Creationist Governor Featured Speaker at RNC Meeting

Politics • Views: 3,982

Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-Minnesota) is being touted as a frontrunner for the 2012 presidential election, and today it was announced that he’ll be a featured speaker at the Republican National Committee meeting in San Diego.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty will address members of the Republican National Committee July 30 in San Diego. It’s a chance to introduce himself to party leaders, Politico reports, quoting an unnamed adviser’s view that “a lot of Republicans don’t know who he is.”

Pawlenty is expected to offer ideas for expanding the party’s base and tell his life story, from growing up in South St. Paul with a truck-driving dad, to maintaining his own hard-driving no-tax stance as governor at a State Capitol now dominated by Democrats.

Like Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and almost every other so-called GOP “frontrunner,” Pawlenty is a creationist, who’s in favor of teaching “intelligent design” creationism to children as science. When the news came out that Sarah Palin had stated she wanted to teach “intelligent design” last year, Pawlenty rushed to agree with her:

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

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

Then, of course, Palin reversed her position and said she did not believe in teaching creationism. Big oopsie for Pawlenty!

In that interview with Tom Brokaw, Pawlenty went on to spout talking points from the Discovery Institute, and attempted to dodge the issue of whether creationism should be part of school curricula. But he made it very clear that he’s a creationist himself:

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

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

MR. BROKAW: Given equal weight.

GOV. PAWLENTY: — of the local school board.

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

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

In other words, if local school boards want to teach nonsensical pseudo-science to schoolchildren, Pawlenty’s just fine with that. After all, he believes the pseudo-science himself.

(Notice that Pawlenty doesn’t distinguish between “intelligent design” and creationism. The true believers know that ID is a facade for good old-fashioned creationism, despite the Discovery Institute’s massive propaganda campaign to mislead people into believing it isn’t.)

This is a huge problem for the GOP, and it’s one reason why Democrats control both houses of Congress. If the GOP puts up a creationist for president, expect to see Democrats in power for the next 8 years (at least).

Jump to bottom

653 comments
1 aryehbak  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 10:58:32am

Can someone help a lizard out?

For some reason my blog reader (Thunderbird 2.0) is all of the sudden telling me that the RSS feed to LGF is not a valid RSS feed. It’s actually been a couple of days now and it’s driving me crazy. Any ideas??

I rebooted, tried two different ISPs, etc… just seem to be totally stuck now.

Thanks!

2 Desert Dog  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:00:04am

Even if Obama keeps hitting icebergs, the GOP has to get it’s Poop in a Group if it wants to get back into relevance. Sad days, sad, sad days indeed

3 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:00:11am
4 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:00:15am

Five bucks on #390.

5 Buck  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:00:18am

delete the RSS feed and start over.

6 turn  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:00:24am

Religion and politics don’t mix.

7 aryehbak  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:01:30am

re: #5 Buck

Thanks, Buck. Tried that already (like 5 times). Thanks though!

8 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:01:36am

And this is a problem? Is he appearing as a creationist or a republican politician? And I know that sates rights are very important to conservatives, which is what it appears that he is advocating.

9 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:01:44am
We’ve said in Minnesota, in my view, this is a local decision. Intelligent design is something that, in my view, is plausible and credible and something that I personally believe in but, more importantly, from an educational and scientific standpoint, it should be decided by local school boards at the local school district level.

Hasn’t heard of Kitzmiller, eh?

10 Kreuzueber Halbmond  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:03:25am

Note to Republicans:

Pawlease don’t pick the Pawlenty, man.

11 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:03:43am

re: #3 buzzsawmonkey

I’d be willing to bet that there are a lot of creationists among religious Democrats, in some of their core ethnic consituencies.

A fact which is well below the radar.

BTW, … “consituencies” … consitering how you spelled that, … :D … preview would’ve been your friend.

12 HelloDare  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:03:56am

How much would Obama have to screw up for a creationist to be elected President? The mind boggles. I don’t think a creationist stands a chance.

13 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:04:00am

re: #3 buzzsawmonkey

I’d be willing to bet that there are a lot of creationists among religious Democrats, in some of their core ethnic consituencies.

Dem candidates aren’t running on creationism.

Religious Democrats, who may or may not be creationists— aren’t in line with the idea of creationism in schools.

That’s a Republican plank, and as Charles notes, a losing one. Anti-science. Anti-intellectualism.

14 Kragar  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:04:36am

I’m tempted to go down there and protest about how I want these educational throw backs out of my party.

15 Desert Dog  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:04:46am

re: #10 Kreuzueber Halbmond

Note to Republicans:

Pawlease don’t pick the Pawlenty, man.

OK,

Palin?

Jindal?

Huckabee?

I wish Rudy would have pulled his head out last time around…

16 jaunte  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:04:52am

Ah, wilderness.

17 lawhawk  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:05:06am

I disagree with your contention that the GOP are likely going to lose because of the creationist policies of their top tier candidates (Pawlenty, Jindal, etc.). It has much more to do with the fact that the GOP isn’t distinguishable from the Democrats on controlling spending and being fiscally responsible. If GOPs return to the fiscal conservatism, they’ll have a chance to retake the WH in 2012 (and make gains in both House and Senate in 2010) because there will be clear differences between D and GOP. Failing that, the public looks to those other issues - and sees that Democrats will outspend Republicans on various issues. Some might consider the creationism crap spewed by Pawlenty and Jindal and others and choose to vote against them, but who are their alternatives going to be? Ron Paul? Seriously. What are the fiscal conservatives going to do?

That’s why the next candidate for President has to be a fiscal conservative first and foremost, coupled with a strong on national defense stance. Democrats might rightfully attempt to make an issue of a creationist candidate - and they’d be right on that mark, but prioritizing those issues puts the creationism lagging well behind.

18 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:05:15am
19 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:05:47am

re: #3 buzzsawmonkey

I’d be willing to bet that there are a lot of creationists among religious Democrats, in some of their core ethnic consituencies.

There are. There’s a pastor in Chicago who is a Biblical literalist and has worked very closely with Democratic politicians.

20 Kragar  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:06:15am

re: #15 Desert Dog

OK,

Palin?

Jindal?

Huckabee?

I wish Rudy would have pulled his head out last time around…

Romney

21 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:06:24am

re: #8 Walter L. Newton

And this is a problem? Is he appearing as a creationist or a republican politician? And I know that sates rights are very important to conservatives, which is what it appears that he is advocating.

I’m not going to buy his so-called “principled” stand for local control of this issue. He very conveniently forgot about it when he signed a state wide smoking ban. Where was the local discretion to decide then?

22 JammieWearingFool  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:06:58am

I’ll be in the neighborhood July 30. Maybe I should go talk some sense into these guys.

