return to the basic principles of low taxes, economic freedom & small government. But throwing any portion of the base away in hopes of gaining ground elsewhere isn't wise either.
| 596 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:54:24am |
re: #570 callahan23
Isn't that what 'Spock' of Startrek fame always used to say?
Yes, and I use it in much the same vein as the character did. The irony is lost on nearly everyone. ;)
| 597 |
Oh no...Sand People! Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:54:26am |
re: #588 kynna
Actually I have. And the Jesus statue looked like he belonged on the cover of a romance novel. I wanted to put my jacket over him, but it wouldn't have covered his bulging pecs.
It was disturbing. o_O
But if I'd known about the naked chandelier swinging, I might have stayed for 'fellowship'.
| 598 |
transient Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:54:44am |
re: #572 Kenneth
2009 is also the International Year of Astronomy, marking the 400th anniversary of Galileo's invention of the telescope.
And for these and other reasons, the scientific community has declared 2009 to be the Year of Science. This month, not surprisingly, is Evolution. (Astronomy has to wait 'til July.)
| 599 |
NukeAtomrod Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:54:59am |
I believe the GOP's relationship with Creationists is just political pandering. I'd like to see it stop, but I'm not sure it affects votes much. It's a major bugaboo among my friends that have liberal leanings (who would never vote GOP anyway) and those who are atheists, but most of the folks I talk to believe there are bigger issues like Taxes and National Security, etc.
Who likes what the public schools are teaching anyway? Wouldn't it be nice if we could purge all the politically correct nonsense out of the schools? Who complains when the schools invite PETA or other groups with a political agenda to espouse their crazy ideas?
I'd really like to see the public schools disbanded in favor of independent schools. Then we could choose what sort of education our kids get. I'd go for a pure math/science/literature school with a non-hostility-to-America history curriculum.
Public (government) schools create an official ideology that may or may not mesh with reality. I'd prefer to not allow government that kind of influence over our children.
| 600 |
opnion Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:55:05am |
Here is a Say What moment.
A Harris poll of 2,643 'Representative " Americans asked of a number of people, who was most well thought of.
Barack Obama edged out Jesus to be voted number one!
It is posted on AOL News 2/20/09. Google Jesus/Obama/AOL & click the link
| 601 |
committed Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:55:36am |
Charles, I know this issue is a big one for you. IMHO, in the context of the issues that face us in this country and this world, I don't believe this should be the issue that decides our support for someone. On most other issues, they are right on target. It is difficult to be in agreement even with each other on everything. Can't you cut these guys some slack in light of their virtues in most other areas?
Many Christians do not believe they can believe in Gold and the big bang theory and evolution. I disagree with that, because I myself have often noted that although the Bible said God created the world in 7 days, in another part of the Bible it says that a thousand years is as a day and a day is as a thousand years in God's view. So literally, he could have created it over thousands and millions of years in the way science is discovering.
I once believed that prayer in schools had a fundamental value. In today's diverse world, to insist on prayer in schools would open up a whole can of unwelcome worms, as each religion represented would want their own prayer included in the curriculum.
BTW, I'm not complaining as much as I'm asking for a little understanding that we are not going to agree with everything about everyone that aspires to lead this country.
| 602 |
albusteve Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:55:46am |
re: #589 Kragar (proud to be kafir)
Well, I just found out our team lead, whom we had dubbed "Nowhere Man", since he routinely ducked calls, never responded to emails, never offered guidance and delegated all his duties to team members on top of their regular workload will be moving on to a new contract. Apparently, his entire stint on our team was simply to build his resume while he looked for greener pastures and he is leaving us with a shit sandwich to deal with since he wasn't passing information effectively.
YAY!
time for you to shine!...it's an opportunity
| 603 |
notutopia Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:56:09am |
re: #577 taxfreekiller
Thanos
Texas is split now.
Happened in 2004.
Still in the same building, just on each side of the room eying each other.David Barton has to go.
[Link: www.wallbuilders.com...]
Who is David Barton?
In 1991 Barton addressed the Rocky Mountain Bible Retreat of Pastor Pete Peters' Scriptures for America, a group that espouses the racist "Christian Identity" theology. Advocates of this bizarre dogma insist that white Anglo-Saxons are the "true" chosen people of the Bible and charge that today's Jews are usurpers. Aside from being a virulent anti-Semite, Peters has advocated the death penalty for homosexuals. According to the Anti-Defamation League, other speakers at the event included white supremacist leader and 1992 presidential candidate James "Bo" Gritz, a leader of the radical and increasingly violent militia movement, and Malcolm Ross, a Holocaust denier from Canada. In November of that same year, Barton spoke at Kingdom Covenant College in Grants Pass, Oregon, another "Christian Identity" front group with ties to Peters.4
Asked to explain these actions, Barton's reply amounted to a not very creative "I didn't know they were Nazis" dodge. In a July 1993 letter, Barton assistant Kit Marshall wrote, "At the time we were contacted by Pete Peters, we had absolutely no idea that he was 'part of the Nazi movement.' He contacted us for David to speak for Scriptures for America. The title is quite innocuous. In all the conversations that I personally had with Pete Peters, never once was there a hint that they were part of a Nazi movement. I would also like to point out that simply because David Barton gives a presentation to a group of people does not mean that he endorses all their beliefs."5 An excuse like that might have washed one time, but it stretches the bounds of credulity to accept that Barton was twice duped by innocuous-sounding extremist organizations.
| 604 |
SecondComing Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:56:16am |
www.google.com...]>Britney Spears awesome - Google Search
6,910,000 results
| 605 |
OldLineTexan Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:56:23am |
re: #600 opnion
Here is a Say What moment.
A Harris poll of 2,643 'Representative " Americans asked of a number of people, who was most well thought of.
Barack Obama edged out Jesus to be voted number one!
It is posted on AOL News 2/20/09. Google Jesus/Obama/AOL & click the link
Ojesus!
/
| 606 |
redc1c4 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:57:22am |
re: #589 Kragar (proud to be kafir)
Well, I just found out our team lead, whom we had dubbed "Nowhere Man", since he routinely ducked calls, never responded to emails, never offered guidance and delegated all his duties to team members on top of their regular workload will be moving on to a new contract. Apparently, his entire stint on our team was simply to build his resume while he looked for greener pastures and he is leaving us with a shit sandwich to deal with since he wasn't passing information effectively.
YAY!
you w*rked with Obambi?
| 607 |
kynna Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:57:24am |
re: #597 Oh no...Sand People!
No. IIRC, he was in a loin cloth and it was a Passion type statue -- thorny crown and all that.
RE: Your link -- What's with the floating donut behind him?
| 608 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:58:14am |
re: #601 committed
Can't you cut these guys some slack in light of their virtues in most other areas?
No.
| 609 |
Honorary Yooper Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:58:15am |
re: #581 Cato the Elder
Book Lovers' Alert:
The Nanny State goes mad and bans all children's books published before 1985.
Why?
Because they may contain miniscule and absolutely harmless traces of lead in the pigments.
Not. A. Joke.
It's fucking nuts is what it is. Had plenty of those pre-1985 books, and gee, no lead poisoning. The nanny-state is going way too far.
| 610 |
OldLineTexan Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:58:26am |
re: #589 Kragar (proud to be kafir)
Well, I just found out our team lead, whom we had dubbed "Nowhere Man", since he routinely ducked calls, never responded to emails, never offered guidance and delegated all his duties to team members on top of their regular workload will be moving on to a new contract. Apparently, his entire stint on our team was simply to build his resume while he looked for greener pastures and he is leaving us with a shit sandwich to deal with since he wasn't passing information effectively.
YAY!
Heh heh heh. I worked for a company that took its "rising stars" and did essentially the same thing ... gave them assignments, and then moved them out when they started to fail so someone else could clean up. At my present job, my boss was in a large company with a similar program.
Must be a Hahvahd business school thing ...
/
| 611 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:59:06am |
re: #604 SecondComing
Britney Spears awesome - Google Search
6,910,000 results
And you probably don't even realize that you are reinforcing my point.
| 612 |
Randall Gross Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:59:09am |
I will agree with one aspect- it's not as big a deal until it comes to your state. Then things flip. Think on that, and the number of bills just put up. Discovery Institute is doing the Dems a huge huge HUGE favor in 2010.
| 613 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:59:18am |
re: #581 Cato the Elder
Book Lovers' Alert:
The Nanny State goes mad and bans all children's books published before 1985.
Why?
Because they may contain miniscule and absolutely harmless traces of lead in the pigments.
Not. A. Joke.
I have to admit it is probably the most novel proposal for censorship I have yet run across.
| 614 |
Oh no...Sand People! Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:59:45am |
re: #607 kynna
No. IIRC, he was in a loin cloth and it was a Passion type statue -- thorny crown and all that.
RE: Your link -- What's with the floating donut behind him?
ROFL!
| 615 |
kansas Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:59:46am |
britre: #604 SecondComing
Britney Spears awesome - Google Search
6,910,000 results
Britney Spears Underwear
2,700,000
| 616 |
Scion9 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:59:53am |
re: #578 fish
Yeah, no kidding. The issue is, where exactly are these conservatives? Way too many socons (basically any of the ones that have any financial clout) seem to think that they have been bent over by fiscal conservatives for years, in not getting their social agendas pushed. That their focus on a 'free' market that functions well only fuels debauched industries, promotes materialism and leads people away from Jesus. They are literally the enemies of traditional American conservatism.
| 617 |
OldLineTexan Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:00:31am |
re: #609 Honorary Yooper
It's fucking nuts is what it is. Had plenty of those pre-1985 books, and gee, no lead poisoning. The nanny-state is going way too far.
They had a story on the local yokel news, featuring second-hand shops and charitable resale orgs tossing ALL their kid's books and toys and certain clothing because they could not afford to give them manufacturer-level certifications for lead content.
So the poor and near-poor get screwed again so that a do-gooder with a Lexus can feel "green".
| 618 |
Oh no...Sand People! Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:00:36am |
re: #613 FurryOldGuyJeans
I have to admit it is probably the most novel proposal for censorship I have yet run across.
It's authorship is questionable...definitely.
| 620 |
realwest Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:02:26am |
re: #539 buzzsawmonkey
Excellent comment - very well said. Or written!
| 621 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:02:31am |
re: #618 Oh no...Sand People!
It's authorship is questionable...definitely.
I actually debated whether I should use "novel" and "unusual". I chose what I did for some pun-ishment. ;)
| 622 |
calcajun Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:03:41am |
re: #601 committed
Can't you cut these guys some slack in light of their virtues in most other areas?
We can't afford to. The MSM paints with a big brush and in very broad strokes. If they are painted with the epithet "Christian loony" by the media, then any of their other accomplishments will be viewed as the product of dumb luck or not viewed at all.
| 623 |
SecondComing Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:03:45am |
| 624 |
Miles Smit Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:05:01am |
I think much of this is canard. "Associations" are not controllable by any politician. Sarah Palin exists, Creationism exists, and many people hate Creationism and hate Sarah. That is enough to create an "association".
There are millions of Google hits for all kinds of nonsense. I am sure the blood libel is everywhere. I don't Google it because I do not care.
| 625 |
jcm Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:06:31am |
re: #615 kansas
brit
Britney Spears Underwear
2,700,000
Shouldn't that be ZERO? No underwear no hits?
////////////////////
| 626 |
opnion Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:06:49am |
| 627 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:10:23am |
re: #609 Honorary Yooper
It's fucking nuts is what it is. Had plenty of those pre-1985 books, and gee, no lead poisoning. The nanny-state is going way too far.
I just see this as a stab at censorship, just as all the "reasonable" proposals that ultimately end up trying to ban guns. If this flies, then other reasons will be chosen to further the agenda.
| 628 |
BrerFoxx Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:10:36am |
I have to strongly agree with the LGF stance on creationism. I am a devout Christian. I have a very personal relationship with God.
I am also a scientist that is 100% sure that life on this planet changes over time not because God wills it but because of the forces of evolution. Those forces of evolution are debatable but the fact of evolution is not.
ID, young earth, and other forms of creationism are akin to book and witch burning in my opinion. Any candidate for president or any other office for that matter that is a vocal and open proponent for ID in the classroom will not get my vote regardless of how much I agree with them on any other issue.
| 629 |
hous bin pharteen Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:11:53am |
My last comment was ignored with 900 comments after it. I have not posted anything to change peoples opinions. Nor am I going to. It was just something I was going to warn people with a brain about. It seems like no one cared. So be it.
The facts where not fiction. There is a large number of Doctors and Nurses who have no problem telling the facts. People who have worked in emergency rooms and intensive care for years. For now on, I am no longer posting on this issue.
| 630 |
Scion9 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:12:06am |
re: #581 Cato the Elder
"But if you know about God, why don't you tell them?" asked the savage indignantly. "Why don't you give them these books about God?""For the same reason as we don't give them Othello: they're old..."
| 631 |
Hooray for Captain Spaulding Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:16:11am |
I totally agree. As much as I hate not voting, I will NOT vote for a creationist. These people have hijacked the Rep party.
I refuse to vote Dem either, so I guess I just wont vote in those races where a Dem and a creationist run against each other.
| 632 |
debutaunt Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:17:42am |
re: #613 FurryOldGuyJeans
I have to admit it is probably the most novel proposal for censorship I have yet run across.
The replacement books will be leadfree and politically loaded.
| 633 |
kynna Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:17:51am |
re: #627 FurryOldGuyJeans
I just see this as a stab at censorship, just as all the "reasonable" proposals that ultimately end up trying to ban guns. If this flies, then other reasons will be chosen to further the agenda.
This is really creepy. They should be obligated to reprint every single banned book regardless of content. Let them stew on that idea a while.
| 634 |
hous bin pharteen Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:18:58am |
re: #601 committed
At least you have a brain and are willing to think.
| 635 |
BLBfootballs Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:19:56am |
I have to say, I'm just not seeing the creationism issue as a major albatross afflicting the GOP. The electoral question is whether the people who are voting against the GOP now would change their vote if all GOP politicians became clearly or vocally anti-creationist. I'm doubting it.
And for clarity's sake I do not believe in creationist ideology as an ideology... and I certainly don't think it should be part of a science curriculum. The proper place to discuss existential philosophies is in existential philosophy class, not science.
(Though I think a History of Science class that dealt with creationist challenges would be interesting!)
| 636 |
Hooray for Captain Spaulding Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:21:05am |
| 637 |
SecondComing Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:23:06am |
re: #629 hous bin pharteen
My last comment was ignored with 900 comments after it. I have not posted anything to change peoples opinions. Nor am I going to. It was just something I was going to warn people with a brain about. It seems like no one cared. So be it.
The facts where not fiction. There is a large number of Doctors and Nurses who have no problem telling the facts. People who have worked in emergency rooms and intensive care for years. For now on, I am no longer posting on this issue.
Which post # was it? I'll check it out.
| 638 |
Hooray for Captain Spaulding Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:27:06am |
I have to say, I'm just not seeing the creationism issue as a major albatross afflicting the GOP. The electoral question is whether the people who are voting against the GOP now would change their vote if all GOP politicians became clearly or vocally anti-creationist. I'm doubting it.
This is NOT the Catholic "Yes, God could have used evolution as a way of creating humans over eons" type of creationism. It is a "ZAP! Youre a human."-the-Earth-is-6k-years-old type of creationism.
It is easily debunked, and True Believers look like anti-science, 9th-century, backward fools. Who besides like-minded people would vote for them?
| 640 |
Olderthandirt Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:33:42am |
What Gov. Palin believes was not an issue except for what the MSM and other Socialists were willing to lie about.
The governor's beliefs have not been reflected in her policies and promoted in her official capacity as demonstrated during her term of office. Even during her term as mayor, when she realized that her question about library books was improper, she backed off. While a case could be made that she shouldn't have raised that question, her actions, her retraction, were correct.
The governor seems to have the ability to recognize that others could well have differing views. Too f'ing bad others are not willing to allow for that. If she personally believes in creationism, so be it as long as she doesn't impose her beliefs on others; IMHFO!
Lastly, do not demand that political candidates be pure of soul and pure in heart; that person does not now exist. That candidate's actions count for more, again IMHFO!
| 641 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:33:47am |
re: #635 BLBfootballs
I have to say, I'm just not seeing the creationism issue as a major albatross afflicting the GOP. The electoral question is whether the people who are voting against the GOP now would change their vote if all GOP politicians became clearly or vocally anti-creationist. I'm doubting it.
Wow. Build straw men much?
I was very clear in the post above that I consider this ONE issue that affected the vote, not the ONLY issue. And no one here has ever claimed that if "all GOP politicians" came out against creationism, it would change everyone's mind about voting for the GOP.
It would be nice if people would deal with the real issues instead of setting up straw men and knocking them down.
| 642 |
CharlieBravo Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:37:57am |
[Tossing coin] - Heads = Black Liberation Theology, Tails = Creationism.
Any chance of programing a computer to run the government?
| 643 |
BLBfootballs Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:38:09am |
re: #638 Hooray for Captain Spaulding
This is NOT the Catholic "Yes, God could have used evolution as a way of creating humans over eons" type of creationism. It is a "ZAP! Youre a human."-the-Earth-is-6k-years-old type of creationism.
It is easily debunked, and True Believers look like anti-science, 9th-century, backward fools. Who besides like-minded people would vote for them?
When Charles talks about creationism he means both the 'intelligent design' variant and the hard-core young earth creationism. A solid majority of Americans (I'd guess 60-70%....maybe more?) simply do not believe in young earth creationism. And if Republicans as a party were endorsing that ideology I'd agree that they have a major electoral problem. However, they're not.
I think a majority of Americans do accept the concept that a Creator oversaw or orchestrated the development of life on planet Earth leading up to the creation of human beings themselves. That's why 'intelligent design' thinking has popular traction at all -- its basic concept comports with what a lot of people already believe. The fact that ID was invented to further a specifically Christian theology doesn't change the fact that its core concepts are compatible with a lot of preexisting beliefs.
The point being that the "creationism" with which GOP politicians flirt (or are assumed to be flirting) is generally of the soft, Catholic church variety.
| 644 |
hous bin pharteen Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:40:45am |
re: #637 SecondComing
"Another stealth creationist"
Comment 144.
| 645 |
funky chicken Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:44:53am |
I think KS provides the best illustration of what the creationists and crazy (as in Operation Rescue in Wichita crazy) pro-lifers have done to the GOP in a former stronghold and very well could do to the GOP everywhere else.
| 646 |
NukeAtomrod Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:47:49am |
re: #581 Cato the Elder
Book Lovers' Alert:
The Nanny State goes mad and bans all children's books published before 1985.
Why?
Because they may contain miniscule and absolutely harmless traces of lead in the pigments.
Not. A. Joke.
Pure evil.
| 647 |
faraway Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:50:38am |
Better add Reagan to the list of wacky creationists
evolution is a theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science and is not yet believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was believed. But if it was going to be taught in the schools, then I think that also the biblical theory of creation, which is not a theory but the biblical story of creation, should also be taught
| 648 |
thinker Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:50:53am |
I don't know if that Sarah Palin cherry pick is representative of anything. Doing a similar search except using Barack Obama yields 11,700,000 results. Substituting Bill Clinton yields 3,330,000 results. All this as of 13:39 CST 2/23/09. Seems to show pervasiveness of the discussion - not who believes what. You'll have to drill through on a more specific search to prove such a point using google.
| 649 |
funky chicken Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:51:58am |
re: #612 Thanos
I will agree with one aspect- it's not as big a deal until it comes to your state. Then things flip. Think on that, and the number of bills just put up. Discovery Institute is doing the Dems a huge huge HUGE favor in 2010.
yep
| 650 |
Duane Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:53:13am |
to take a page from my favorite pundit PJ O'Rourke, I am a lounge lizard Republican
| 651 |
funky chicken Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:53:23am |
re: #644 hous bin pharteen
well, you could kinda guess based on the name...
| 652 |
anotherindyfilmguy Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:54:01am |
On the one hand creationism is an issue the MSM will use to bash any Republican contender, once nominated, but the real problem with the last elections (and probably the next elections in similar fashion) are:
1. McCain... (aka letting the MSM and Dems pick the GOP candidate)
2. Being outspent over $700 Millionish to $80 Millionish...
3. Something like 8:1 ratio of good coverage for Dems vs Republicans in the MSM...
4. Rampant obvious unfettering and unpunished cheating by the Democrats.
And it was still a close election!
Creationism is not the albatross... the albatross was #1, #2, #3 and #4 above combined... Knock out any one of the above or reduce them across the board and it's a tremendous step upwards.
| 653 |
faraway Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:56:55am |
re: #647 faraway
Don't understand the downding. Reagan clearly thought the biblical story of creation should also be taught in public schools.
| 654 |
harlemghost Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:57:53am |
obama global warming yields 17,000,000 hits ...
| 655 |
BLBfootballs Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:00:01pm |
re: #641 Charles
Wow. Build straw men much?
I was very clear in the post above that I consider this ONE issue that affected the vote, not the ONLY issue. And no one here has ever claimed that if "all GOP politicians" came out against creationism, it would change everyone's mind about voting for the GOP.
It would be nice if people would deal with the real issues instead of setting up straw men and knocking them down.
My point was that most GOP politicians (at least the ones I hear about) do not talk about creationism/science one way or another. There are several (like Jindal) who accept ID/creationist thinking and are well-covered in the media. I said "all" because there are now a few high-profile GOP politicos who are 'tarring' the entire party with their creationist associations.
I don't know how that widespread mental association will ever be broken except by having basically every high-profile GOP candidate sign some kind of 'loyalty oath' to science. I think the notion of Republican hostility to science is mainly a media-generated phenomenon (one that's admittedly fueled by officials like Jindal). That's why I think you'd need "all" or nearly all Republicans to do something dramatic and photogenic to break it. How else do you demolish a media meme?
Is the ID/creationism association 'a factor' that leads to Republicans losing votes? I guess it is.... but I don't see it as a heavy one. And the electoral question is whether the cost that would be required to eliminate the factor would lead to worthwhile benefits for the GOP. And again, I doubt it.
| 656 |
BLBfootballs Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:01:00pm |
re: #653 faraway
Don't understand the downding. Reagan clearly thought the biblical story of creation should also be taught in public schools.
OK, teach it. That's fine. But why teach it in science class?!
| 657 |
Irenike Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:04:55pm |
If you had told me two years ago that our next president would be a black activist without any executive experience, as well as being a Marxist who is friends with corrupt Chicago politicians, bigoted anti-semites and 1960's terrorists, and who would start his term in a cloud of corruption, I would have laughed. Two years ago, I was sure the contest would come down to either Hillary or Rudy. I wouldn't have believed the American people would be so stupid to elect someone like Obama.
So maybe a lot of people (including Randy Barnett) seriously believe no creationist could get elected. A lot of people don't want a creationist to be president. But after the election of Obama, I believe that anything is possible, even if the MSM unfailingly goes to bat for the Democrat candidate, so long as the middle-of-the-road voter is energized to vote for the Republican. After all, the MSM was very hostile to GWB, and he won twice.
Is Jindal's position on creationism any more irrational than Obama's grasp of economics? Economics is far more real to most voters than what happened millions of years ago.
| 658 |
SecondComing Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:15:49pm |
re: #644 hous bin pharteen
"Another stealth creationist"
Comment 144.
Ok, I read the comment by itself. Could you explaing further? thanks.
| 659 |
wrenchwench Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:16:26pm |
re: #644 hous bin pharteen
"Another stealth creationist"
Comment 144.
I read that, and I found the one from November 1, 2008. I'm curious!
| 660 |
SecondComing Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:17:51pm |
re: #651 funky chicken
well, you could kinda guess based on the name...
which name are you refering to?
| 661 |
cronus Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:19:51pm |
Starting to read through the articles previewing Jindal's response to SOTU tomorrow. This one might be of interest:
Bobby Jindal's moment in the spotlight
Unusually for a Rhodes scholar, he believes in Creationism, a viewpoint that increases his appeal to Christian evangelicals.
| 662 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:35:06pm |
re: #110 Perplexed
The way I read the comments here, is that if anyone espouses creationism in any way shape or form and also seeks higher office that they are untouchable until they change their beliefs. Furthermore if they are the next presidential candidate, so called conservative voters will sit out the election thereby giving the socialist party another four years. Isn't that like cutting off your nose to spite your face?
Nope; it's about refusing to sell facts, evidence, logic, and empirical science down the river and insisting they be taught to our nation's children, instead of trading our childrens' science education for theocratic support.
I voted McCain Palin and held my nose while doing so. McCain was nothing more than a media selected candidate who was a darling of the press as long as he wasn't running. The second he became a candidate the press tore into him. Heard much from the press as to how evil McCain is today? Was Regan perfect? Nope. Was Lincoln perfect? Nope. We've got to elect a capable person, warts and all to run this country.
Warts I can deal with; Creationism-in-public-schools leprosy I cannot.
Schools are filled with so much state mandated crap that it is a wonder that children learn anything.
I can'rt believe that you both recognize this fact and yet are nevertheless willing to cram MORE education-fucking crapola in there!
| 663 |
SecondComing Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:38:38pm |
somewhat on topic, but not exactly: Has anyone seen Idiocracy? I watched it last night. It's written by Mike Judge and it's where Luke Wilson is sent into the future and the human race has devolved. Pretty funny.
| 664 |
funky chicken Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:39:54pm |
re: #3 loppyd
That's because John McCain isn't a creationist.
| 665 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:43:44pm |
re: #132 Seeandhear
Is light made of Wave or Particle?
Can Imaginary Numbers be taught in schools?
Can division by zero be accomplished with calculus method?
Why does creation and evolution cause you so much distress?
Because a helluva lotta people get regally and royally big-time pissed when the government legislates proselytizing their kids with religious dogmas in public high school science class.
| 666 |
Mr Secul Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:49:37pm |
re: #595 right_wing2
I say we need to have evolution taught in schools, absolutely. But we need to avoid teaching things in evolutionary theory that have been debunked.
We also need to look at some of the questions in evolution that haven't been fully answered, like the pre-Cambrian explosion of species.
What do you think the question is and why does it matter?
I don't have any doubt that there have been changes within species, responding to changes in the environment, for example. But I have a hard time accepting that after thousands (or millions) of years, some species completely changed all their characteristics and became an entirely new species.
They don't change all their characteristics.
We have inherited our spines and ribs from our fish ancestors. We see the branchial arches in human embryos. Human embryos have tails. (Check out the rotating 3d quicktime view). It degenerates before birth but we have still inherited the genes for a post-anal tail from our ancestors. Human heart and vascular system development clearly shows our fish ancestry.
Scientists experimenting with fruit flies, for example, can cause radical changes in its appearance with genetic modifications. But once those stimuli are taken away, in a few generations, the fly reverts to its former appearance. The birds Darwin cited as changing due to decreased rainfall (stronger, thicker beaks) had their beaks return to their former size once the rain returned to the area.
This is expected and is consistent with evolutionary theory.
The problem is that the majority of Americans have been poorly served by the American education system with regards to evolution.
The answer is to improve education by spending more time on the science. It does not help to have ill informed students 'debating' the theory with their teachers.
The Creationists want to continue their work of suppressing evolutionary theory in America so that future generations are totally unaware of what the theory really is or of the large body of evidence that supports it.
| 667 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:05:19pm |
re: #203 tfc3rid
This issue is a touchy one but if my choice in 2012 comes between me havign to vote for Obama the Socialist versus someone like Jindal, creationist or not, I vote for Jindal.
For me, it's all about national security...
I don't know fuck-all about Jindal's positions on national security. Neither do you. Neither does Jindal, I'll wager.
I DO know his position concerning teaching religious dogmas in public high school science classes. He acted on it. And it sux on dry ice.
| 668 |
Eclectic Infidel Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:06:59pm |
re: #5 MrSilverDragon
This is all a plot of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I know it.
Yes and no. The Evil Atheist Conspiracy (we don't exist) is actually at the forefront of this controversy, but the FSM is always a convenient cover.
| 669 |
thatemailname Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:10:30pm |
re: #455 MandyManners
*blink*
Huh?
re: #455 MandyManners
*blink*
Huh?
I'll explain :-).
Here's what my original post on this:
"Everything the media tried to pin on Sarah Palin, [Bobby] Jindal
actually did"
So now we are taking our cues from the media? "Media" say creationism
bad, therefore, creationism bad!
This is NOT a winning strategy, people. It is NOT!
The passage in quotes is from the blogger that Charles referenced in his article. The blogger is saying, in effect, that the things the media said about Palin that were not true, are actually *true* about Jindal, and is fretting about that fact.
The blogger is effectively *accepting, as a given*, that the media's view of these "things" is legitimate.
What I am saying is, the effective way to oppose liberals on the issue of creationism is not to *accept* their view of it (i.e. "bad"), and therefore reject otherwise highly qualified, well spoken, intelligent candidates, but to rather to ***reject*** their view of it.
Instead, what's happening here is the same old thing - conservatives tearing each other down because they're afraid of what the "media" or the "mainstream" think of them. That is not a winning strategy!
| 670 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:11:04pm |
re: #237 right
google search: ronald reagan creationism =4,440,000 results
Thank goodness we didn't nominate THAT wacko.
He never tried to push it into public high school science classes like Jindal, did he?
| 671 |
thatemailname Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:13:41pm |
re: #456 Oh no...Sand People!
When the zombie voter we have to win over watches the MFM...we don't have too many options.
Yeah, I know, but - in my view, aving in to the MFM is not going to be a winning option. Backing effective, well-spoken, intelligent, communicative candidates, even if we don't agree them on every last, **non-core** issue, can be a winning strategy.
Or - we could always run McCain again - that worked out reallllly well. :-)
| 672 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:14:46pm |
re: #669 thatemailname
I'll explain :-).
Here's what my original post on this:
"Everything the media tried to pin on Sarah Palin, [Bobby] Jindal
actually did"
So now we are taking our cues from the media? "Media" say creationism
bad, therefore, creationism bad!
This is NOT a winning strategy, people. It is NOT!The passage in quotes is from the blogger that Charles referenced in his article. The blogger is saying, in effect, that the things the media said about Palin that were not true, are actually *true* about Jindal, and is fretting about that fact.
The blogger is effectively *accepting, as a given*, that the media's view of these "things" is legitimate.
What I am saying is, the effective way to oppose liberals on the issue of creationism is not to *accept* their view of it (i.e. "bad"), and therefore reject otherwise highly qualified, well spoken, intelligent candidates, but to rather to ***reject*** their view of it.
Instead, what's happening here is the same old thing - conservatives tearing each other down because they're afraid of what the "media" or the "mainstream" think of them. That is not a winning strategy!
But Jindal undoubtedly DID do those things. Charles has posted links that document the facts that he did beyond any rational doubt.
Denying uncomfortable truths is a losing strategy every damn time, because the other side won't let the electorate forget them once you nominate your candidate in spite of them.
| 673 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:16:00pm |
re: #669 thatemailname
Instead, what's happening here is the same old thing - conservatives tearing each other down because they're afraid of what the "media" or the "mainstream" think of them. That is not a winning strategy!
Nonsense. I'm not "tearing down conservatives," and that quote is from ME.