23 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:07:07am

re: #18 buzzsawmonkey

I’ve been doing a lot of typos lately, for some reason. Either my keyboard, I’m losing it, or a combination of both.

It’s OBVIOUSLY the keyboard!

24 tedzilla99  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:07:53am

Sarah Palin didn’t reverse her position, she never said it. Get it right.

25 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:08:18am

re: #21 Sharmuta

I’m not going to buy his so-called “principled” stand for local control of this issue. He very conveniently forgot about it when he signed a state wide smoking ban. Where was the local discretion to decide then?

That was a statewide problem which he dealt with. Smoking problem crosses local government concerns, just like we have a federal government to take care of nationwide concerns.

You can’t have it both ways Sharm.

26 subsailor68  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:08:30am

re: #18 buzzsawmonkey

I’ve been doing a lot of typos lately, for some reason. Either my keyboard, I’m losing it, or a combination of both.

You’re not really in trouble until you misspell the word ‘typo’.

;-)

27 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:08:40am

re: #17 lawhawk

I disagree with your contention that the GOP are likely going to lose because of the creationist policies of their top tier candidates (Pawlenty, Jindal, etc.).

There’s absolutely no doubt that this is a serious losing issue for the GOP; it’s part of the overall perception — not entirely mistaken — that GOP politicians are anti-intellectual and anti-science. Almost every top GOP politician espouses creationism; this is a real problem.

28 tedzilla99  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:08:49am

re: #1 aryehbak

Can someone help a lizard out?

For some reason my blog reader (Thunderbird 2.0) is all of the sudden telling me that the RSS feed to LGF is not a valid RSS feed. It’s actually been a couple of days now and it’s driving me crazy. Any ideas??

I rebooted, tried two different ISPs, etc… just seem to be totally stuck now.

Thanks!

My Firefox live bookmark hasn’t been working either.

29 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:08:56am
30 jaunte  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:09:33am

Sarah Palin:
“Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”
[Link: www.wired.com…]

31 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:09:34am

Romney seems to be considered a front-runner, and isn’t a creationist.
He also would bring excellent economic credentials. If the economy still sucks in 3 years, he’ll be in a very good position.

32 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:09:42am

re: #24 tedzilla99

Sarah Palin didn’t reverse her position, she never said it. Get it right.

You’re wrong. Sarah Palin did say she was in favor of teaching creationism, then reversed her position. It’s well documented, and I don’t know why you’re denying it.

33 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:09:48am

re: #17 lawhawk

I disagree with your contention that the GOP are likely going to lose because of the creationist policies of their top tier candidates (Pawlenty, Jindal, etc.)..

Look. I’m totally with you fiscal conservatism, etc. But this creationist crap scares away centrists, moderates, Democrats, and most of the Republican party. And rightly so.

I’ll never vote for anyone or any party that promotes this sort of anti-science tripe. Never.

34 Kreuzueber Halbmond  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:09:59am

re: #15 Desert Dog

None of the above. I think Rudy might have made a good President, but his star has faded for 2012 in my view.

35 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:10:15am

re: #27 Charles

There’s absolutely no doubt that this is a serious losing issue for the GOP; it’s part of the overall perception — not entirely mistaken — that GOP politicians are anti-intellectual and anti-science. Almost every top GOP politician espouses creationism; this is a real problem.

Not if they win.

36 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:10:26am

re: #31 Kosh’s Shadow

Romney seems to be considered a front-runner, and isn’t a creationist.
He also would bring excellent economic credentials. If the economy still sucks in 3 years, he’ll be in a very good position.

I’m not so sure it will be an “if”, I’m pretty sure it will be a “when”.

37 quickjustice  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:10:58am

Politicians like Pawlenty are entitled to their religious beliefs, but they’re selecting themselves out of contention for higher office. In fact, anyone who forces his or her religious beliefs on others, or uses his or her office to do so, is unfit for public office.

38 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:11:07am
39 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:11:18am

Obama’s Science Czar Considered Forced Abortions, Sterilization as Population Growth Solutions
John Holdren, director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, considered compulsory abortions and other Draconian measures to shrink the human population in a 1977 science textbook.

[Link: www.foxnews.com…]

Creationism of the “left”?

40 Ojoe  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:11:24am

Go Pawlenty! Send more sensible people to the Modern Whig Party!

Sensible people need to band together, and get organized.

41 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:11:28am

re: #17 lawhawk

I lived through the Republican in office drought, the way we managed to influence and keep things in bounds when we were a minority was by being more adult, exactly your points. However you can’t be adult and be less than credible on science in today’s world. Pawlenty isn’t credible through his support for DI / ID.

42 Russkilitlover  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:11:31am

I don’t have a problem with a politicians personal religious beliefs. If you’re a creationist, fine; a catholic, fine; jewish, fine; hindu, fine…etc. (My jury is still out on Muslim, but hey, I’ve got a memory that’s at least 8 years long).

The GOP runs into trouble with such folks because they try to portray themselves as the “family values” group and think that religion is the only measure of family values.

The Dems don’t have this sticking point, so they’re politicians religious views are a moot point.

It’s the holier-than-thou that gets the GOP into trouble, no matter what the religious beliefs.

43 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:11:32am

re: #35 Walter L. Newton

Not if they win.

But they won’t. Not if they endorse creationism.

44 pianobuff  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:12:00am

This discussion makes me wonder how Reagan ever got elected. Thoughts anyone?

45 KenJen  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:12:02am

My state of Kentucky recently interviewed 4 candidates for Education Commissioner, one of which was a creationist. She wasn’t picked.

46 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:12:29am

Other Lizards have put this far better …

Belief in creationism is unscientific, but in and of itself it’s not anti-science.

Apart from the DI kooks and wanna-be theocrats, the average person who believes in new-Earth creationism can maintain compartmentalized thinking.

47 lawhawk  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:12:51am

re: #27 Charles

I agree that it’s a problem, but disagree with just how big a problem it is. When the GOP moved away from fiscal responsibility, it opened up a whole can of worms from which the GOP will not soon recover - including exposing the creationist bent of many of the top tier candidates.

48 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:12:54am

re: #10 Kreuzueber Halbmond

Note to Republicans:

Pawlease don’t pick the Pawlenty, man.

Has Romney ever said anything wacky and anti-science?

49 Ojoe  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:13:06am

re: #27 Charles

It is a real problem.

It’s a toaster and it’s plugged in.

They’re jamming the handle.

It smells too hot already.

I think the GOP is toast.

50 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:13:14am
51 Desert Dog  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:13:20am

re: #43 iceweasel

But they won’t. Not if they endorse creationism.

Liberal Death March

Looks like it will come down to who sucks the least next time around.

52 tedzilla99  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:13:27am

re: #32 Charles

You’re wrong. Sarah Palin did say she was in favor of teaching creationism, then reversed her position. It’s well documented, and I don’t know why you’re denying it.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

53 Russkilitlover  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:13:59am

re: #39 Nevergiveup

Obama’s Science Czar Considered Forced Abortions, Sterilization as Population Growth Solutions
John Holdren, director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, considered compulsory abortions and other Draconian measures to shrink the human population in a 1977 science textbook.

[Link: www.foxnews.com…]

Creationism of the “left”?

De-creationism.

54 The Curmudgeon  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:14:09am

The only Republican contender at the moment who is known NOT to be a creationist is Romney. Some of the others haven’t spoken up on the issue yet. Palin’s a creationist, but she hasn’t made any move to mess up education, and she’s said she doesn’t want to. She’s okay on the creationism issue. As long as she keeps it to herself, I can overlook it. Newt does a lot of pandering, but he’s probably okay on creationism. Not a great field so far.

55 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:14:13am

re: #44 pianobuff

This discussion makes me wonder how Reagan ever got elected. Thoughts anyone?

He downplayed the SoCon agenda, and played up the fiscally conservative strong on defense platform. The Internet wasn’t really the factor it is now back then however. Nowadays you can’t hide your support for niche and single issue groups.

56 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:14:27am

re: #25 Walter L. Newton

That was a statewide problem which he dealt with. Smoking problem crosses local government concerns, just like we have a federal government to take care of nationwide concerns.

Education standards aren’t a statewide issue? Nonsense! Of course they are. If the legislature passed a statewide stealth creationist bill, you can bet your sweet bippy he’d ditch local control pretty damned fast to sign it.

You can’t have it both ways Sharm.

Unless you’re a politician- then you can.

57 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:14:30am
58 quickjustice  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:14:44am

re: #39 Nevergiveup

Forced sterilizations and forced abortions = “Destructionism”? I was shocked when Justice Ginsberg admitted that as a law professor, she thought Roe v. Wade was about keeping minority populations under control, not about a woman’s individual “right to choose” abortion.

Her viewpoint again exposes the “soft” racism of the left. Not so soft, is it?

59 Conservative in Liberal Hands  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:15:12am

re: #44 pianobuff

This discussion makes me wonder how Reagan ever got elected. Thoughts anyone?

Two words… “Jimmy Carter”.

60 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:15:27am

re: #44 pianobuff

This discussion makes me wonder how Reagan ever got elected. Thoughts anyone?

Reagan spoke to a broadly unifying set of issues. He made Americans feel involved with one another, rather than encouraging them to feel superior huddled in their separate little categories.

61 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:15:29am

re: #44 pianobuff

This discussion makes me wonder how Reagan ever got elected. Thoughts anyone?

Two words spring to mind… Jimmy Carter.

I know that’s not the only reason, but it sure helped.

62 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:15:40am

re: #51 Desert Dog

Liberal Death March

Looks like it will come down to who sucks the least next time around.

Not a fan of Brooks here.

63 LGoPs  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:15:53am

re: #18 buzzsawmonkey

I’ve been doing a lot of typos lately, for some reason. Either my keyboard, I’m losing it, or a combination of both.

Just do what I do. When someone points out a typo I challenge them and say that that is precisely how I intended to type it. And then I stick my tongue out.

64 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:15:58am

re: #58 quickjustice

Forced sterilizations and forced abortions = “Destructionism”? I was shocked when Justice Ginsberg admitted that as a law professor, she thought Roe v. Wade was about keeping minority populations under control, not about a woman’s individual “right to choose” abortion.

Her viewpoint again exposes the “soft” racism of the left. Not so soft, is it?

The left is just as crazy as the right.

65 pianobuff  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:16:02am

re: #55 Thanos

He downplayed the SoCon agenda, and played up the fiscally conservative strong on defense platform. The Internet wasn’t really the factor it is now back then however. Nowadays you can’t hide your support for niche and single issue groups.

So I guess Reagan wouldn’t get elected today.

66 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:16:04am

re: #59 Conservative in Liberal Hands

Two words… “Jimmy Carter”.

Dang, I’ve been slow on the ball all day today. *bow*

67 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:16:19am
68 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:16:24am

re: #52 tedzilla99

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

Why did you leave out this link, that shows very clearly that she DID say she wanted to teach creationism?

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

It’s a fact. Sarah Palin changed her position when she was criticized for wanting to teach creationism.

69 lawhawk  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:16:26am

re: #33 iceweasel

So, when facing either Obama whose deficit spending and budget busting ways throw the nation’s fiscal situation into a death spiral, and the GOP alternative is a creationist, you’re going to vote for which candidate?

I will hold my nose and vote for the one that will stop spending worse than any drunken soldier on a bender in Bangkok. I wont vote for a 3d party candidate either since it will only increase the likelihood of Obama being reelected.

I have yet to vote for any candidate in any election that I’ve been 100% supportive of because my views and their statements concur 100%. I just know what I’ve seen from Obama and know that the GOP can put up someone better. I hope it isn’t a creationist, but if it is, I might still hold my nose and vote GOP because the alternatives are far worse.

70 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:16:32am

re: #56 Sharmuta

Unless you’re a politician- then you can.

And what’s the problem, we have statewide school boards, local school boards, all sorts of input at the state and local level. let them work it out. You want to control everything from DC. Sounds like a liberal.

71 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:16:38am

re: #65 pianobuff

So I guess Reagan wouldn’t get elected today.

Well he’s dead, but hey I’d still vote for him.

72 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:16:50am
73 pianobuff  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:17:11am

re: #71 Nevergiveup

Well he’s dead, but hey I’d still vote for him.

I guess you’d be the only one here that would though.

74 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:17:28am

re: #69 lawhawk

So, when facing either Obama whose deficit spending and budget busting ways throw the nation’s fiscal situation into a death spiral, and the GOP alternative is a creationist, you’re going to vote for which candidate?

I will hold my nose and vote for the one that will stop spending worse than any drunken soldier on a bender in Bangkok. I wont vote for a 3d party candidate either since it will only increase the likelihood of Obama being reelected.

I have yet to vote for any candidate in any election that I’ve been 100% supportive of because my views and their statements concur 100%. I just know what I’ve seen from Obama and know that the GOP can put up someone better. I hope it isn’t a creationist, but if it is, I might still hold my nose and vote GOP because the alternatives are far worse.

I’m with you!

75 Kreuzueber Halbmond  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:17:40am

re: #48 SanFranciscoZionist

Has Romney ever said anything wacky and anti-science?

Don’t know - probably. Republicans need a fresh face for 2012… one with more than a modicum of common sense.