If you don't think the media have a huge effect on elections, you're in a dream world -- but that's not the point. The point is that Bobby Jindal DID do all of those things. It's all true.
And that truth will have more of an effect on people who might otherwise be persuaded to vote GOP than anything else. He's not a viable candidate with all of this stuff in his dossier.
| 674 |
thatemailname Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:16:20pm |
re: #478 Sharmuta
Creationism is bad- it's not rational. People who subscribe to it look weird to the rest of us.
I'm curious as to why you feel that way (seriously!). I myself believe in evolution, but I don't think people who believe that God created everything are "weird". What do you think makes it so weird?
| 675 |
winston06 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:18:32pm |
I wonder where stock markets were today if "creationist" Sarah Palin was in charge instead of Slow Joe Biden
| 676 |
thatemailname Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:18:37pm |
re: #483 redc1c4
thatemailname
(Logged in)
Registered since: Dec 10, 2007 at 6:04 pm
No. of comments posted: 9
No. of links posted: 0i'll fire up the grill
No problem - I welcome open, honest debate. :-)
| 677 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:19:59pm |
re: #669 thatemailname
Have you had another account at LGF under a different name?
| 678 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:20:14pm |
re: #671 thatemailname
Yeah, I know, but - in my view, aving in to the MFM is not going to be a winning option. Backing effective, well-spoken, intelligent, communicative candidates, even if we don't agree them on every last, **non-core** issue, can be a winning strategy.
Or - we could always run McCain again - that worked out reallllly well. :-)
McCain was leading until the economy tanked, and it was all unfairly blamed on the incombent administration, so any prez candidte from that party would have been unjustly tarred and tainted. Even so, it was a close election; he only lost 54-46. Had only 1/25th of the electorate chosen otherwise, it would have been even, and if the economy had held off collapsing till after election day, I still believe McCain would have been our prez.
| 679 |
thatemailname Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:24:15pm |
re: #487 MrSilverDragon
Who said anything about taking cues? And besides, a "belief" should not be taught as "truth".
I was directing my commentary at the blogger that Charles referenced in his article. And he was indeed "taking his cue" from the media, since he was fretting over the fact that everything the media said about Palin (but was not true) was in fact true about Jindal. In other words, he was *concerned* about the media's view, and making a judgment on the validity of a candidate based on it. This is, indeed, "taking his cue" from the media.
And besides, I agree with you that a "belief" should not be taught as "truth". I'm not arguing that, and I personally believe in evolution.
I am simply arguing that we should not be rejecting an otherwise qualified conservative candidate on the basis of belief in creationism.
| 680 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:24:27pm |
re: #674 thatemailname
I'm curious as to why you feel that way (seriously!). I myself believe in evolution, but I don't think people who believe that God created everything are "weird". What do you think makes it so weird?
What are weird - and empirically untrue - are the contentions that the whole shebang was 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 days. Both young earth creationism and recent independent as-is species creation have both been empirically falsified.
| 681 |
thatemailname Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:26:34pm |
re: #526 transient
No one is taking cues from the media. We are taking our cues from science. Creationism is not science, it is thinly disguised religion, and as such it has no role in science class. Period.
I don't agree. The blogger that Charles referenced in this article is, indeed, "taking his cue" (in this case on the viability of a particular candidate) based on the media's opinion on that candidate's beliefs regarding creationism.
The blogger did not have to use the words "I am taking my cue from the media" for one to reasonably conclude that that is, in fact, what he is doing.
| 682 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:28:27pm |
re: #679 thatemailname
I am simply arguing that we should not be rejecting an otherwise qualified conservative candidate on the basis of belief in creationism.
I do reject any candidate who advocates teaching creationism to children in public schools, and I'm going to continue speaking out about it.
| 683 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:30:35pm |
re: #679 thatemailname
I was directing my commentary at the blogger that Charles referenced in his article. And he was indeed "taking his cue" from the media, since he was fretting over the fact that everything the media said about Palin (but was not true) was in fact true about Jindal. In other words, he was *concerned* about the media's view, and making a judgment on the validity of a candidate based on it. This is, indeed, "taking his cue" from the media.
We'd BETTER pay attention to the media when they're RIGHT about the facts, as they undeniably are in this case. Jindal is self-damaged goods. I will NEVER vote for that asshole after he signed that Disco-Institute-crafter stealth creationism-in-public-school-science-education bill into law; NEVER!
And besides, I agree with you that a "belief" should not be taught as "truth". I'm not arguing that, and I personally believe in evolution.
I am simply arguing that we should not be rejecting an otherwise qualified conservative candidate on the basis of belief in creationism.
But we SHOULD reject ANY FUCKING CANDIDATE that pushes to abuse the machinery of the state to forcefeed creationist crapola to everybody's kids. And Jindal has undeniably done so, so that rejection damn sure includes Jindal.
| 684 |
faraway Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:31:20pm |
re: #682 Charles
I do reject any candidate who advocates teaching creationism to children in public schools, and I'm going to continue speaking out about it.
So, since Reagan advocated creationism, he was not an appropriate GOP candidate?
| 685 |
thatemailname Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:32:27pm |
re: #673 Charles
Nonsense. I'm not "tearing down conservatives," and that quote is from ME.
If you don't think the media have a huge effect on elections, you're in a dream world -- but that's not the point. The point is that Bobby Jindal DID do all of those things. It's all true.
And that truth will have more of an effect on people who might otherwise be persuaded to vote GOP than anything else. He's not a viable candidate with all of this stuff in his dossier.
Well, if you say you aren't tearing down conservatives, fine, I'll have to take you at your word.
And I took the blogger's point to be not just that Jindal did those things, but that those "things" make him an unacceptable candidate - it is that view from him that I'm disputing.
And I never claimed the media don't have a huge effect on elections. What I am saying is that the way to *combat* it is to not accept their view of what is "good" or "bad" in a candidate, and then try to get conservative candidates to conform with that. I think that's one of the big factors that led to the conservatives' terrific success in this last presidential election. :)
| 686 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:33:14pm |
re: #681 thatemailname
I don't agree. The blogger that Charles referenced in this article is, indeed, "taking his cue" (in this case on the viability of a particular candidate) based on the media's opinion on that candidate's beliefs regarding creationism.
The blogger did not have to use the words "I am taking my cue from the media" for one to reasonably conclude that that is, in fact, what he is doing.
It is surpassingly, exceedingly, transparently and undeniably clear what Jindal's views on cramming kids' minds with religious dogma in public high school science class are: He SIGNED a fucking BILL into LAW allowing that to happen in his state!
| 687 |
thatemailname Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:33:31pm |
re: #677 Charles
Have you had another account at LGF under a different name?
No - it took me forever to register this one, I would never bother trying to register another one!
| 688 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:34:38pm |
re: #684 faraway
So, since Reagan advocated creationism, he was not an appropriate GOP candidate?
False equivalence. Reagan never tried to push creationism into public high schoop science classes; Jindal has.
| 689 |
thatemailname Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:34:47pm |
re: #686 Salamantis
It is surpassingly, exceedingly, transparently and undeniably clear what Jindal's views on cramming kids' minds with religious dogma in public high school science class are: He SIGNED a fucking BILL into LAW allowing that to happen in his state!
Yes. And that will cause the Republic to disintegrate in exactly how many years?
| 690 |
Chilly Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:35:00pm |
I think BLBFootballs (comment #643) has it largely right. I believe in ID *philosophically*, but as science it's just not ready for prime time. And it probably never will be.
The fundamental (pun intended) and larger problem isn't religion vs. science. It's culture vs. science. Too many people just don't understand scientific method, especially as it relates to the observable vs. unobservable. How do we design a lab test to falsify God, who exists in a plane we can't observe?
Otherwise well-educated people agree ID should get a chance in the classroom because they are ignorant of how science really works.
Put science aside: is there really any question that Jindal, Sanford, or Palin would all be far preferable to Current Occupant in 2012? If the economy is in the crapper and emboldened enemies are at the gates, we deal with the existential threats *first*. Then we can get back to reforming education.
| 692 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:39:44pm |
re: #685 thatemailname
And I took the blogger's point to be not just that Jindal did those things, but that those "things" make him an unacceptable candidate - it is that view from him that I'm disputing.
Again. That was MY point, and I stand by it completely. Bobby Jindal is unelectable, and if the GOP puts him up as the Presidential candidate he's going to lose.
| 693 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:40:40pm |
re: #685 thatemailname
Well, if you say you aren't tearing down conservatives, fine, I'll have to take you at your word.
And I took the blogger's point to be not just that Jindal did those things, but that those "things" make him an unacceptable candidate - it is that view from him that I'm disputing.
Doing those things sure as Hell make Jindal an unacceptable candidate to ME! And if he gets the Repub nomination for Prez, these things will, quite justifiably, be heard wall-to-wall, and he will lose so badly it'll make McGovern's loss seem close.
And I never claimed the media don't have a huge effect on elections. What I am saying is that the way to *combat* it is to not accept their view of what is "good" or "bad" in a candidate, and then try to get conservative candidates to conform with that. I think that's one of the big factors that led to the conservatives' terrific success in this last presidential election. :)
Fuck that shit. Abusing the coercive power of the state to force the cramming creationist crapola into kids' trusting young minds in public school science class is as bad as it fucking gets, whether the MSM, Obama, or Satan Himself says it.
| 694 |
hans ze beeman Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:42:06pm |
re: #693 Salamantis
Now these are clear words!
| 695 |
Lynn B. Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:42:29pm |
re: #4 Wendya
I would not support any GOP member who wanted creationism taught as science but I'm not going to shun someone who personally believes in ID or creationism yet has no intention of forcing that belief on America's schoolchildren.
ID is not a personal belief. It's a strategy. There's no such thing as someone who personally believes in ID yet has no intention of forcing that belief on America's schoolchildren. Forcing a belief in creationism is the raison d’être of ID.
| 696 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:44:28pm |
re: #689 thatemailname
Yes. And that will cause the Republic to disintegrate in exactly how many years?
Fucking up the US public school bioscience education will cost us direly in the future, on both the national security front (lack of competent pioscientists to develop quick effective ways to counter terrorist bioweapons attacks), and on the economic and trade front (as bioscience innovations and products and technologies are discovered, created, manufactured, and sold from elsewhere instead of from here).
| 697 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:45:05pm |
re: #689 thatemailname
Yes. And that will cause the Republic to disintegrate in exactly how many years?
Your agenda is beginning to show.
| 698 |
dkorta Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:45:32pm |
Late to the thread. Sorry if something along these lines has been posted
Google search results:
Joe Biden creationism 1.190.000
Ronald Reagan creationism 4.390,000
Barack Obama creationism 5,495,000
Looks like Biden is the best bet based on these criteria
| 699 |
Zimriel Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:47:27pm |
Randy Barnett didn't even allow comments in his Volokh post. He has a pretty good idea of what kind of discussion he'd get.
| 700 |
Hooray for Captain Spaulding Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:49:22pm |
re: #643 BLBfootballs
When Charles talks about creationism he means both the 'intelligent design' variant and the hard-core young earth creationism. A solid majority of Americans (I'd guess 60-70%....maybe more?) simply do not believe in young earth creationism. And if Republicans as a party were endorsing that ideology I'd agree that they have a major electoral problem. However, they're not.
I think a majority of Americans do accept the concept that a Creator oversaw or orchestrated the development of life on planet Earth leading up to the creation of human beings themselves. That's why 'intelligent design' thinking has popular traction at all -- its basic concept comports with what a lot of people already believe. The fact that ID was invented to further a specifically Christian theology doesn't change the fact that its core concepts are compatible with a lot of preexisting beliefs.
The point being that the "creationism" with which GOP politicians flirt (or are assumed to be flirting) is generally of the soft, Catholic church variety.
I respectfully disagree. You wont find a "soft" creationist arguing over transitional fossils and the lack thereof. I see most of these Republican politicians, and ID-ers, as literalists. Even worse, as literalists who want to impose their beliefs.
If I am wrong, i will happily retract these statements.
| 701 |
theheat Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:50:33pm |
re: #40 Oh no...Sand People!
I have an atheist for a neighbor, and we are, also. We're flanked by one drunk (self-proclaimed Christian who tried to kill his wife - true story) and one nice older Christian couple.
Of the four, we atheists have the greener lawns! There must be some deep hidden truth in all that.
/sarc
| 702 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:50:40pm |
re: #690 Chilly
I think BLBFootballs (comment #643) has it largely right. I believe in ID *philosophically*, but as science it's just not ready for prime time. And it probably never will be.
The fundamental (pun intended) and larger problem isn't religion vs. science. It's culture vs. science. Too many people just don't understand scientific method, especially as it relates to the observable vs. unobservable. How do we design a lab test to falsify God, who exists in a plane we can't observe?
Otherwise well-educated people agree ID should get a chance in the classroom because they are ignorant of how science really works.Put science aside: is there really any question that Jindal, Sanford, or Palin would all be far preferable to Current Occupant in 2012? If the economy is in the crapper and emboldened enemies are at the gates, we deal with the existential threats *first*. Then we can get back to reforming education.
I am willing to vote for a person who believes in creationism, but not for a person who is likely to act on such a belief by mandating that it be falsely taught as empirical knowledge to everybody's kids in public high school science class. And Jindal has already acted on such a belief, in Louisiana. That means I do not rule out Palin, but Jindal can go to hell in a handbasket if he thinks he will EVER get a vote from me.
| 703 |
Zimriel Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:51:56pm |
re: #690 Chilly
Put science aside: is there really any question that Jindal, Sanford, or Palin would all be far preferable to Current Occupant in 2012? If the economy is in the crapper and emboldened enemies are at the gates, we deal with the existential threats *first*. Then we can get back to reforming education.
I would question all of the names you've mentioned. Palin hasn't been governor for long enough. I've barely heard of Sanford. And Jindal, from what we've seen thus far, would be awful. We might even be looking at secession movements, and religious riots in school board meetings.
| 704 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Feb 23, 2009 1:52:06pm |
re: #698 dkorta
Late to the thread. Sorry if something along these lines has been posted
Google search results:
Joe Biden creationism 1.190.000
Ronald Reagan creationism 4.390,000
Barack Obama creationism 5,495,000
Looks like Biden is the best bet based on these criteria
By all means, just keep missing the point.
You might want to try actually reading a few of those 1,220,000 results, because they show very clearly that the issue of creationism WAS a factor during the election, and was one of the big reasons why the pick of Sarah Palin was such a turn-off to many fence-sitting moderate voters.
| 706 |
IngisKahn Mon, Feb 23, 2009 2:04:28pm |
re: #698 dkorta
Late to the thread. Sorry if something along these lines has been posted
Google search results:
Joe Biden creationism 1.190.000
Ronald Reagan creationism 4.390,000
Barack Obama creationism 5,495,000
Looks like Biden is the best bet based on these criteria
The fact that all these politicians have such large numbers just shows that creationism is a huge factor when it comes to choosing a president.
| 707 |
dkorta Mon, Feb 23, 2009 2:06:31pm |
re: #704 Charles
By all means, just keep missing the point.
You might want to try actually reading a few of those 1,220,000 results, because they show very clearly that the issue of creationism WAS a factor during the election.
I'm not disagreeing with you in that regard. I contend that it was made an issue because the media was looking for ways to destroy Palin and latched onto it. If they had spent as much time investigating the ramifications of Obama marinating in Black Liberation Theology for 20 years the partisanship might not have been so glaringly obvious.
Lacking active proseltizing on Palin's part, the matter of her faith shouldn't have come up IMO. The problem is that nearly every human being has some foible that the media can latch onto and magnify way out of proportion. Since they are now playing the role of partisan megaphone for whomever the Democrat candidate may be and loud critic of whomever the Republican candidate may be, the solution seems to be to push back hard at the media when they start pulling this kind of stuff. I'm not sure how to accomplish that, exactly. Remember when people were protesting in front of the LA Times building 'cause they had a tape of the Obamas at some pro-Palestinian terrorist luncheon and they refused to release it? The staffers in the building thought the whole thing was a big joke. Even with their businesses going down the tubes they are extremely insular.
| 708 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 2:08:05pm |
re: #293 fish
Becuase Republicans have become too liberal. Did either your Governor or Congresscritter turn D because the R was talking about ID or because they weren't cutting spending and taxes like they had promised? Heck, I would vote for a D if he made me believe he was going to be more conservative than the R.
They turned D because of the national embarrassment that Kansas suffered when the R's passed a bill mandating (not merely allowing) the teaching of creationism in Kansas public schools. The outraged public voted the offending R's out, which means that the D's got voted in.
| 709 |
Zimriel Mon, Feb 23, 2009 2:11:01pm |
re: #599 NukeAtomrod
I'd really like to see the public schools disbanded in favor of independent schools. Then we could choose what sort of education our kids get. I'd go for a pure math/science/literature school with a non-hostility-to-America history curriculum.Public (government) schools create an official ideology that may or may not mesh with reality. I'd prefer to not allow government that kind of influence over our children.
I agree that the State should have less influence on the day-to-day running of a school, to the point of making them all for-profit institutions (with vouchers filling up the slack). I also agree that there shouldn't be anything unfalsifiable brought into a classroom.
But the State still has a role in enforcing the latter. To give it teeth, I'd propose a new branch of government, not subject to voters, elected by university hard-science departments.
/I know, it sounds like Iran's Guardian Council; but my proposal is specifically designed to keep ideologues OUT, not IN.
//And we already have huge swathes of "policy making" bodies aligned with major universities. They are even called "government agencies". The Constitution never predicted how huge the civil service would grow. Since a university / civil service connection exists anyway, it's best just to formalise and recognise it, rather than just to keep it around with a total lack of accountability.
| 710 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 2:17:54pm |
re: #355 topazpilot
Are you serious? Do you seriously believe that one of the major reasons Republicans lost was b/c of the Discovery Institute? If what has been offered is a "clue bat" then it needs to be send back to single A b/c it doesn't belong in the major leagues!
The Disco Institute shills have been taking their smarmy scam creationist rainmaker act from state to state, raking in the big bucks, laughing all the way to the bank, and leaving financial devastation in their wake, while they pack up their carpetbags and head for the next bilkable bunch of naive faithful.
| 711 |
Zimriel Mon, Feb 23, 2009 2:22:02pm |
re: #572 Kenneth
2009 is also the International Year of Astronomy, marking the 400th anniversary of Galileo's invention of the telescope.
(ok, he didn't invent it, but he greatly improved the existing designs and turned a toy into a tool)
The Muslims (especially in Central Asia) pioneered a lot of astronomy and mathematics. They were very keen to ensure the correct direction of prayer, and the correct time. They also had a special prayer for eclipses, so they needed to get those right too. Christian Arabs helped by translating classical natural-history from Greek and Syriac into Arabic.
| 712 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 2:22:56pm |
re: #386 topazpilot
By the way I read the link provided to the Volokh Conspiracy and it offers no evidence that creationism is the reason why Republicans are losing. It links right back to LGF and offers no analysis, no statistics, no explanations to support this hypothesis. Where is the "clue bat?"
I'm fighting really hard to think about creationism as a major issue of 2008 and I can't find it. Sorry, I'm not even sure if it was mentioned on a national scale. Waiting for the proof and I hope there is more offered than the Volokh link.
Take the names of the different P and VP candidates. Then take the word creationism. Then Google the two together. Next, take the names of the different candidates, and Google them together with the word evolution.
Count your hits.
| 713 |
Zimriel Mon, Feb 23, 2009 2:24:08pm |
re: #708 Salamantis
They turned D because of the national embarrassment that Kansas suffered when the R's passed a bill mandating (not merely allowing) the teaching of creationism in Kansas public schools. The outraged public voted the offending R's out, which means that the D's got voted in.
Also, ID gives cover to leftists like Huckabee when they raise taxes and throw our money around. "But he's one of us! He's a Christian!"
| 714 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Feb 23, 2009 2:25:27pm |
re: #707 dkorta
I'm not disagreeing with you in that regard. I contend that it was made an issue because the media was looking for ways to destroy Palin and latched onto it. If they had spent as much time investigating the ramifications of Obama marinating in Black Liberation Theology for 20 years the partisanship might not have been so glaringly obvious.
I agree on that. But it isn't just the media -- a LOT of moderates were turned off by that, and by Palin's association with Assembly of God fundamentalism. I know of at least 5 people (friends of mine) who were prepared to vote for John McCain but the Palin pick was a deal-breaker for them, specifically because of her creationist beliefs. And even though I tried to tell them that Palin stated she wouldn't try to get creationism taught in schools, it was STILL a deal-breaker.
And since I started covering these issues, I've also received dozens of emails from people saying similar things.
A lot of people are in denial about this. It's not the ONLY issue that turns moderates off, but it is definitely AN issue.
| 715 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 2:32:33pm |
re: #437 thatemailname
"Everything the media tried to pin on Sarah Palin, [Bobby] Jindal actually did"
So now we are taking our cues from the media? "Media" say creationism bad, therefore, creationism bad!
This is NOT a winning strategy, people. It is NOT!
When we stop taking our clues from verified facts, we are well and truly fucked. Creationism is not empirical science, it is religious dogma, and to force it to be taught in public high school science class is about as bad as it fucking gets.
Reality Denial: It's Not A Feasible Political Option.
| 717 |
Zimriel Mon, Feb 23, 2009 2:39:03pm |
re: #552 calcajun
This is not only for Charles, but to the rest of the Lizard Corps.
...The critique I would offer is that there seems to be no solution offered, especially to the people for whom this is a closely held belief. You cannot simply tell them they are wrong in their pursuit and expect them to react favorably--people do not like turds dropped in their punchbowls. What I do not see--and perhaps I am not well-informed (and I expect correction if I am in error) --ares any solid attempts to re-direct their passion to the greater issue, which is the overall deplorable state of the education system in this country. We can ill-afford to have this block of voters simply sit at home on election day. The question is how to re-direct this voting block without losing them. Telling them to "shut up and get to the back of the bus" is not a viable, long term answer.
But that can't be Charles's job to offer the social cons an alternative. The social cons aren't going to listen to him, nor (taking a name recently invoked here) to Giuliani. Moderates tend to be hostile to other tenets of social conservatism: Giuliani, for his part, views gun ownership as a State-bestown privilege like drivers' licences. He's also pro-choice. A Giuliani might be able to argue for his points, or to say that social-conservative positions are a loser; but so-cons won't take him seriously when he proposes alternatives. They just don't think he has social-conservatives' interests at heart.
An alternative to creationism has to be provided by the leaders of the social conservative movement. We do have the Vatican on our side, which would be nice if the creationists were Catholic. Sarah Palin has some creds on this, and has staved off ID in her own state; but hasn't parlayed the former into a request that other states (read: Louisiana) do the latter.
| 718 |
Zimriel Mon, Feb 23, 2009 2:42:00pm |
re: #536 albusteve
the GOP has nothing to lose by going public, nationwide, disclaiming creationists moving on public education...open up the party and refute this as any sort of accepted party policy...pressers, talk shows, radio....officially sever this harmful shit and put on notice any Republicans that disavow the notion of complete separation of church and state are no longer welcome in the party...just do it
Can I have a pony too? :^)
| 719 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Feb 23, 2009 2:42:59pm |
Comments whining about this topic will be deleted. Continue complaining and your account will be blocked.
| 720 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 2:47:03pm |
re: #518 loppyd
My feeling is if a moderate wants to be included in a party then the party should welcome them, but not change core values to look more like the other party in order to do so.
Creationism should not be a core value of the Republican party. To include it damages their electoral chances.
| 721 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 2:50:21pm |
re: #520 MandyManners
Why does belief matter as long as people don't try to force others to believe it?
Many people believe that when creationists say that they will not vote to support forcing creationism into public high school science classes that they are practicing taqiyya. The fact that many creationists vote to do just that reinforse this perception.
| 722 |
Zimriel Mon, Feb 23, 2009 2:57:11pm |
re: #721 Salamantis
Many people believe that when creationists say that they will not vote to support forcing creationism into public high school science classes that they are practicing taqiyya. The fact that many creationists vote to do just that reinforse this perception.
That may explain why moderates turned against Palin. The Obama campaign and media (pardon the redundancy) did a lot of Palin-is-teh-scarey pieces. They worried that Palin would embolden Republican states to endorse this stuff.
Which is why I want Palin to step out and condemn it. (And that pony.)
| 723 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 2:57:48pm |
re: #550 realwest
This is a re-post from the Three Govenors thread last night:
"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 also urge people to read the debate that follows.
| 724 |
kynna Mon, Feb 23, 2009 3:09:47pm |
re: #714 Charles
I agree on that. But it isn't just the media -- a LOT of moderates were turned off by that, and by Palin's association with Assembly of God fundamentalism. I know of at least 5 people (friends of mine) who were prepared to vote for John McCain but the Palin pick was a deal-breaker for them, specifically because of her creationist beliefs. And even though I tried to tell them that Palin stated she wouldn't try to get creationism taught in schools, it was STILL a deal-breaker.
And since I started covering these issues, I've also received dozens of emails from people saying similar things.
A lot of people are in denial about this. It's not the ONLY issue that turns moderates off, but it is definitely AN issue.
I respect the hell out of you, Charles, but your five friends ... not so much. What other litmus tests might they come up with that have nothing to do with governing? What about the person who wouldn't vote for a candidate whose daughter became pregnant? Or the people the dems counted on in 2004 not to vote for a VP candidate whose daughter is a lesbian? Assumptions suck.
No, Creationism should not be taught in science class and Governors/law makers who push for that should be defeated. Why? Because they are abusing their power.
But, at the same time, I refuse to kowtow to or be impressed or swayed by people who may decide tomorrow the church I go to because it has a good apolitical children's program (or for whatever personal reason I attend without it affecting my policy stances) is a 'deal breaker'.
They aren't helping, either.
JMO.
| 725 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 3:12:53pm |
re: #595 right_wing2
I say we need to have evolution taught in schools, absolutely. But we need to avoid teaching things in evolutionary theory that have been debunked.
Can you name any? I thopught not.
We also need to look at some of the questions in evolution that haven't been fully answered, like the pre-Cambrian explosion of species.
An 'explosion' that lasted longer than the 65 million years between the extinction of the dinosaurs and now? Pretty gradual explosion there...and completely understandable once you consider that that era was when organisms first evolved the ability to self-propel in chosen directions, which opened up a lot of static food sources, and, in the absence of natural enemies, allowed many otherwise suboptimum mutations to perdure. Then when motile predators of these organims evolved, the ensuing arms race was another rich source of successful mutation, for both predator and prey.
I don't have any doubt that there have been changes within species, responding to changes in the environment, for example. But I have a hard time accepting that after thousands (or millions) of years, some species completely changed all their characteristics and became an entirely new species.
That's because you don't understand how evolutionary speciation works - aggregating different ensembles of environmentally selected mutations until populations could no longer interbreed.
Scientists experimenting with fruit flies, for example, can cause radical changes in its appearance with genetic modifications. But once those stimuli are taken away, in a few generations, the fly reverts to its former appearance. The birds Darwin cited as changing due to decreased rainfall (stronger, thicker beaks) had their beaks return to their former size once the rain returned to the area.
Check out the island lizards that developed entirely different guts, and the e coli bactaeria that evolved a hitherto-nonexistent ability to metabolize citric acid.
Absolutely, conservatives need to focus on more than just the evolution/intelligent design debate. We need to return to the basic principles of low taxes, economic freedom & small government. But throwing any portion of the base away in hopes of gaining ground elsewhere isn't wise either.
It IS politically wise when their anti-science activism costs far more votes than it yields. And that is eminently the case now.
| 727 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 3:18:33pm |
re: #599 NukeAtomrod
I believe the GOP's relationship with Creationists is just political pandering. I'd like to see it stop, but I'm not sure it affects votes much. It's a major bugaboo among my friends that have liberal leanings (who would never vote GOP anyway) and those who are atheists, but most of the folks I talk to believe there are bigger issues like Taxes and National Security, etc.
Who likes what the public schools are teaching anyway? Wouldn't it be nice if we could purge all the politically correct nonsense out of the schools? Who complains when the schools invite PETA or other groups with a political agenda to espouse their crazy ideas?
I'd really like to see the public schools disbanded in favor of independent schools. Then we could choose what sort of education our kids get. I'd go for a pure math/science/literature school with a non-hostility-to-America history curriculum.
Public (government) schools create an official ideology that may or may not mesh with reality. I'd prefer to not allow government that kind of influence over our children.
It is not rational to treat leftist strychnine poisoning in our public schools by dosing the patioent with creationist arsenic.
And the Disco Institute would LOVE to embrace your kill-the-public-schools proposal. If they cannot manage to selectively destroy public high school science education, they will happily settle for dismantling ALL public education, for it massively expands the field in which they can brainwash children into theocratic principles.
| 728 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Feb 23, 2009 3:20:16pm |
re: #724 kynna
I respect the hell out of you, Charles, but your five friends ... not so much. What other litmus tests might they come up with that have nothing to do with governing? What about the person who wouldn't vote for a candidate whose daughter became pregnant? Or the people the dems counted on in 2004 not to vote for a VP candidate whose daughter is a lesbian? Assumptions suck.
No, Creationism should not be taught in science class and Governors/law makers who push for that should be defeated. Why? Because they are abusing their power.
But, at the same time, I refuse to kowtow to or be impressed or swayed by people who may decide tomorrow the church I go to because it has a good apolitical children's program (or for whatever personal reason I attend without it affecting my policy stances) is a 'deal breaker'.
They aren't helping, either.
JMO.
I'm not asking you to respect the people who were turned off by Palin's belief in creationism or her fundamentalist associations. The point of this anecdotal story was to show that there are people to whom these issues are important.
Because there are an awful lot of people in this thread who are purely in denial on this point.
| 729 |
green_earth Mon, Feb 23, 2009 3:20:29pm |
Since most of us are against the concept of creationist pseudoscience in public schools, may I ask how much further we'll take our demand that only sound science be taught? What about behavioral science? What about the areas that have effect on morality? I do not believe that creationism has any place in our secular schools (and for the record it truly is pseudoscience, no doubt). But that's the rub, everything near and dear to our Marxist friends on the left is all secular and scientific. Even if it is unable to be proved any more than creationism - a la man-made global warming (you notice I'm not bringing up that global warming is fact, I said man-made). The left leaning secular religionists bend or interpret science and claim consensus on issues ranging from global warming to same-gender attraction. Now our creationist friends are doing the same. I will stand opposed to ID being taught in school, but I'll sure as hell tell my children God exists and Christ directed evolution any chance I get - at home or in my church. That is where my faith and belief ideas belong. I only wish the Marxist revolutionists in our own country and within public schools viewed their faith-based beliefs the same. They don't. It seems political agendas are fully intertwined on both sides of the isle with science now...
| 731 |
RocketMan Mon, Feb 23, 2009 3:21:55pm |
For all you creationists out there who don't believe this is a big issue, let me tell you that it is.
I have never voted for a Democrat in my life. I have been a member of a Republican Central Committee in a strong Republican County. I have worked on Republican Campaigns and donated money to Republican candidates. In short, I have always been a staunch Republican.