76 dwells38  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:17:42am

I won’t vote for a creationist. They’re going to lose a lot of people if they continue on this road. I

77 doppelganglander  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:17:47am

I think Pawlenty’s biggest problem is that he’s dull as dishwater. Romney is not exactly Mr. Excitement either, but he does inspire trust and admiration because of his success in business.

78 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:17:56am

re: #70 Walter L. Newton

You want to control everything from DC.

Where the hell did I say that?!

79 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:17:58am

re: #73 pianobuff

I guess you’d be the only one here that would though.

Oh?

80 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:18:12am

re: #73 pianobuff

I guess you’d be the only one here that would though.

Not so sure about that

81 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:18:29am

re: #71 Nevergiveup

Well he’s dead, but hey I’d still vote for him.

Zombie Reagan for President.

Yes, we can (eat brains (of democratic idiots*)).

*In no way do I believe all democrats are idiots.

82 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:18:35am

re: #29 taxfreekiller

Fringe left of the Democrat Party leadership of the House and Senate tell Obama he sound to much like Bush.

[Link: www.drudgereport.com…]

talk about bad pork processing…



The letter was signed by Reps. David Obey of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, as well as Reps. Nita Lowey and Gregory Meeks, both of New York, who chair subcommittees on those panels.

Kooks.

But then, if a president thinks that some things passed by the Congress are unconstitutional, and infringe on presidential powers, he has a right to disagree.

83 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:18:41am

re: #71 Nevergiveup

Well he’s dead, but hey I’d still vote for him.

Old Bloom County strip—a guy in Mondale hat walks up to Milo and says “Democratic National Convention?” Milo replies “Meadow Party”.

“Oh yeah,” says the guy. “Who have you got to go up against Reagan in the fall?”

“A dead cat,” says Milo.

The Mondale guy shrugs and walks in.

84 subsailor68  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:18:42am

re: #63 LGoPs

Just do what I do. When someone points out a typo I challenge them and say that that is precisely how I intended to type it. And then I stick my tongue out.

LOL!! Just like a jazz solo. If ya miss a note, it’s a mistake. If during the next chorus you play the same note again - it’s improv!!

;-)

85 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:18:51am

re: #60 SanFranciscoZionist

Reagan spoke to a broadly unifying set of issues. He made Americans feel involved with one another, rather than encouraging them to feel superior huddled in their separate little categories.

That’s right. Reagan also made people feel optimistic. “Morning in America”. He united people.

Like it or not, Obam won because he has many of the same rhetorical and charismatic qualities as Reagan.

86 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:18:56am

re: #77 doppelganglander

I think Pawlenty’s biggest problem is that he’s dull as dishwater.

I’m sorry. I can only click the + button one time.

87 pingjockey  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:18:58am

re: #73 pianobuff

Don’t be so sure.

88 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:18:59am

re: #76 dwells38

I won’t vote for a creationist. They’re going to lose a lot of people if they continue on this road. I

I’ll vote for the creationist over the socialist.

89 tedzilla99  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:19:03am

re: #68 Charles

Why did you leave out this link, that shows very clearly that she DID say she wanted to teach creationism?

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

It’s a fact. Sarah Palin changed her position when she was criticized for wanting to teach creationism.

You write: “So I was disturbed to learn of Sarah Palin’s apparent support for creationism. However, as I posted in a comment earlier, she does not appear to be the fanatical type who wants to force or sneak the teaching of creationism into public school science classrooms.”
and:
“Looks like Palin made an off-the-cuff statement during a debate on a hot topic, didn’t really expect the criticism she’d get, and then softened her position considerably in a follow-up interview. But to quote just the first part of her statements on creationism and ignore the second is misleading; because in the clarification she’s describing a position that doesn’t cause me (a staunch anti-creationist) any discomfort.”

90 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:19:18am
91 Conservative in Liberal Hands  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:19:20am

re: #66 MrSilverDragon

Dang, I’ve been slow on the ball all day today. *bow*

“Thank you! Thank you , very much!” Mr. El;vis Presley

92 JohnnyReb  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:19:40am

re: #51 Desert Dog

Liberal Death March

Looks like it will come down to who sucks the least next time around.

Once the independents realize exactly how much Obama and Pelosi are planning on spending the Dems are gonna lose big time. Lets face it The Indies are the ones who actually decide national elections these days, and if one can believe the polls, they are starting to express their displeasure.

93 chicagodudewhotrades  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:19:45am

re: #44 pianobuff

That is simple. 2 words: ‘Jimmy Carter’

94 LGoPs  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:20:13am

re: #69 lawhawk

So, when facing either Obama whose deficit spending and budget busting ways throw the nation’s fiscal situation into a death spiral, and the GOP alternative is a creationist, you’re going to vote for which candidate?

I will hold my nose and vote for the one that will stop spending worse than any drunken soldier on a bender in Bangkok. I wont vote for a 3d party candidate either since it will only increase the likelihood of Obama being reelected.

I have yet to vote for any candidate in any election that I’ve been 100% supportive of because my views and their statements concur 100%. I just know what I’ve seen from Obama and know that the GOP can put up someone better. I hope it isn’t a creationist, but if it is, I might still hold my nose and vote GOP because the alternatives are far worse.

Now that is a sensible position.

95 pingjockey  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:20:15am

Later folks.

96 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:20:34am
97 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:20:55am

bbl

98 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:20:55am

re: #89 tedzilla99

You write: “So I was disturbed to learn of Sarah Palin’s apparent support for creationism. However, as I posted in a comment earlier, she does not appear to be the fanatical type who wants to force or sneak the teaching of creationism into public school science classrooms.”
and:
“Looks like Palin made an off-the-cuff statement during a debate on a hot topic, didn’t really expect the criticism she’d get, and then softened her position considerably in a follow-up interview. But to quote just the first part of her statements on creationism and ignore the second is misleading; because in the clarification she’s describing a position that doesn’t cause me (a staunch anti-creationist) any discomfort.”

That’s right. She changed her position. She advocated teaching creationism, was criticized for it, and then backed away from the issue.

99 pianobuff  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:20:57am

re: #79 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Oh?

A little snarky I guess. Just a take on some of the comments that sound like a general consensus (or at least a majority) that creationist views would be a deal-breaker for an R candidate. I’m sure I’m wrong actually, but it’s interesting how many single-issue voters there are. More than I thought.

100 Ojoe  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:21:17am

re: #96 taxfreekiller

Don’t get banned.

101 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:21:21am

re: #36 MrSilverDragon

I’m not so sure it will be an “if”, I’m pretty sure it will be a “when”.

Bernanke said today that the Fed would hold down inflation. The thing is, how? By cranking interest rates up to 20+ percent, like Volcker did in the early ’80s? Or by Obamanite smoke and mirrors, and spin?