But the Republican parties current inordinate focus on social issues like abortion and creationism has lead me start describing myself an an anti-Democrat instead of a Republican. And if the Republican party nominates a Creationist for President in 2012, I either vote for a third party or not vote for President at all.
You social issue Republicans are killing the Republican party. If you would just drop your focus on social issues and focus on reducing the power of government you would get a lot of the things you want through destroying the government monopoly on public education and overturning Roe v. Wade on constitutional grounds, putting the decision back to the states where it belongs.
| 732 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 3:22:28pm |
re: #601 committed
Charles, I know this issue is a big one for you. IMHO, in the context of the issues that face us in this country and this world, I don't believe this should be the issue that decides our support for someone. On most other issues, they are right on target. It is difficult to be in agreement even with each other on everything. Can't you cut these guys some slack in light of their virtues in most other areas?
Many Christians do not believe they can believe in Gold and the big bang theory and evolution. I disagree with that, because I myself have often noted that although the Bible said God created the world in 7 days, in another part of the Bible it says that a thousand years is as a day and a day is as a thousand years in God's view. So literally, he could have created it over thousands and millions of years in the way science is discovering.
I once believed that prayer in schools had a fundamental value. In today's diverse world, to insist on prayer in schools would open up a whole can of unwelcome worms, as each religion represented would want their own prayer included in the curriculum.
BTW, I'm not complaining as much as I'm asking for a little understanding that we are not going to agree with everything about everyone that aspires to lead this country.
A deciding issue shouldn't be whether or not candidates are personally creationist. But if they insist upon unconstitutionally abusing the machinery of the state in order to force the teaching of their pet religious dogmas in public high school science classes, that issue SHOULD be a deciding, and disqualifying, factor.
| 733 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 3:24:05pm |
re: #729 green_earth
Since most of us are against the concept of creationist pseudoscience in public schools, may I ask how much further we'll take our demand that only sound science be taught? What about behavioral science? What about the areas that have effect on morality? I do not believe that creationism has any place in our secular schools (and for the record it truly is pseudoscience, no doubt). But that's the rub, everything near and dear to our Marxist friends on the left is all secular and scientific. Even if it is unable to be proved any more than creationism - a la man-made global warming (you notice I'm not bringing up that global warming is fact, I said man-made). The left leaning secular religionists bend or interpret science and claim consensus on issues ranging from global warming to same-gender attraction. Now our creationist friends are doing the same. I will stand opposed to ID being taught in school, but I'll sure as hell tell my children God exists and Christ directed evolution any chance I get - at home or in my church. That is where my faith and belief ideas belong. I only wish the Marxist revolutionists in our own country and within public schools viewed their faith-based beliefs the same. They don't. It seems political agendas are fully intertwined on both sides of the isle with science now...
Once again, the solution for leftist pedagogical pollution isn't to add creationist crapola to the mix.
| 734 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Feb 23, 2009 3:26:42pm |
Comments whining about this topic will be deleted. Continue complaining and your account will be blocked.
| 735 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 3:27:56pm |
re: #730 amateurpundit
Jindal has ALREADY shown what effect his creationist beliefs have on his ability to govern; he signed a Disco-Institute-crafted bill into law that allows his pet religious dogma to be taught in public high school science class. That single action disqualifies him for EVER receiving my vote for public office.
| 736 |
green_earth Mon, Feb 23, 2009 3:36:03pm |
re: #733 Salamantis
Salamantis I agree. I just can't get over in my mind how powerless we are to address the complete takeover by the left which has already occurred in most schools. I've spent some time learning about the creationist hoopla today and last night, and I grant you it is more serious than I imagined... has longer legs than I imagined.
| 737 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 3:36:23pm |
re: #635 BLBfootballs
I have to say, I'm just not seeing the creationism issue as a major albatross afflicting the GOP. The electoral question is whether the people who are voting against the GOP now would change their vote if all GOP politicians became clearly or vocally anti-creationist. I'm doubting it.
And for clarity's sake I do not believe in creationist ideology as an ideology... and I certainly don't think it should be part of a science curriculum. The proper place to discuss existential philosophies is in existential philosophy class, not science.
(Though I think a History of Science class that dealt with creationist challenges would be interesting!)
I disagree with you here. Quite a few people who otherwise agree with Republican candidates' platforms, and disagree with the platforms of their electoral opponents, will nevertheless vote against them, or not vote at all, if those Republicans embrace activist creationism. The diffence could very well be enough to reverse many election results.
| 738 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 3:41:28pm |
re: #653 faraway
Don't understand the downding. Reagan clearly thought the biblical story of creation should also be taught in public schools.
But did he ever attempt to act on that belief? NO.
| 739 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 3:45:42pm |
re: #657 Irenike
If you had told me two years ago that our next president would be a black activist without any executive experience, as well as being a Marxist who is friends with corrupt Chicago politicians, bigoted anti-semites and 1960's terrorists, and who would start his term in a cloud of corruption, I would have laughed. Two years ago, I was sure the contest would come down to either Hillary or Rudy. I wouldn't have believed the American people would be so stupid to elect someone like Obama.
So maybe a lot of people (including Randy Barnett) seriously believe no creationist could get elected. A lot of people don't want a creationist to be president. But after the election of Obama, I believe that anything is possible, even if the MSM unfailingly goes to bat for the Democrat candidate, so long as the middle-of-the-road voter is energized to vote for the Republican. After all, the MSM was very hostile to GWB, and he won twice.
Is Jindal's position on creationism any more irrational than Obama's grasp of economics? Economics is far more real to most voters than what happened millions of years ago.
Umm...many of them would say thousands of years ago, in spite of all the empirical evidence to the contrary. And Jindal's creationist education legislation is fully as pedagogocally disastrous for Louisiana is Obama's economic pinata legislation is fiscally disastrous for the nation.
| 740 |
Obsidiandog Mon, Feb 23, 2009 3:54:03pm |
"Maatt Daamon" tagged Palin with his dinosaur comment because she belonged to a fundamentalist congregation, and once you get tarred with the cuckoo brush it is very hard to turn that around. I have conservative friends that just shut down if a candidate has any fundamentalist associations so this doesn't bode well for the future.
I don't think Palin ever endorsed I.D., in fact I believe she explicitly said, when asked, that she didn't support it being taught in schools. But just like the Tina Fey stuff becoming the narrative on her, what people believe is the truth becomes the Truth.
| 741 |
Perplexed Mon, Feb 23, 2009 3:57:35pm |
I would object to a teacher I barely knew teaching my children anything about religion. Some teachers barely do the job they're being paid to do let alone dabble in religion. Religious instruction is the parent's responsibility. The other part of the equation is if the teacher is mandated to teach ID or evolution, that if the teacher disagrees with the subject that the subject may not be taught, but instead portrayed as "I've got to tell you about this, but it won't be on the test" kind of thing.
| 742 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Feb 23, 2009 4:03:43pm |
re: #741 Perplexed
The other part of the equation is if the teacher is mandated to teach ID or evolution, that if the teacher disagrees with the subject that the subject may not be taught, but instead portrayed as "I've got to tell you about this, but it won't be on the test" kind of thing.
There will be no schools "mandated to teach ID," because "intelligent design" is religion, not science. And your idea that teachers should be free to say they're not going to hold students accountable for learning science is ludicrous.
| 743 |
kynna Mon, Feb 23, 2009 4:06:05pm |
re: #728 Charles
I'm not asking you to respect the people who were turned off by Palin's belief in creationism or her fundamentalist associations. The point of this anecdotal story was to show that there are people to whom these issues are important.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that moderates who are turned off by someone's personal beliefs, especially when that person's record shows clearly that they are not of the mind to push those beliefs on others, are not as moderate as they're given credit for being. They have their own unreasonable demands that, amplified, could eventually be dangerous as well.
I agree, there's a lot of denial. I've said it before, I've come close to knock down drag out with my mom on this subject and made no headway. I'm not sure what will work.
| 744 |
Teh Flowah Mon, Feb 23, 2009 4:25:08pm |
re: #439 realwest
Well, aren't you all sweetness and light
So if someone personally believes in creationism, EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T INTEND TO FORCE IT ON SOME ONE ELSE THROUGH THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, you would shun them.
Nice. Every Christian I know believes that God is the creator - how and why He created the Universe is an unknown to most of us. And most Christians, including myself, believe in Evolution. And you make that comment and folks wonder why some people think that Christian bashing goes on at LGF.
Indeed, Lalo Stinky has said, repeatedly, that believe in Evolution doesn't preclude a belief in a Creator nor does belief in a Creator preclude a belief in Evolution.
Shun away, please.
I'm sorry that your comprehension skills are so poor, but where in my post did I say that I shunned all religious people? Creationism is a belief separate and very distinct from the belief in a creator that the world's great religions all share. Does belief in a creator preclude evolution? No. Does creationism? Hell yes.
But to answer your first question, yes, even if they weren't trying to force them into public schools. I've already said why. Belief in creationism, which is distinct from belief in a creator, is an exercise in lunacy and irrationality. To continue to interpret literally a section of the Bible that is clearly meant as a symbol of the vast scope of God's power, even in the face of vast amounts of scientific evidence is to prove oneself an idiot, worthy of shunning by society.
If that offends you, I feel sorry for you. I don't make it a habit to accommodate idiots.
Although I could spend a few minutes to ask why you don't automatically tolerate other people's ridiculous beliefs simply because they are labeled as "religious", after which you would give me some roundabout non answers because you have none that are logically consistent.
| 745 |
topazpilot Mon, Feb 23, 2009 4:25:58pm |
According to exit poll data for the 2008 election the single most important issue for voters was the economy at 62%. Iraq war was second with 10% with health care and terrorism tied at 9% each. Doesn't seem as though religion or creationism was that big of a deal for most voters in determining their vote.
| 746 |
Achilles Tang Mon, Feb 23, 2009 4:38:11pm |
re: #740 Obsidiandog
I don't think Palin ever endorsed I.D., in fact I believe she explicitly said, when asked, that she didn't support it being taught in schools. But just like the Tina Fey stuff becoming the narrative on her, what people believe is the truth becomes the Truth.
Was she ever asked whether she opposed that because she thought it belonged in religion classes, and if she didn't think it belonged in science classes why would she not simply come out and say it was not science, which of course it proponents do say it is?
Belief in God is one thing, but ignorance in a potential president is another.
| 747 |
theheat Mon, Feb 23, 2009 4:38:27pm |
re: #743 kynna
I'm wondering, however, should the ever-growing body of political Creationists continue to gain more vocal advocates, will Palin pitch a tent along with them, add quiet support to what they're doing, or will she make a very clear distinction she thinks what they are doing is wrong, wrong, all kinds of wrong. I don't know she'll do the latter, being as she spent so much time in a crazy fundamentalist church, herself. I see her either supporting them, or saying nothing, but not openly taking the Creationist/ID people to task.
And, yeah, it is important. Within the party, the Creationist/ID people need a hard kick in the ass from some prominent peeps; have their legs cut out from under them, so to speak.
| 749 |
Achilles Tang Mon, Feb 23, 2009 4:41:34pm |
re: #745 topazpilot
According to exit poll data for the 2008 election the single most important issue for voters was the economy at 62%. Iraq war was second with 10% with health care and terrorism tied at 9% each. Doesn't seem as though religion or creationism was that big of a deal for most voters in determining their vote.
The devil is in the details when composing survey questions. I do however have no doubt that intelligence and knowledge in leadership would be considered at least as important as the economy by many.
Unfortunately we know that there are many others who don't thinks so, as long as the intelligence and knowledge appears to be at the same level as themselves.
.
| 750 |
Achilles Tang Mon, Feb 23, 2009 4:42:55pm |
re: #748 bse5150
Ever considered having your own blog? You may have a winner there.
| 751 |
Achilles Tang Mon, Feb 23, 2009 4:46:37pm |
re: #741 Perplexed
............. if the teacher disagrees with the subject that the subject may not be taught, but instead portrayed as "I've got to tell you about this, but it won't be on the test" kind of thing.
Good grief! The tower of Babel is being built yet again, by logic like this.
| 752 |
Obsidiandog Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:01:53pm |
re: #745 topazpilot
According to exit poll data for the 2008 election the single most important issue for voters was the economy at 62%. Iraq war was second with 10% with health care and terrorism tied at 9% each. Doesn't seem as though religion or creationism was that big of a deal for most voters in determining their vote.
How many Republicans didn't bother going to the polls because they had heard or suspected that Palin had creationist beliefs? And that she would be "a heartbeat away from the Presidency"? Or worse yet, voted for the other side? I'm sure for every worried Republican that was energized by Palin's entrance into the race (I was), surely some soured on her when her religious affiliations were run through the media spin cycle.
| 753 |
topazpilot Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:12:02pm |
re: #749 Naso Tang
I agree, however every exit poll essentially showed these same stats in regards to what was the most important issue affecting a person's vote in the election. Then, you can go further and show that the economy, Iraq, terrorism and health care were the most important issues of the election cycle being they were the most commonly cited examples offered by voters. Religion, ID, creationism, evolution were not in the mix. I think this is important when thinking about the effect a fringe creationists can have upon the Republican Party.
Is it a concern, yes and it should be, but is not going to bring the party down because it mostly induces yawns amongst the populace at large. The only people that seem to care are political junkies like ourselves that are still arguing on these blogs the important and not so important issues of the day.
Someone in a comment above expressed concern on how left wingers are viewing conservatives/Republicans and the negative association they equate between the ideology/party and those who support ID/creationism. My response would be, who cares? Even if the Republican Party accepted a strict evolutionary stance in their national platform these people are still not going to vote Republican. They're placating a group of people that have no intention of supporting one of our candidates anyway.
So long as the candidate is strong on foreign policy, focused on winning the war against our terrorist enemies, supports the free market and opposes government intervention in the economy, I can overlook those second tier issues. The top tier means a lot more to me.
| 754 |
freedombilly Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:13:00pm |
re: #736 green_earth
Salamantis I agree. I just can't get over in my mind how powerless we are to address the complete takeover by the left which has already occurred in most schools. I've spent some time learning about the creationist hoopla today and last night, and I grant you it is more serious than I imagined... has longer legs than I imagined.
Keep up with the posts from Charles and the comments and links from Salamantis and you will learn everything you need to know on the subject.
| 755 |
Obsidiandog Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:14:46pm |
re: #746 Naso Tang
Was she ever asked whether she opposed that because she thought it belonged in religion classes, and if she didn't think it belonged in science classes why would she not simply come out and say it was not science, which of course it proponents do say it is?
Belief in God is one thing, but ignorance in a potential president is another.
Here is the relevant passage from the interview:
Couric: Do you believe evolution should be taught as an accepted scientific principle or as one of several theories?
Palin: Oh, I think it should be taught as an accepted principle. And, as you know, I say that also as the daughter of a school teacher, a science teacher, who has really instilled in me a respect for science. It should be taught in our schools. And I won’t deny that I see the hand of God in this beautiful creation that is Earth. But that is not part of the state policy or a local curriculum in a school district. Science should be taught it science class.
So I guess she differs from these other guys.
| 756 |
topazpilot Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:15:30pm |
re: #752 Obsidiandog
I don't know. However, if someone is willing to abandon a ticket that is strong on the economy, foreign policy, and fighting terrorism then I can't say much about the person that would abandon such a ticket to support a ticket that is squishy on foreign policy, appeasement of terrorists, and supports the socialization of the economy. I don't have a high opinion of single issue voters. You can't please everyone and any attempt to do so will end up alienating you from even more voters as you try to support everything and everyone. It's impossible. Stick to the top tier issues.
| 757 |
calcajun Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:18:13pm |
re: #736 green_earth
Salamantis I agree. I just can't get over in my mind how powerless we are to address the complete takeover by the left which has already occurred in most schools. I've spent some time learning about the creationist hoopla today and last night, and I grant you it is more serious than I imagined... has longer legs than I imagined.
Give some thought to the idea of not destroying the Creationists, but redirecting their efforts to the social agenda, especially where text books re-write history (can't cite examples right now).
| 758 |
calcajun Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:21:54pm |
re: #755 Obsidiandog
She's spot on. If a school board wants to teach Creationism--then put it in with philosophy or social studies--or even, to the extent possible, comparative theology. But not in science. My old biology teacher, a Jesuit so old we joked had actually witnesses creation, never mentioned God as part of the class. Everything was the scientific method with that priest.
| 759 |
Achilles Tang Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:22:17pm |
re: #753 topazpilot
You may be right but without, hopefully, not sounding too elitist, the bulk of the loss is going to be from those who have education and understanding of the importance of maintaining science excellence in future generations of Americans. This type of thinking, considering evolution as a genuine "controversy", is at the core of that.
What kind of voters do you think the Republicans will have in less than a generation if this is how lightly they consider such matters?
| 760 |
calcajun Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:24:01pm |
re: #759 Naso Tang
You may be right but without, hopefully, not sounding too elitist, the bulk of the loss is going to be from those who have education and understanding of the importance of maintaining science excellence in future generations of Americans. This type of thinking, considering evolution as a genuine "controversy", is at the core of that.
What kind of voters do you think the Republicans will have in less than a generation if this is how lightly they consider such matters?
"We found a witch! May we burn her?"
| 761 |
Achilles Tang Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:28:54pm |
re: #755 Obsidiandog
I think there were other comments regarding this from her, but to address this one only:
I notice that she did NOT say that the alternate theories were NOT science. That was clearly a part of the question.
She called evolution an "accepted principle", which sounds like code speak to me, allowing for other accepted principles. Even ID proponents call evolution an accepted principle, with gaps galore.
| 762 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:36:04pm |
re: #136 buzzsawmonkey
Battening on Adam and Eve and rejecting science are a visceral reaction to Bratz dolls, rainbow parties and the Folsom Street Fair.
Bratz dolls are no worse than Barbies, rainbow parties are media hype, and the Folsom Street Fair stays on Folsom Street and happens one day a year. Anyone who rejects science over this needs a fricking hobby.
| 763 |
Achilles Tang Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:37:46pm |
re: #756 topazpilot
I don't have a high opinion of single issue voters. You can't please everyone and any attempt to do so will end up alienating you from even more voters as you try to support everything and everyone. It's impossible. Stick to the top tier issues.
That is fair enough, as a generalization, but the issue regarding the creationism/evolution matter and science education is not just another issue. It is a fundamental strategy by some and a fundamental intellectual failing by others who don't recognize that.
Read up on what the ID proponents and fundamentalist creationists themselves say (not to mention their Republican lawmakers). You don't sound as if you have.
| 764 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:40:39pm |
re: #268 Iron Fist
In California, Republicans probably don't have a future. The people in California are extremely out of touch with the rest of America on most, if not all, issues. Hollywood and the MSM pretend all of America is like them, and they are pretty constant in getting that message across.
But they are starting to slip. The crazier Left California goes, the more they marginalize themselves. Its a big
AsylumState with lots ofinmatesresidents, but it isn't the torch tahat is going to lead us into the future.
You do realize that most of the population of the state of California does not live in either Berkeley or Beverly Hills? Just checking.
| 765 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:44:30pm |
re: #384 vagabond trader
We're losing science graduates because your public schools are too busy teaching the importance of multicult bullsheet, rather than making sure "Johnnie" knows how to read and use good old fashioned critical thinking skills.
I've seen no evidence of this much-cherished myth. Try again.
| 766 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:47:33pm |
Interesting. There are many deleted posts tonight but I see no bans. Either the creationists are being smarter or Charles is being generous.
| 767 |
Obsidiandog Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:51:45pm |
re: #756 topazpilot
I don't know. However, if someone is willing to abandon a ticket that is strong on the economy, foreign policy, and fighting terrorism then I can't say much about the person that would abandon such a ticket to support a ticket that is squishy on foreign policy, appeasement of terrorists, and supports the socialization of the economy. I don't have a high opinion of single issue voters. You can't please everyone and any attempt to do so will end up alienating you from even more voters as you try to support everything and everyone. It's impossible. Stick to the top tier issues.
Well, two of the things we are supposed to avoid discussing in public are religion and politics, and this really straddles both. A person's religious beliefs are so deeply personal and if a potential candidate has perceived "offensive" politico/religious beliefs such as creationist leanings, it wouldn't surprise me if that would be a dealbreaker for someone, above and beyond those other issues, because those beliefs are so closely tied into someone's perceived character. So, rather than being a single issue, it is more of a bellweather of that candidate's personal belief system that sheds light on the candidate's judgement.
imho
Besides, I think support for McCain was squishy at best anyway.
| 768 |
Achilles Tang Mon, Feb 23, 2009 5:54:08pm |
re: #766 Dark_Falcon
Interesting. There are many deleted posts tonight but I see no bans. Either the creationists are being smarter or Charles is being generous.
It's early yet. Give the liquor time to work on the limbic system.
| 769 |
calcajun Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:03:54pm |
| 771 |
Achilles Tang Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:07:12pm |
| 772 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:09:04pm |
| 773 |
Achilles Tang Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:10:58pm |
re: #770 Gapeseed
Good gracious.
..................................................................
At best, this is a distraction and anyone here who wanders off the main issues at hand are crazy.
All the moonbats you describe don't have republican legislators trying to get UFO theories into the school system. If you don't see the difference, you are not crazy, probably, but you are stupid as hell.
| 775 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:18:09pm |
re: #753 topazpilot
I agree, however every exit poll essentially showed these same stats in regards to what was the most important issue affecting a person's vote in the election. Then, you can go further and show that the economy, Iraq, terrorism and health care were the most important issues of the election cycle being they were the most commonly cited examples offered by voters. Religion, ID, creationism, evolution were not in the mix. I think this is important when thinking about the effect a fringe creationists can have upon the Republican Party.
Is it a concern, yes and it should be, but is not going to bring the party down because it mostly induces yawns amongst the populace at large. The only people that seem to care are political junkies like ourselves that are still arguing on these blogs the important and not so important issues of the day.
Someone in a comment above expressed concern on how left wingers are viewing conservatives/Republicans and the negative association they equate between the ideology/party and those who support ID/creationism. My response would be, who cares? Even if the Republican Party accepted a strict evolutionary stance in their national platform these people are still not going to vote Republican. They're placating a group of people that have no intention of supporting one of our candidates anyway.
So long as the candidate is strong on foreign policy, focused on winning the war against our terrorist enemies, supports the free market and opposes government intervention in the economy, I can overlook those second tier issues. The top tier means a lot more to me.
No polls were taken of those who didn't vote, to ascertain why.
Palin's non-activist creationism could have marginally damaged the Republican ticket, but overall, it was a wash as a issue. And why? Because BOTH candidates at their tickets' tops - Obama AND McCain - accept evolutionary theory as sound and valid science.
Stick an activist creationist such as Jindal at the top of the ticket, and you will most assuredly get a much different result, beginning with me. I voted for McCain; there is no fucking way that I will EVER vote for Jindal.
| 776 |
Achilles Tang Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:20:15pm |
| 777 |
jaunte Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:21:05pm |
re: #776 Naso Tang
Thank you! Soldier's Angels could use the contribution.
| 778 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:21:59pm |
| 779 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:22:33pm |
re: #756 topazpilot
I don't know. However, if someone is willing to abandon a ticket that is strong on the economy, foreign policy, and fighting terrorism then I can't say much about the person that would abandon such a ticket to support a ticket that is squishy on foreign policy, appeasement of terrorists, and supports the socialization of the economy. I don't have a high opinion of single issue voters. You can't please everyone and any attempt to do so will end up alienating you from even more voters as you try to support everything and everyone. It's impossible. Stick to the top tier issues.
I have no respect whatsoever for those who would shamelessly pander to fundamentalist theocrats by accepting the systematic religious dogma brainwashing of our nation's youth in public high school science class, cynically sacrificing their young trusting minds in the name of political expediency.
| 781 |
topazpilot Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:37:20pm |
re: #775 Salamantis
That's the beauty of the system, you don't have to vote for Jindal. If you can stomach another four years of Obama then bully for you. I admit that I wouldn't jump up and down with a Jindal t-shirt toasting his primary victory with some grape juice and saltines, but I can vote for him over Obama...any day of the week and twice on sunday.
| 782 |
Basho Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:38:13pm |
re: #780 Thor
Yeah... just like every other culture war fundamentalist Christians claim are happening, they're the ones responsible for it.
| 783 |
topazpilot Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:38:40pm |
re: #780 Thor
Dude, seriously, wtf!?! The opposition isn't to Christianity but towards creationism and the candidates that support it.
| 784 |
Achilles Tang Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:38:49pm |
re: #780 Thor
That is so stupid I am speechless, almost.
| 785 |
jaunte Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:39:01pm |
re: #780 Thor
Take some time to look into the 'science' that the Discovery Institute is peddling, and you will learn that the fight is not between religious people and irreligious people, but between those who value objective truth, and manipulative liars.
| 786 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:39:50pm |
re: #780 Thor
I don't think that religion is backwards, I am a Christian. What I do not accept is the anti-science mentality of creationism; A mentality that denies all evidence put forwards about evolution in favor of a literal reading of a part of the Bible not meant to be taken literally. You, sir, are just building a straw-man. "Opposition to Creationism is motivated by Atheism". It's a gross exaggeration and you know it.
| 787 |
topazpilot Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:43:42pm |
re: #779 Salamantis
I understand, but sometimes you roll with the candidates you have and not the ones you wish you had. I have a list of the most important issues in my mind that affect our country and the world at large...creationism or religion isn't near the top of that list. If he/she is good on free markets, big stick, and killing terrorists then I seriously could care less. Would it bother me? Somewhat, but I'll take a few shots of Glenlivet and walk on because this is what I know: top tier candidates won't touch that issue with a ten foot pole in the primaries or the general election and they won't walk that path during their administration. Only the fringe candidates will try to pander so obviously to the creationists and they'll just go home a little later than normal.
| 788 |
Basho Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:47:30pm |
IDK how the economy is going to end up in four years under Obama; I'm very skeptical it will turn around for the better. That being said I'm sick of supply-side economics. I hope the next Republican candidate for Pres doesn't say "I will cut taxes and put money in your pocket" every other sentence. That's just as annoying to me as hearing them fumble on whether prayer and creationism should be allowed in public school.
| 789 |
TheAntichrist Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:48:15pm |
re: #29 Peacekeeper
I'd rather have a creationist for a neighbor than an atheist, or a socialist, or a Kennedy.
True story: 15 years ago or so my sister lived near William Kennedy Smith (yes, the one who was accused of rape in Florida) here in Chicago where he was going to Med school. One day she was digging her car out of the snow and he stopped to help her, so I can't say he was a bad neighbor. He never said who he was, but she recognized him and he was well-known in the neighborhood.
I don't know if anyone else ever hepled her dig out her car (except me of course).
| 790 |
topazpilot Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:48:48pm |
re: #763 Naso Tang
I have, though maybe not as much as some but certainly more than others! My entire line of argument on this thread is that I disagree that creationism is a big issue amongst American voters at large and that fringe creationists are going to cause the collapse of the Republican Party. I don't think most Americans give a flying fuck about it. They care about the economy, health care, terrorism, and foreign policy...not creationism. All it offers is a few headlines for the mainstream media to use to beat up any future Republican candidate that may lean that way.
| 792 |
Shanimal1918 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 6:58:00pm |
I hear you topazpilot and I felt the same as you for a long time. But the more I read on this topic on LGF it finally started to sink in. This isn't really about creationists, it's about the left wing and their water carriers in the MSM making the GOP candidates look like kooks. That's why the GOP leaders keep getting asked about this irrelevant topic. So they can keep printing stories with a goal of making the GOP (like these governors) look like kooks. Once again I thank Charles for being ahead of the curve on this issue, and sticking with it. You guys finally got the point through my thick skull! Maybe creationism isn't such a big issue at all, but when the top GOP candidates keep getting asked and answer these type of questions, the MSM keeps printing stories, and the dems win. And we lose, even those who could care less about the topic.
| 793 |
Sharmuta Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:04:03pm |
re: #674 thatemailname
I'm curious as to why you feel that way (seriously!). I myself believe in evolution, but I don't think people who believe that God created everything are "weird". What do you think makes it so weird?
People who think the earth is 6000 years old, and humans lived with dinosaurs are weird. I showed a couple of democrats the LGF article on the Creation Museum, and they laughed out loud. It's weird.
Neither myself nor the two democrats have any issues with people of faith, but coupling one's faith with a hard core denial of reality and people will think you're weird.
| 794 |
Shanimal1918 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:05:47pm |
In defense of the MSM I should point out that the media aren't necessarily making the GOP pols look like kooks, but the pols answers to these questions are. But my point is that the Dems and MSM most likely love this so they will keep asking and keep printing the wacky responses. And we all lose. Maybe it really is a lost cause and a 3rd party is the best solution.
| 795 |
Achilles Tang Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:06:08pm |
re: #787 topazpilot
One can ignore or let pass some issues on the basis that it is politics and we all know that not all votes are solicited through the utmost honesty and that it is stupid to lose votes simply by insulting a particular belief. For example, I strongly suspect that there are atheists in congress and the senate and possibly that there have been past presidents who were, but I don't blame them for that deceit. That is a fact of life.
The issue here however is not (and it has been said many times) whether someone has a belief that is only expressed as a part of a larger philosophy; it is a matter of imposing that belief on others. Specifically of course when it comes down to something as fundamental as following in the footsteps of deceivers and liars like the proponents of ID who want MY children as their catch.
I don't advocate forcing school children to read Dawkins or Harris or Hitchens in school, but they have no hesitation in trying to do the contrary and reduce science to nothing but the equivalent of New Age garbage.
There is little difference in principle between ID/Creationist supporters and apologetics and left wing teachings that all opinions are equally valid. Both extremes have my contempt.
| 796 |
Achilles Tang Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:09:55pm |
re: #791 Charles
It's a delayed meltdown thread.
What did I say about the limbic system? Maybe it's not liquor, maybe it's just the darkness?
| 797 |
jaunte Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:10:05pm |
re: #795 Naso Tang
I don't advocate forcing school children to read Dawkins or Harris or Hitchens in school, but they have no hesitation in trying to do the contrary and reduce science to nothing but the equivalent of New Age garbage.There is little difference in principle between ID/Creationist supporters and apologetics and left wing teachings that all opinions are equally valid. Both extremes have my contempt.