102 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:22:07am
103 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:22:12am

re: #99 pianobuff

A little snarky I guess. Just a take on some of the comments that sound like a general consensus (or at least a majority) that creationist views would be a deal-breaker for an R candidate. I’m sure I’m wrong actually, but it’s interesting how many single-issue voters there are. More than I thought.

I would vote for a creationist. If someone was otherwise good for America, I wouldn’t be annoyed if they were utterly dim on science. But they would have to convince me that they would keep their beliefs OUT of education, medical research, etc., etc., etc.

104 Kragar  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:22:24am

re: #48 SanFranciscoZionist

Has Romney ever said anything wacky and anti-science?

Romney Elaborates on Evolution

Mr. Romney, a devout Mormon, surprised some observers when he was not among those Republican candidates who raised their hands last week when asked at the Republican presidential debate if they did not believe in evolution. (Senator Sam Brownback, former Gov. Mike Huckabee and Representative Tom Tancredo said they did not.)

“I believe that God designed the universe and created the universe,” Mr. Romney said in an interview this week. “And I believe evolution is most likely the process he used to create the human body.”

He was asked: Is that intelligent design?

“I’m not exactly sure what is meant by intelligent design,” he said. “But I believe God is intelligent and I believe he designed the creation. And I believe he used the process of evolution to create the human body.”

While governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Romney opposed the teaching of intelligent design in science classes.

“In my opinion, the science class is where to teach evolution, or if there are other scientific thoughts that need to be discussed,” he said. “If we’re going to talk about more philosophical matters, like why it was created, and was there an intelligent designer behind it, that’s for the religion class or philosophy class or social studies
class.”

105 Russkilitlover  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:22:34am

re: #73 pianobuff

I guess you’d be the only one here that would though.

Chalk up my vote for Reagan. There are enough tapes and footage of Reagan that we could just pop in a sound bite at the appropriate occasion. Everything Reagan said then is applicable today, maybe even more so.

106 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:22:53am

re: #104 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Well heck. That sounds pretty sensible.

107 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:23:22am

re: #71 Nevergiveup

Well he’s dead, but hey I’d still vote for him.

I just started reading The Reagan Diaries, edited by Douglas Brinkley. I can’t wait to get further in (past the introduction).

108 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:23:26am

Creationism is far from the only problem the GOP has. It’s the tip of the iceberg, showing the death grip the religious right has on the party, driving politicians to support anti-science positions despite the fact that science education is more important than ever before.

109 tedzilla99  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:23:30am

re: #98 Charles

That’s right. She changed her position. She advocated teaching creationism, was criticized for it, and backed away from the issue.

You said that it was an off the cuff comment, and in subsequent posts stated unequivocally that she has never pushed ID in the schools. So, to say she reversed her position, which sounds like she has pushed it, is not accurate. AND, when other places stated that she did support it during the election, you took them to task, which is what I linked to. So, it’s either one or the other.

110 Desert Dog  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:23:35am

re: #62 iceweasel

Not a fan of Brooks here.

What about Gallup? Do you like Gallup?

Obama Third Least Popular Since WWII

111 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:23:38am
112 JustABill  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:23:54am

I would love to see Mitt at the top of the ticket. Unfortunately he’ll have a much harder time in the primary than in a general election…

113 J.S.  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:23:56am

I believe the creationism problem with the GOP arises due to the fact that leftists will use it as a smear…(James Carville has a line which I’m not going to quote which, basically, smears his opponents as dumb-ass knuckle-draggers…(ironically, demonizing The South) — anyway, the “creationism” image in the public’s mind reinforces the notion that the GOP are “out-of-date”, behind the times, anti-modern, anti-intellectuals.

114 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:24:03am

I’m voting for this guy.

115 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:24:08am

re: #99 pianobuff

A little snarky I guess. Just a take on some of the comments that sound like a general consensus (or at least a majority) that creationist views would be a deal-breaker for an R candidate. I’m sure I’m wrong actually, but it’s interesting how many single-issue voters there are. More than I thought.

Remember there are more than a few liberals here masquerading as dissatisfied conservatives.

116 scottishbuzzsaw  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:24:11am

re: #106 SanFranciscoZionist

Well heck. That sounds pretty sensible.

Can we clone Romney?

117 Kragar  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:24:21am

re: #106 SanFranciscoZionist

Well heck. That sounds pretty sensible.

You can see why he is considered unelectable by the MSM. Scary stuff there.

118 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:24:32am
119 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:24:37am

re: #105 Russkilitlover

Chalk up my vote for Reagan. There are enough tapes and footage of Reagan that we could just pop in a sound bite at the appropriate occasion. Everything Reagan said then is applicable today, maybe even more so.

To 0bama? “There you go again.”

120 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:24:47am

re: #101 Ward Cleaver

Bernanke said today that the Fed would hold down inflation. The thing is, how? By cranking interest rates up to 20+ percent, like Volcker did in the early ’80s? Or by Obamanite smoke and mirrors, and spin?

Unfortunately, there almost always seems to be a disconnect between what the people in power say, and what actually happens.

That, and smoke does dissipate and mirrors crack over time.

121 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:24:48am

re: #115 Nevergiveup

Remember there are more than a few liberals here masquerading as dissatisfied conservatives.

I’m not masquerading, I’m just hanging out. But I promised my Mom I wouldn’t become a Republican due to bad companions.

122 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:24:59am

re: #109 tedzilla99

You said that it was an off the cuff comment, and in subsequent posts stated unequivocally that she has never pushed ID in the schools. So, to say she reversed her position, which sounds like she has pushed it, is not accurate. AND, when other places stated that she did support it during the election, you took them to task, which is what I linked to. So, it’s either one or the other.

She said she wanted to teach intelligent design. Then she changed her position. I have no idea why you’re denying this when the words are right in front of you.

123 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:25:02am

re: #48 SanFranciscoZionist

Has Romney ever said anything wacky and anti-science?

I don’t think so. In Mass, they’d be all over him if he said something anti-science.

124 jackflash  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:25:11am

I have to disagree with those who have posted here who say that this is not a serious problem for the Repubs. I agree that fiscal and defense issues are most important, but elections are pretty close nowadays. As people not alligned with a party (I used to be a Demo, she a Repub), neither my wife nor I could bring ourselves to vote for a Jindal or anyone who expresses support for the intelligent design silliness. I guess if there’s a large difference in those first two issues we might relent, but it’ll have to be a pretty big difference.

Thank you, Charles, for keeping this topic on top of the pile and for taking the reasonable stance you’ve taken. One last thing: We donate to campaigns we like, and while we might drag our tired and overworked big butts to the polls and grudgingly vote for the Repub, we certainly won’t send any money to him or her if they are intelligent design supporters. The GOP needs to know there are probably plenty of independents who feel the same way.