Very well said.
| 798 |
topazpilot Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:12:32pm |
re: #792 Shanimal1918
I understand your point but I think the last thing Republicans should do is base their candidate choices upon what those left wing kooks and media water carriers think. Why the hell would I want to please them? Please understand, this doesn't mean I want to see creationist candidates, but I oppose the principle or the idea of basing choices upon the opinions of fringe leftist loons or of going out of the way to book the least controversial candidate. After creationism/ID they're going to find another issue and another issue and another issue until, in the end, you look just like them.
| 799 |
Sharmuta Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:15:28pm |
re: #690 Chilly
I wanted to explain my ding down here. The problem of thinking we can correct the education system later while we have ID proponents in political power is just wrong. They're not interested in really correcting the system, which most everyone here agrees needs work. Instead, they want to continue the decline of public education by adding more indoctrination, and to a subject we as conservatives should be working at protecting. Teaching proper science allows America's children a chance to learn observation of empirical data and how to use reason and rationality. If we can't see the benefit in that as a party and work at defending it and the critical thinking skills it teaches that can overflow into other subjects and adult life- then I seriously question our commitment to real educational improvements.
| 800 |
topazpilot Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:16:23pm |
re: #795 Naso Tang
I understand your opposition and the reasons behind it, but my entire line of argument is that the American populace at large doesn't care. You're arguing from a personal perspective and I'm speaking of the issues that are driving voters at the polls.
| 801 |
Achilles Tang Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:18:51pm |
re: #798 topazpilot
I think I answered that above, as best I could.
| 802 |
topazpilot Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:19:03pm |
re: #795 Naso Tang
I'm sorry if I'm a little obtuse right now but I'm trying to understand your last few posts. You do know that I do not support teaching ID/creationism as science, right? That I believe the only theory that should be taught in the science classroom is natural evolution?
| 803 |
Achilles Tang Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:20:58pm |
re: #800 topazpilot
I understand your opposition and the reasons behind it, but my entire line of argument is that the American populace at large doesn't care. You're arguing from a personal perspective and I'm speaking of the issues that are driving voters at the polls.
It doesn't care because not enough people are making an issue of it. Surely you are not simply saying that we have to accept the lowest common denominator as the driving principle of the USA? I don't think that is what got us where we are; or at least where we were a few years ago.
| 804 |
Achilles Tang Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:21:52pm |
re: #802 topazpilot
Yes I understand that. We simply disagree on the significance of the issue.
| 805 |
topazpilot Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:28:33pm |
re: #803 Naso Tang
Good point. Trust me I completely sympathize. In an ideal world I would not want someone who believes in teaching ID in the classroom as the candidate either and if given the choice in the Republican primary I can nearly guarantee I would not vote for them (unless their all ID propagators and then we're all fucked). But, given that when it comes to the general election I look at different issue that drive me and it seems as though the American public does the same as given by the exit poll numbers I provided above.
Now, after saying all that, I appreciate this line of argument in this thread and what Charles is doing. I think I see a little more clearly his strategy at large, and I support it. You're right we need to get this out in the open and derail ID propagators like Jindal before they get to the point that they are the Republican choice against Obama, or any other squishy Democrat in the future.
I apologize is this post is a little meta in regards to our conservation but I think some on these last few threads have gained the wrong impression about me and the argument I was trying to raise. I certainly hope they don't see me as another Thor (see above if he's still there).
Now I must be to bed...g'nite all.
| 806 |
topazpilot Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:29:08pm |
haha...i said conservation instead of conversation.
| 808 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:39:35pm |
re: #787 topazpilot
I understand, but sometimes you roll with the candidates you have and not the ones you wish you had. I have a list of the most important issues in my mind that affect our country and the world at large...creationism or religion isn't near the top of that list. If he/she is good on free markets, big stick, and killing terrorists then I seriously could care less. Would it bother me? Somewhat, but I'll take a few shots of Glenlivet and walk on because this is what I know: top tier candidates won't touch that issue with a ten foot pole in the primaries or the general election and they won't walk that path during their administration. Only the fringe candidates will try to pander so obviously to the creationists and they'll just go home a little later than normal.
By your own definition, then, Jindal is a fringe candidate, and not top tier, because he has already touched that issue and pandered to the creationists; he has signed a Disco-Intitute-crafted stealth creationism bill into law in Louisiana. So he'll go home. Maybe a little late, like, say, in the general election, and you'l get your four more years of Obama for supporting him in the first place.
| 809 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:45:41pm |
re: #790 topazpilot
I have, though maybe not as much as some but certainly more than others! My entire line of argument on this thread is that I disagree that creationism is a big issue amongst American voters at large and that fringe creationists are going to cause the collapse of the Republican Party. I don't think most Americans give a flying fuck about it. They care about the economy, health care, terrorism, and foreign policy...not creationism. All it offers is a few headlines for the mainstream media to use to beat up any future Republican candidate that may lean that way.
People tend not to give a flying fuck about it until it impacts their own state and fucks with the science education of their own children; then they revolt against the sponsors and kick them out of office, just like they did in Kansas. The backlash against Jindal isn't far away, as conventions cancel out of a state that lives and dies by tourism. And when these next ten or so creationist bills percolate through their respective states, and the ones to come, the national disgust will be massive and vast for any activist creationist presidential candidate (and Jindal is nothing if not activist - he's a damned BILL -SIGNER!).
| 810 |
slokat Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:46:11pm |
Not sure that this approach is all that scientific, but using this approach:
Charles Johnson - is way behind at 298,000 results
And Hillary Clinton swamps the field at 3,440,000 results
| 811 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:46:17pm |
re: #808 Salamantis
Sal, please read topazpilot's #805. He does move back our way in that one.
| 812 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:49:47pm |
re: #798 topazpilot
I understand your point but I think the last thing Republicans should do is base their candidate choices upon what those left wing kooks and media water carriers think. Why the hell would I want to please them? Please understand, this doesn't mean I want to see creationist candidates, but I oppose the principle or the idea of basing choices upon the opinions of fringe leftist loons or of going out of the way to book the least controversial candidate. After creationism/ID they're going to find another issue and another issue and another issue until, in the end, you look just like them.
This issue loses us moderates and centrists and independents and Reagan Democrats, too. And without them, we don't have an icicle's chance in hades of winning.
| 813 |
Old Tanker Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:55:34pm |
re: #17 zombie
If there was ever a time to "clean house" on the conservative side, this is it.
We just had an election. The Republicans got stomped. There isn't another election for 2 years; and not another Presidential election for 4 years. This is in fact the correct moment to "air the dirty laundry," as Charles is doing, because it will have the least effect electorally.
Both sides, in fact (Dem and Repub) need to "clean house," but the Dems are smug and aren't doing it, because they think they don't need to. Good. We'll clean house, come back leaner and meaner next time, and embarrass them for their unfortunate associations.
I just don't see it that way. The Republicans got stomped because they were spending as bad as Democrats......until recently. Never did I hear anything about ID, Creationism, Darwinism or anything like it come up in any election, zilch. Get rid of creationists.........and it won't mean squat, it's not barking up the wrong tree....it's barking up an irrelevant tree.
| 814 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:58:35pm |
re: #811 Dark_Falcon
Sal, please read topazpilot's #805. He does move back our way in that one.
Well, I oppose voting for creationist activists for the same reasons that I oppose allying US antijihadis with euroneonazis like the Vlaams Belang; for reasons both ethical and practical and principled. Selling out our own kids to fascist theocrats for a pottage of political power strikes me as the very definition of a Faustian bargain - and if we drink this soul-selling, core-value-discarding poison, it will cost us dearly in the end, in many different ways and on several different levels.
| 815 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:00:02pm |
re: #813 Old Tanker
I just don't see it that way. The Republicans got stomped because they were spending as bad as Democrats......until recently. Never did I hear anything about ID, Creationism, Darwinism or anything like it come up in any election, zilch. Get rid of creationists.........and it won't mean squat, it's not barking up the wrong tree....it's barking up an irrelevant tree.
Ruining science education for millions of public school students is irrelevant? Creationism / ID is not a top-tier political issue. Rather, it is a sleeper issue; it makes the GOP look worse and worse and it erodes our children's education. We must neutralize its acidic effects on our nation by fighting ID with scientific facts.
| 816 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:01:09pm |
re: #813 Old Tanker
I just don't see it that way. The Republicans got stomped because they were spending as bad as Democrats......until recently. Never did I hear anything about ID, Creationism, Darwinism or anything like it come up in any election, zilch. Get rid of creationists.........and it won't mean squat, it's not barking up the wrong tree....it's barking up an irrelevant tree.
yeah, right, shure...and Obama stole the election because you don't know anybody that voted for him...
| 817 |
Old Tanker Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:06:04pm |
re: #815 Dark_Falcon
Ruining science education for millions of public school students is irrelevant? Creationism / ID is not a top-tier political issue. Rather, it is a sleeper issue; it makes the GOP look worse and worse and it erodes our children's education. We must neutralize its acidic effects on our nation by fighting ID with scientific facts.
Irrelevant in the fact that this whole thread is based on this issue tearing apart the GOP, and I simply don't see this happening. Most people in the GOP don't see this as an issue that is going to cost an election, in fact, it just doesn't appear to be on the radar screen of most people. Look at the title of this post, Charles found one more blogger talking about this. Is this a movement of some kind?
| 818 |
Old Tanker Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:07:00pm |
re: #816 Salamantis
yeah, right, shure...and Obama stole the election because you don't know anybody that voted for him...
Sadly I do.....and I used to think they were smart....
| 819 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:07:57pm |
My considered opinion as that Republicans as a party have been in servile thrall to the Dark Triune Lord of Soconism - Creationism, Anti-Abortionism, and Homophobia - for far too long, and it has cost us dearly. It is well past time to tell this fickle and faithless political deity that we will no longer dance to its absolutist tune.
| 820 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:09:35pm |
re: #817 Old Tanker
Again: "Most people in the GOP don't see this as an issue that is going to cost an election" but there are many moderates and independants who are put off by the anti-science attitude of the creationists. It hurts the image of the GOP in states like Illinois, and thus makes it hands my state over to the Chicago Machine. And that, sir, makes it relevant.
| 821 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:09:59pm |
re: #710 Salamantis
The Disco Institute shills have been taking their smarmy scam creationist rainmaker act from state to state, raking in the big bucks, laughing all the way to the bank, and leaving financial devastation in their wake, while they pack up their carpetbags and head for the next bilkable bunch of naive faithful.
And now they trying out a new strategy here in Washington State, where the DI is. Nothing these people do is Christian, charitable, or moral.
| 822 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:10:49pm |
re: #817 Old Tanker
Irrelevant in the fact that this whole thread is based on this issue tearing apart the GOP, and I simply don't see this happening. Most people in the GOP don't see this as an issue that is going to cost an election, in fact, it just doesn't appear to be on the radar screen of most people. Look at the title of this post, Charles found one more blogger talking about this. Is this a movement of some kind?
The fact that some people in the GOP are willfully blind considering the grave damage this is doing to our party does not mean that it is not happening. It costs us support from moderates, centrists, independents, and Reagan Democrats - and without them, we cannot win.
There is nothin conservative about the socon agenda; it is radical social engineering.
| 823 |
Basho Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:11:14pm |
re: #819 Salamantis
Soconism... I like that.
I remember a comment someone posted a long time ago on how social conservatism destroys every political movement it infects. I believe I have it favorited, let me look.
| 824 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:12:37pm |
re: #819 Salamantis
My considered opinion as that Republicans as a party have been in servile thrall to the Dark Triune Lord of Soconism - Creationism, Anti-Abortionism, and Homophobia - for far too long, and it has cost us dearly. It is well past time to tell this fickle and faithless political deity that we will no longer dance to its absolutist tune.
I'm with you on the first one and the last, but I'm strongly anti-abortion myself. I don't think the GOP should back off on that one as a party. It is one of the issues that defines our respect for life versus the "individual people don't matter" collectivism of the left.
| 825 |
Basho Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:15:48pm |
re: #823 Basho
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
| 826 |
Old Tanker Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:16:32pm |
re: #824 Dark_Falcon
I'm with you on the first one and the last, but I'm strongly anti-abortion myself. I don't think the GOP should back off on that one as a party. It is one of the issues that defines our respect for life versus the "individual people don't matter" collectivism of the left.
Careful with that one.....you might get labeled as a socon!
/sarc; please note that the sarcasm is only meant to illustrate that we ain't all gonna agree on everything!
| 827 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:16:45pm |
re: #824 Dark_Falcon
I'm with you on the first one and the last, but I'm strongly anti-abortion myself. I don't think the GOP should back off on that one as a party. It is one of the issues that defines our respect for life versus the "individual people don't matter" collectivism of the left.
I have no problem with individual people being personally anti-abortion; that's what choice is all about. What I object to is people arrogating unto themelves the right to make these intimate and intenely personal decisions for others.
| 828 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:20:42pm |
re: #827 Salamantis
I have no problem with individual people being personally anti-abortion; that's what choice is all about. What I object to is people arrogating unto themelves the right to make these intimate and intenely personal decisions for others.
In other words, for some people to use the machinery of the state in order to tell other people that they MUST abide by their personal reproductive morality is what coercive collectivism is all about.
| 829 |
slokat Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:24:41pm |
One set of facts pertinent to this issue: NY Times Profile 2008 New Hampshire
| 830 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:25:02pm |
re: #827 Salamantis
I have no problem with individual people being personally anti-abortion; that's what choice is all about. What I object to is people arrogating unto themelves the right to make these intimate and intenely personal decisions for others.
Sorry, Sal, I'm not with you on that one. On Abortion, I am a socon. I view it as killing for convenience and I support its restriction. I don't scream about it, but its something I think must be prevented when possible.
| 831 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:33:17pm |
re: #830 Dark_Falcon
Sorry, Sal, I'm not with you on that one. On Abortion, I am a socon. I view it as killing for convenience and I support its restriction. I don't scream about it, but its something I think must be prevented when possible.
A 13 year old girl who lived in the country about 50 miles away from me was repeatedly raped by her drunken fundamentalist father (her mother had long since left him due to his physically abusive behavior). The school nurse discovered she was pregnant when she went to the clinic for morning sickness, and she was removed from the home, and her father was jailed.
He refused from his jail cell to give her permission to have an abortion, claiming that it was God's Righeous and Holy Retributive Judgment on 'their' sin, so she and her court-appointed advocate appealed to the Florida court, and she was granted permission for the procedure.
Still, her father refused to pay for it. I found out about the case through a friend, and each of us donated half the cost for the procedure, which the doctor generously reduced to cost.
It was the best and most caring money I ever spent.
| 832 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:36:37pm |
I am for elective abortion through the first trimester, abortion for rape or incest through fetal viability (about halfway through the second trimester), and for abortion beyond that point only if carrying the pregnancy to term would result in a likelihood of the mother's death or severe and permanent physical impairment.
| 833 |
Lynn B. Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:37:04pm |
re: #828 Salamantis
In other words, for some people to use the machinery of the state in order to tell other people that they MUST abide by their personal reproductive morality is what coercive collectivism is all about.
Yep. It's all part of the same package and it all derives from the same source. Creationism, Anti-Abortionism, and Homophobia all have their roots in the need to impose one's personal view of religious proscriptions onto others.
Which is not in any way to denigrate belief in God, the choice to reject abortion as a personal option or heterosexuality. But when people attempt to mandate these as the only "moral" (and legal) options, they degrade them from personal spiritual values down to base coercive tactics.
| 834 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:40:08pm |
re: #832 Salamantis
I am for elective abortion through the first trimester, abortion for rape or incest through fetal viability (about halfway through the second trimester), and for abortion beyond that point only if carrying the pregnancy to term would result in a likelihood of the mother's death or severe and permanent physical impairment.
Then we don't really have a disagreement. Your position is fully acceptable to me. It is respectful, well-thought out, and politically possible.
| 836 |
Lynn B. Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:46:23pm |
re: #834 Dark_Falcon
Then we don't really have a disagreement. Your position is fully acceptable to me. It is respectful, well-thought out, and politically possible.
Heh. So this is what can happen when you keep both NOW and James Dobson out of the room.
Amazing.
Maybe we should start that new third party right here...
| 837 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:48:38pm |
re: #835 ploome hineni
...and I think every woman having an abortion should be required to watch or help clean up one week of abortions
trouble with abortion is the woman gets some meds to relax, gets on a clean gurney,gets an IV...goes to sleep
and wakes up........all done
nothing happened
fwiw
Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).Likelihood of abortion:
An estimated 43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.