125 Russkilitlover  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:25:11am

re: #85 iceweasel

That’s right. Reagan also made people feel optimistic. “Morning in America”. He united people.

Like it or not, Obam won because he has many of the same rhetorical and charismatic qualities as Reagan.

I agree. Even though Obama is the polar opposite of Reagan. Reagan made everyone feel good about being an American; Obama not so much. Reagan inspired optimism and real hope for the future, as well as the confidence to never doubt; Obama not so much. Reagan was proud to stand by American values when dealing in foreign affairs; Obama…not at all.

126 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:25:32am

re: #38 buzzsawmonkey

I absolutely agree that it’s a stupid issue for Republicans to run on.

It is even more stupid for the Republicans, and whatever major backers they have in the religious community, not to get together and agree to deep-six it as a political issue.

It is also stupid to forget that a goodly number of our past Presidents were almost certainly creationists, yet were able leaders.

But Buzz, some of our past Presidents also undoubtedly thought that man could never walk on the moon, or fly. And some of them certainly thought that women shouldn’t vote, or black people, and so on.

Times change. I wouldn’t want to elect someone now who believed the earth was 6,000 years old, or that man could never fly, or that women shouldn’t vote.

It would harm the country now if we had a POTUS who was that ignorant.

127 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:25:36am

re: #117 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

You can see why he is considered unelectable by the MSM. Scary stuff there.

Dunno. Based on the MSM I assumed he was unstoppable, until he was stopped. Surprised me.

128 JohnnyReb  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:25:37am

re: #101 Ward Cleaver

Bernanke said today that the Fed would hold down inflation. The thing is, how? By cranking interest rates up to 20+ percent, like Volcker did in the early ’80s? Or by Obamanite smoke and mirrors, and spin?

There is no way they can do all of the bailouts and keep inflation in check. It is a bald faced lie and they know it. We are going to have to pay for this debt Obama is accumulating and pay for it soon. That means significant inflation in the double digits just like the 70s and 80s. They plan on inflating our debt to China away.

129 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:25:38am

re: #65 pianobuff

So I guess Reagan wouldn’t get elected today.

He might not. You have to look at demographics, and the “augmented intelligence” created by the internet of today’s electorate. If you don’t you are foolish. The bow wave of coming “D” voters is huge, while the largest part of the R demographic is aged to very aged. Many of them will die before 2012.

The elder statesmen in the party need to let some younger people start leading with positive ideas, not anti-this and anti-that or the trend will just get worse. The anti-science streak in the Republican party is just one symptom of the insularity and closing down of conservative thought. We can’t allow that to continue.

130 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:26:08am

re: #112 JustABill

I would love to see Mitt at the top of the ticket. Unfortunately he’ll have a much harder time in the primary than in a general election…



Poll: Romney, Obama in dead heat for ’12

131 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:26:48am

re: #128 JohnnyReb

There is no way they can do all of the bailouts and keep inflation in check. It is a bald faced lie and they know it. We are going to have to pay for this debt Obama is accumulating and pay for it soon. That means significant inflation in the double digits just like the 70s and 80s. They plan on inflating our debt to China away.

We could start wearing clothes from the ’70s as a silent protest.

/or maybe not

132 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:27:02am

re: #108 Charles

Creationism is far from the only problem the GOP has. It’s the tip of the iceberg, showing the death grip the religious right has on the party, driving politicians to support anti-science positions despite the fact that science education is more important than ever before.

The creationism goes hand in hand with the anti-intellectualism. The academic freedom bills meant for college campuses could very easily be used to promote creationism:

[Link: www.reason.com…]

133 Kragar  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:27:52am

re: #127 SanFranciscoZionist

Dunno. Based on the MSM I assumed he was unstoppable, until he was stopped. Surprised me.

There was a big stink saying he was unelectable simply because he was a mormon. He had a pretty good shot going until Huckabee made a deal with McCain and undercut him in the WV primary.

134 tedzilla99  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:28:16am

re: #122 Charles

She said she wanted to teach intelligent design. Then she changed her position. I have no idea why you’re denying this when the words are right in front of you.

You’re overstating one comment [vs. a long list of comments to the contrary] to compare it to other politicians who have pushed the idea a lot harder. I read every single one of your posts on her and ID and what you’re saying today is way different than what you said when you were defending her. No worries - people can read what you wrote today vs. the previous posts and make up their own minds.

135 sngnsgt  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:28:23am

re: #112 JustABill

I would love to see Mitt at the top of the ticket. Unfortunately he’ll have a much harder time in the primary than in a general election…

If Mitt had run this time, 0bama wouldn’t have won by the margin he did.

136 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:28:23am

re: #131 Ward Cleaver

We could start wearing clothes from the ’70s as a silent protest.

/or maybe not

No way. Polyester makes me break out in hives.

I’ll continue to wear my hair long, however… until the wife-to-be tells me I can’t.

137 LGoPs  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:28:37am

re: #99 pianobuff

A little snarky I guess. Just a take on some of the comments that sound like a general consensus (or at least a majority) that creationist views would be a deal-breaker for an R candidate. I’m sure I’m wrong actually, but it’s interesting how many single-issue voters there are. More than I thought.

Not for me. I would look at the whole man or woman and judge that way.
I’m not a creationist but I don’t see this as the boogeyman that others do.
I see some real boogeymen out there and the greatest danger isn’t from creationsists, IMO.

138 AuntAcid  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:28:38am

OT

Gore gets chilly “reception”.

[Link: www.tennessean.com…]

139 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:28:44am
140 dwells38  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:29:14am

re: #88 Nevergiveup

Right I won’t vote for socialist Obama ever either so I guess I wouldn’t vote.

I should also say I don’t mind if someone’s a creationist as part of their Christian belief but doesn’t believe it belongs in science classes or anywhere in schools. That’s OK and their business.

Besides I suspect most of these politicians espousing creationism are cynically trying to shore up base votes. They think the country’s going whacky right and they want to be there first.

Like the supposed Christian far left liberal Dems that go to church in the morning and screw the interns in the afternoon aren’t really Christians either. Just a cynical hedge because statistically most Americans are to some degree observing Christians.

141 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:29:25am

re: #125 Russkilitlover

I agree. Even though Obama is the polar opposite of Reagan. Reagan made everyone feel good about being an American; Obama not so much. Reagan inspired optimism and real hope for the future, as well as the confidence to never doubt; Obama not so much. Reagan was proud to stand by American values when dealing in foreign affairs; Obama…not at all.

Reagan offered real hope (not only to Americans, but to all those trapped in the Soviet Union, and behind the Iron Curtain), while 0bama offered fake hope.

142 doppelganglander  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:29:55am

re: #104 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Excellent. In fact, I think Romney could be exactly the person to break the stranglehold the extreme religious right has on the party. They will obviously oppose him because he’s a Mormon. Huckabee is certain to be their mouthpiece. He has to hit back hard at that, very early, and expose them as bigots. If he can marginalize them, he’ll gain a lot of independent voters. The creationist politicians may or not genuinely believe what they say, but they do feel it’s politically necessary to support creationism in order to court the fundamentalist vote. Romney has a chance to stand up and say there’s no place for bigotry in the GOP. The fundamentalists are not exactly going to vote for Obama — they’ll just stay home, while moderates and independents would feel much more comfortable voting for Mitt. Everybody wins - Mitt, the GOP, and most of all the nation.

143 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:30:10am

re: #135 sngnsgt

If Mitt had run this time, 0bama wouldn’t have won by the margin he did.

Yes, because Mitt would have kept running instead of giving up.

144 Kreuzueber Halbmond  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:30:19am

Americans want a leader who will take them higher, not take them to church.

145 Desert Dog  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:30:25am

re: #141 Ward Cleaver

Reagan offered real hope (not only to Americans, but to all those trapped in the Soviet Union, and behind the Iron Curtain), while 0bama offered fake hope.

Obama has offered his middle finger to people living under despots or would-be despots so far…hardly inspiring.

146 chicagodudewhotrades  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:30:39am

Charles, i do have 1 slight problem with what you wrote:

“This is a huge problem for the GOP, and it’s one reason why Democrats control both houses of Congress. If the GOP puts up a creationist for president, expect to see Democrats in power for the next 8 years (at least).”

The Gop lost congress in ‘06 mostly becuase of Iraq (the media’s bias on anything anti-bush and hyping American combat deaths was a huge factor) and they lost the presidency becuase ‘hopeychange’ promised the world to get elected and Mccain didn’t.

However, like you I don’t agree with creationism at all and agree that this is a dead albatross for the GOP if they continue to support it at any level.

147 debutaunt  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:30:43am

re: #44 pianobuff

This discussion makes me wonder how Reagan ever got elected. Thoughts anyone?

For one thing, he could define what Capitalism is.

148 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:31:11am

re: #139 taxfreekiller

Good thing Henry Wachman is such a high minded intellectual and is so rational in his approach to our environmental problems.

His nostrils suck up too much oxygen. How many trees does it take to counteract that, anyway? I suspect something like Yosemite.

149 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:31:14am

re: #134 tedzilla99

You’re overstating one comment [vs. a long list of comments to the contrary] to compare it to other politicians who have pushed the idea a lot harder. I read every single one of your posts on her and ID and what you’re saying today is way different than what you said when you were defending her. No worries - people can read what you wrote today vs. the previous posts and make up their own minds.

Bullshit. Here are Sarah Palin’s two statements, side by side:

“Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”

Followed by:

“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.

That is a reversal.

150 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:31:22am
151 LGoPs  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:31:23am

re: #147 debutaunt

For one thing, he could define what Capitalism is.

And he correctly recognized and defined the threat from Communism.

152 pianobuff  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:31:27am

re: #137 LGoPs

Not for me. I would look at the whole man or woman and judge that way.
I’m not a creationist but I don’t see this as the boogeyman that others do.
I see some real boogeymen out there and the greatest danger isn’t from creationsists, IMO.

Not a creationist here, either and more or less agree with you. To me it’s a matter of priorities. If they have good economic and national security chops and policies, I care a lot less about which bible verses they select to highlight.

153 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:31:34am

re: #133 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

There was a big stink saying he was unelectable simply because he was a mormon. He had a pretty good shot going until Huckabee made a deal with McCain and undercut him in the WV primary.

I think I underestimated the prejudice against him based on his faith, and I gotta say I was surprised and disappointed in the American voter.

154 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:32:11am

re: #140 dwells38

Your kinda new here so I don’t really know you and were you stand on issues. But in my opinion not voting is a cop out. No candidate is perfect. But this stuff is to important not to take a stand.

155 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:32:42am

re: #144 Kreuzueber Halbmond

Americans want a leader who will take them higher, not take them to church.

And look where that got us this time?

156 Desert Dog  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:32:49am

re: #146 chicagodudewhotrades

Charles, i do have 1 slight problem with what you wrote:

“This is a huge problem for the GOP, and it’s one reason why Democrats control both houses of Congress. If the GOP puts up a creationist for president, expect to see Democrats in power for the next 8 years (at least).”

The Gop lost congress in ‘06 mostly becuase of Iraq (the media’s bias on anything anti-bush and hyping American combat deaths was a huge factor) and they lost the presidency becuase ‘hopeychange’ promised the world to get elected and Mccain didn’t.

However, like you I don’t agree with creationism at all and agree that this is a dead albatross for the GOP if they continue to support it at any level.

They also lost because they acted like Democrats when they had the Presidency and both Houses…They strayed from the core beliefs. And, they lost because GWB was so hated by the left and many in the middle.

The Dems won because Obama unbelievable charisma. If he ran on what he is doing now, he would have lost…bad

157 zombie  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:33:13am

The Republicans will have pawlenty to regret if they nominate this guy for president.

158 LGoPs  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:33:19am

re: #154 Nevergiveup

Your kinda new here so I don’t really know you and were you stand on issues. But in my opinion not voting is a cop out. No candidate is perfect. But this stuff is to important not to take a stand.

If you don’t vote, you don’t have the right to bitch.

159 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:33:24am

re: #146 chicagodudewhotrades

The Gop lost congress in ‘06 mostly becuase of Iraq

I think the republicans lost Congress because they were spending like democrats. Lawhawk is right. Fiscal conservatism is the GOP’s only hope.

160 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:34:00am
161 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:34:01am

re: #85 iceweasel

That’s right. Reagan also made people feel optimistic. “Morning in America”. He united people.

Like it or not, Obam won because he has many of the same rhetorical and charismatic qualities as Reagan.

I’ll disagree with you here. Obama won for several reasons, but his rhetorical flourishes were not one of them. The man can barely think on his feet during a talk. His speechwriters were the ones who gave him the rhetorical and charismatic qualities.

162 KansasMom  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:34:21am

re: #104 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

And yet, because he’s Mormon, he got painted as the religious nut.

Makes perfect sense. /

163 FrogMarch  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:34:39am

The GOP would be wise to buy a clue.
The GOP would be wise to re: #104 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Romney gets it right. The GOP needs to understand that pushing religion and religious litmus tests is a losing game. Religion is a personal private matter - lets leave it to the preachers.

I live in a very liberal town and, surprisingly, many liberals here go to Church on Sunday. This is anecdotal - but it occurs to me that liberals are able to keep religion out of politics but the GOP just cannot refrain.
Come on GOP - start helping.