And what percentage of those are first trimester abortions? I'd wager more than 90%.
| 838 |
jaunte Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:52:05pm |
re: #837 Salamantis
Very close. 89% (in 2004)
[Link: www.guttmacher.org...]
| 839 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 8:52:08pm |
I was on the button:
Between 1996 and 2002, the number of abortions in the U.S. fell from 1.36 million to 1.29 million (Finer & Henshaw, 2003; Guttmacher Institute, 2006). The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 60.5 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88.2 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. Only 1.4 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2006).
| 841 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:00:08pm |
re: #840 ploome hineni
that's not the issue
It is for people who don't believe the religious dogma that every zygote is divinely gifted with an immortal soul the moment the sperm head penetrates the ovum wall.
| 844 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:23:33pm |
re: #842 ploome hineni
...as I said, that is not the issue..what difference if it is aborted in the first or second trimester........?
or third trimester
re: #843 ploome hineni
..the products of abortion look more ikky in the 3rd trimester
looks more like what it really is?
IOt's not a matter of what it 'really is.' Gestation is not being-a-person from the absolute beginnig, it's about gradually becoming-a-person throughout the process of gestation. So we're not talking about a present peron from the very beginning.
A pre-viability zygote or embryo isn't even a potential person, for that designation entails that it is inevitable that should God or nature take its course unhindered, that a baby will be born, when fully a third of pregnancies sponstaeously abort (God or nature, whichever you perceive to be in charge, is far and away the world's formost abortionist, which presents the question - if you think it is God - whether the spontaneous abortion is a divine mistake, or whether it is a cosmic correction of the divine mistake of the pregnancy happening in the first place).
So, after that digression, the point is that, pre-viability, we're not talking about a present person, or even a potential person, but a possible future person. And when the right and freedoms of a possible future person are weighed and measured against the rights and freedoms of an actual present person, the rights and freedoms of the latter must take moral precedence.
| 845 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:23:41pm |
OK, we have a new Creationism Thread. I'm heading over there now. We need to keep watch. The trolls are certain to pop up.
| 846 |
Old Tanker Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:26:36pm |
re: #841 Salamantis
It is for people who don't believe the religious dogma that every zygote is divinely gifted with an immortal soul the moment the sperm head penetrates the ovum wall.
Curious, so when are they gifted with an immortal soul? When is it no longer "okay"? Which "dogma" do you ascribe to? When is that "dogma" no longer relevant because it steps on someone else's?
| 848 |
Emphasis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:33:30pm |
As it seems we can't get away from arguing about this subject I will again pose the question. With regards to the elections and the impact that creationism may have had on the results, I find any link ludicrous.
"I think about evolution and creationism and I don’t find any difficulty in accepting both. Probably I am not as smart as all of those that are dogmatic in their beliefs. There are things that I would love for someone to explain to me. For example:
If the instinct for self-preservation is a predominant if not the predominant one in the animal world, why do the female of the species becomes pregnant? You would think that you make your life so much harder, especially if like in most examples the female is the one that has to raise them feed them and protect them. However, they appear to be imprinted with the need to carry out that function, even though it is obvious it affects them in a negative way. It would then seem that this drive is imprinted in them, like a computer program. The question then is who was the programmer?"
| 849 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:38:04pm |
re: #846 Old Tanker
Curious, so when are they gifted with an immortal soul? When is it no longer "okay"? Which "dogma" do you ascribe to? When is that "dogma" no longer relevant because it steps on someone else's?
I don't; I just note that a useful definition of personhood is when the fetus can survive independently (middle of the second trimester).
| 850 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:43:50pm |
re: #848 Emphasis
As it seems we can't get away from arguing about this subject I will again pose the question. With regards to the elections and the impact that creationism may have had on the results, I find any link ludicrous.
"I think about evolution and creationism and I don’t find any difficulty in accepting both. Probably I am not as smart as all of those that are dogmatic in their beliefs. There are things that I would love for someone to explain to me. For example:
If the instinct for self-preservation is a predominant if not the predominant one in the animal world, why do the female of the species becomes pregnant? You would think that you make your life so much harder, especially if like in most examples the female is the one that has to raise them feed them and protect them. However, they appear to be imprinted with the need to carry out that function, even though it is obvious it affects them in a negative way. It would then seem that this drive is imprinted in them, like a computer program. The question then is who was the programmer?"
And I will again post my answer; the same one I posted there:
Organisms possess the genetic urge to produce copies of their genes (offspring). Those species that didn't possess that urge died out of the gene pool very quickly, and individuals within the species that lack such an urge do not pass their genes along within the species. It's a matter of simple environmental selection, and no intelligent purposive programmer is required.
Given that some ancient animals genetically mutated to possess this urge, or others mutated so that they did not, the ones that lacked the urge died out without reproducing, and only the ones that possessed it remained in the gene pool - because only they reproduced and passed on their genes.
Evolution is responsible for the presence of the reproductive program, just as surely as it is responsible for the presence of the anatomical machinery by means of which such an urge is effected, and the genetic program that causes such machinery to manifest in the organism.
| 852 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:47:17pm |
re: #851 ploome hineni
lol
someone has to feed and clean and clothe this product of conception for the next decade at least
a 'fetus' cannOt survive independantly until it has a JOB
No, but post-viability, it can be baby-sat.
| 853 |
hous bin pharteen Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:48:42pm |
re: #659 wrenchwench
November 1st was 6 days before the accident. My car was t-boned by a pick-up driving 70 mph. Thankfully, no one else was in the car. The truck hit me in the right shoulder. The passenger seat was crushed. It is kind of odd that I even know how I was taken to the hospital in my condition. I owe the flight crew a picture of beer when the Doctor gives me the go ahead. That is going to be one hell of a night.
But my comments here were political, not religious. I suspect some have had a problem with their former religious education. This is not meant to be criticism.
I have not had comments for awhile due to the injuries. Since these issues have had problems being raised, if I discuss them much, I probably will get banned. It would be alot more constructive for me to stay. I have enjoyed many other opines and points of view. But even the wife has noticed me laughing so hard at the humor here
| 855 |
Salamantis Mon, Feb 23, 2009 9:52:52pm |
re: #854 ploome hineni
why burden someone else?
who pays for the sitter?
That isn't the point, and you full well know it. Pre-viability, its life depends upon the womb and umbilicus of the mother; post-viability, it can be fed from the lactating breast of any woman. It is independent of the mother for the perpetuation of its life.
| 857 |
Basho Tue, Feb 24, 2009 8:15:34am |
re: #848 Emphasis
You would think that you make your life so much harder, especially if like in most examples the female is the one that has to raise them feed them and protect them.
In most examples it's the complete opposite. There are many more insects, arthropods, fish, reptiles, and amphibians than there are mammals and birds.
If you want to know why any species would evolve parenthood, all you have to do is look at the success that the birds and mammals have had on Earth.
| 858 |
wrenchwench Tue, Feb 24, 2009 9:08:55am |
re: #853 hous bin pharteen
November 1st was 6 days before the accident. My car was t-boned by a pick-up driving 70 mph. Thankfully, no one else was in the car. The truck hit me in the right shoulder. The passenger seat was crushed. It is kind of odd that I even know how I was taken to the hospital in my condition. I owe the flight crew a picture of beer when the Doctor gives me the go ahead. That is going to be one hell of a night.
But my comments here were political, not religious. I suspect some have had a problem with their former religious education. This is not meant to be criticism.
I have not had comments for awhile due to the injuries. Since these issues have had problems being raised, if I discuss them much, I probably will get banned. It would be alot more constructive for me to stay. I have enjoyed many other opines and points of view. But even the wife has noticed me laughing so hard at the humor here
So you were hit in November of 2007? It's a long haul back, isn't it? Are you still doing rehab? If you had a head injury, that can certainly affect how you express yourself, so it's good that you are cautious. Glad to see you posting!
| 860 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Tue, Feb 24, 2009 9:25:05am |
re: #825 Basho
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
Medaura is a brilliant, if occasional, contributer to LGF. I have several of her posts favourited, including that one.
| 861 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Tue, Feb 24, 2009 9:29:34am |
re: #859 ploome hineni
Yes but not necessarily dependent on the mother, on whose body it is now independent of. I think Salamantis was pretty clear on that.
| 862 |
scarshapedstar Tue, Feb 24, 2009 10:22:53am |
re: #23 notutopia
...those aren't the lyrics. That's some other song by some crap band named "Shed Seven". Have you ever even listened to this song? Sheesh! :P
| 863 |
scarshapedstar Tue, Feb 24, 2009 10:29:04am |
Actually... this is a better video.
| 864 |
Salamantis Tue, Feb 24, 2009 11:29:47am |
re: #861 Jimmah
Yes but not necessarily dependent on the mother, on whose body it is now independent of. I think Salamantis was pretty clear on that.
One word: Adoption. For Ploome, apparently it does not exist.
| 865 |
Emphasis Tue, Feb 24, 2009 2:35:30pm |
>As it seems we can't get away from arguing about this subject I will again pose the question. With regards to the elections and the impact that creationism may have had on the results, I find any link ludicrous.
"I think about evolution and creationism and I don’t find any difficulty in accepting both. Probably I am not as smart as all of those that are dogmatic in their beliefs. There are things that I would love for someone to explain to me. For example:
If the instinct for self-preservation is a predominant if not the predominant one in the animal world, why do the female of the species becomes pregnant? You would think that you make your life so much harder, especially if like in most examples the female is the one that has to raise them feed them and protect them. However, they appear to be imprinted with the need to carry out that function, even though it is obvious it affects them in a negative way. It would then seem that this drive is imprinted in them, like a computer program. The question then is who was the programmer?"
And I will again post my answer; the same one I posted there:
Salamantis said in part
[[[[Organisms possess the genetic urge to produce copies of their genes (offspring).]]]
So I again ask the Urge you mention (which to me is the program) where does it comes from?
| 866 |
Salamantis Tue, Feb 24, 2009 3:24:11pm |
re: #865 Emphasis
>As it seems we can't get away from arguing about this subject I will again pose the question. With regards to the elections and the impact that creationism may have had on the results, I find any link ludicrous.
"I think about evolution and creationism and I don’t find any difficulty in accepting both. Probably I am not as smart as all of those that are dogmatic in their beliefs. There are things that I would love for someone to explain to me. For example:
If the instinct for self-preservation is a predominant if not the predominant one in the animal world, why do the female of the species becomes pregnant? You would think that you make your life so much harder, especially if like in most examples the female is the one that has to raise them feed them and protect them. However, they appear to be imprinted with the need to carry out that function, even though it is obvious it affects them in a negative way. It would then seem that this drive is imprinted in them, like a computer program. The question then is who was the programmer?"
And I will again post my answer; the same one I posted there:
Salamantis said in part
[[[[Organisms possess the genetic urge to produce copies of their genes (offspring).]]]So I again ask the Urge you mention (which to me is the program) where does it comes from?
It evolved. From very early on. Back as far as the earliest of our single-celled ancient ancestors.
In fact, that's what life does, and how it can be distinguished from nonlife; it repllicates, with high but imperfect copying fidelity. If the copying fidelity is perfect, the entire population dies when the environmental conditions change, because it cannot mutate to adaptto them. If the copying fidelity isn't high enough, however, enough distinctive traits are not passed on to succeeding generations to define a species.
This is waay before sex began happening - back when reproduction was by cell division or budding.
You may believe that some ancient cosmic life-sparker had to do all this, but the science so far indicates that such an entity is not necessary for it to have happened:
[Link: pandasthumb.org...]
| 867 |
sfcmac Tue, Feb 24, 2009 3:53:04pm |
Newsflash: It had more to do with Obamessiah's appeal to like-minded socialists, leftwing medfia effetes, and gulllible blacks than anything else. Think about it: most of the religious minorities who voted for Obama ARE CREATIONISTS. So what in the hell does Palin's beliefs have to do with anything? God, get a grip. I'm agnostic, and even I could figure that out.
| 869 |
Achilles Tang Tue, Feb 24, 2009 4:52:13pm |
re: #865 Emphasis
So I again ask the Urge you mention (which to me is the program) where does it comes from?
Why are you not asking where the urge to eat, to breath, that of your heart to pump blood and so on, comes from?
This is a silly question synonymous with asking why isn't everything dead.
| 870 |
cowbellallen Tue, Feb 24, 2009 7:27:52pm |
I still don't really think it's a big deal for the GOP. If we're measuring the importance of things by how many hits it gets on Google, how about I toss out a few?
sarah palin creationism gets 1,230,000 hits
------
sarah palin imac gets 1,600,000 hits.
sarah palin brad pitt gets 2,350,000 hits.
Considering Sarah Palin and Brad Pitt don't even have anything to do with eachother, and has almost twice as many hits as the creationism one, I don't really think its accurate to assume that a Google search correlates to voter importance.
| 871 |
hous bin pharteen Tue, Feb 24, 2009 9:56:30pm |
re: #858 wrenchwench
Thanks for your concern. It has been a long walk back. I have rehab 3 times a week. Two months after the accident, they were going to put me in an old folks home because they did not think I would regain consensus, yet alone be able to walk, think, read, see, and talk. But now I am getting cranky to start racing again.
But what makes me mad is having missed my sons senior year on his high school hockey team. But at least I made his hockey diner and his finale hockey game.
With the new Jimmy Carter tax plan, my SCCA race team will have problems getting the finances to keep racing. But I am not gonna have him ruin the season. So say hello at the track if you see me.
| 872 |
Salamantis Wed, Feb 25, 2009 1:58:20am |
re: #870 cowbellallen
I still don't really think it's a big deal for the GOP. If we're measuring the importance of things by how many hits it gets on Google, how about I toss out a few?
sarah palin creationism gets 1,230,000 hits
------
sarah palin imac gets 1,600,000 hits.
sarah palin brad pitt gets 2,350,000 hits.
Considering Sarah Palin and Brad Pitt don't even have anything to do with eachother, and has almost twice as many hits as the creationism one, I don't really think its accurate to assume that a Google search correlates to voter importance.
Umm...Johnny Mac for McCain, Freddie Mac for a pre-election collapse of the mortgage guaranty market, and Heather Mac for a Palin interviewer?
And Palin and Pitt are both big celebrities, who were both in the nesw a lot recently, so any celebrity show that mentioned them both pulled a mention. But Brad Pitt creationism only gets 600,000 hits:
[Link: www.google.com...]
And Angelina Jolie creationism only gets 889,000 hits:
[Link: www.google.com...]
Now, in how many of their stories do you suppose Sarah Palin and creationism was mentioned, either by one of them or by someone else who mentioned both Palin and one of them? Probably a lot.
See how this works?
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Alone in a Bathroom: The Fear and Uncertainty of a Post-Roe Medication Abortion Angel tucked two white pills into each side of her mouth, bracing herself as they began to dissolve. Her deepest fears and anxieties took over. Angel had wanted to talk to a doctor before she took the pills to ... Cheechako
They Were Desperate to Get Pregnant. Then IVF Gave Them Extra Embryos. One morning last spring, Ashley Harrolle put her 1-year-old daughter down for a nap and went to the kitchen. She pulled up her fertility clinic’s contact information. It was time to make the call. In a freezer several hundred ... CheechakoJoe Bacon ✅
March FavoritesYou've seen these all already but looking back, just because. These are my favorite shots of this last month. That 1937 Zeiss Sonnar is such a gloriously wonderful bit of glass. Thanks for looking.
William Lewis
Russia’s New Combat Robots Blown Up by Drones Near Avdiivka When we landed on the moon, I thought about how science fiction had become real. Now, the robot wars have begun. It's more poignant somehow on the ground than in the missile wars we have in the air as ...
Rightwingconspirator
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ... CheechakoKGxvi
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ... Cheechako
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ... Cheechako