164 pianobuff  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:35:02am

re: #156 Desert Dog

They also lost because they acted like Democrats when they had the Presidency and both Houses…They strayed from the core beliefs. And, they lost because GWB was so hated by the left and many in the middle.

The Dems won because Obama unbelievable charisma. If he ran on what he is doing now, he would have lost…bad

I think it was a foregone conclusion even before the Pres. race really got underway that a Dem would win. At that time, it was all about being the “non-Bush”. Surprised it ended up being as close as it did, actually.

165 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:35:05am

re: #155 Nevergiveup

And look where that got us this time?

Well, it was a different type of higher, considering the “fan base”.

/Pass the bong, please. No bogeying.

166 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:35:24am
167 avanti  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:35:41am

re: #27 Charles

There’s absolutely no doubt that this is a serious losing issue for the GOP; it’s part of the overall perception — not entirely mistaken — that GOP politicians are anti-intellectual and anti-science. Almost every top GOP politician espouses creationism; this is a real problem.

It’s worse then that on the left, many buy into the stereotype that the right is comprised mostly of unthinking, religious, pro gun, pro choice, gun nuts.
If the right was composed more like the cross section of LGF types, you could kick ass outside the base with a fiscal conservative, small government platform.
The 64 dollar question is how to keep the base by not pissing off the religious right. You can stay pro gun, become more moderate on choice, and the rest, but I don’t see much of a change coming yet.

168 jaunte  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:35:44am

re: #162 KansasMom

Mormons are still safe to look down on, since they are domestic and not imported.
/

169 lawhawk  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:35:49am

re: #157 zombie

Pawlenty isn’t a great candidate, his creationism notwithstanding. I just don’t see what he brings to the table as being what this nation wants or needs.

170 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:36:15am

re: #147 debutaunt

For one thing, he could define what Capitalism is.

America was at a very low point, with gas lines, “stagflation”, the “misery index”, Jimmuh’s “malaise speech”, the Iran hostage crisis, the Soviets’ invasion of Afghanistan, etc. Boy do I remember all of that.

Reagan told Americans that their country could be great again, and a beacon of freedom to the rest of the world.

171 Desert Dog  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:36:19am

re: #164 pianobuff

I think it was a foregone conclusion even before the Pres. race really got underway that a Dem would win. At that time, it was all about being the “non-Bush”. Surprised it ended up being as close as it did, actually.

It was headed for a blow out before Palin came in.

172 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:36:22am

re: #169 lawhawk

Pawlenty isn’t a great candidate, his creationism notwithstanding. I just don’t see what he brings to the table as being what this nation wants or needs.

Nothing.

173 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:36:47am

Here’s what we are facing, I keep posting this and will continue to do so

[Link: www.gallup.com…]

Please look close at that graph. Things are not getting better for conservatives, and they will not get any better if we continue to oppose science and basic reality.

174 Desert Dog  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:36:47am

re: #170 Ward Cleaver

America was at a very low point, with gas lines, “stagflation”, the “misery index”, Jimmuh’s “malaise speech”, the Iran hostage crisis, the Soviets’ invasion of Afghanistan, etc. Boy do I remember all of that.

Reagan told Americans that their country could be great again, and a beacon of freedom to the rest of the world.

And then…HE DELIVERED

175 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:36:51am

re: #150 buzzsawmonkey

Your equation of these things is silly. You are comingling political/rights issues with scientific issues, for starters. Someone can, I am sure, believe that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, and still believe in political equality.

It would not surprise me in the least if major political figures of less than 100 years ago believed that it was not possible for man to walk on the moon. It having been proven that we can—and that man walking anywhere else in the universe is therefore a problem in logistics merely—it would be silly to support someone who believed that was impossible, but that again has nothing to do with the person’s religious views.

Your conflation is what’s silly.

If creationists were happy to pray to their sixthousand year old planet in piece, I wouldn’t care if we elected one.

But creationists aren’t content to do that, and it’s silly for you to pretend that they are.

They want to disrupt biology classes, geology classes, and who knows what else. They want to put religion in science classes. They want religion to crowd out science in science classes.

That’s why I, and many others, will never vote for a creationist for president.

176 snowcrash  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:37:00am

re: #166 buzzsawmonkey
That is marvelous!

177 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:37:07am

re: #167 avanti

It’s worse then that on the left, many buy into the stereotype that the right is comprised mostly of unthinking, religious, pro gun, pro choice, gun nuts.
If the right was composed more like the cross section of LGF types, you could kick ass outside the base with a fiscal conservative, small government platform.
The 64 dollar question is how to keep the base by not pissing off the religious right. You can stay pro gun, become more moderate on choice, and the rest, but I don’t see much of a change coming yet.

And we’re ( us conservatives ) are suppose to care how the “LEFT” perceives us? Please.

178 pianobuff  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:37:09am

re: #171 Desert Dog

It was headed for a blow out before Palin came in.

And it was headed that way pretty much before it even began.

179 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:37:24am
180 subsailor68  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:37:57am

Sigh. I’d kind of like to see a Republican emerge who has the youthful exuberance of a JFK; the charm, charisma, and leadership of Ronald Reagan; the political philosophy of William F. Buckley; the historical perspective of Newt Gingrich; the personal integrity of Daniel Patrick Moynihan; the economic understanding of Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell; and the business ability of Bill Gates and Michael Dell.

Guess I’d better get myself a Snickers bar - looks like a long wait.

181 rightside  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:38:06am

re: #85 iceweasel

Then why hasn’t the country been united? He was elected (one part) as a uniter. The divisions are even greater now.

182 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:38:09am

re: #168 jaunte

Mormons are still safe to look down on, since they are domestic and not imported.
/

I don’t know what it is, but it’s noxious.

183 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:38:17am

re: #161 Honorary Yooper

I’ll disagree with you here. Obama won for several reasons, but his rhetorical flourishes were not one of them. The man can barely think on his feet during a talk. His speechwriters were the ones who gave him the rhetorical and charismatic qualities.

Hey, *you* think that. That’s fine.

The people who voted for him obviously did not.

He won because more people disagreed with you than not.

184 tedzilla99  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:38:28am

re: #149 Charles

That is a reversal.

If you say so, but you’ve had a reversal as well. It wasn’t a problem then, it apparently is now. Like I said, no worries, readers can make up their own minds.

185 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:38:57am

re: #173 Thanos

Here’s what we are facing, I keep posting this and will continue to do so

[Link: www.gallup.com…]

Please look close at that graph. Things are not getting better for conservatives, and they will not get any better if we continue to oppose science and basic reality.

I’m old enough to remember the Republican party being written off as finished after Nixon and the Democratic Party being written off as finished after Carter. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

186 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:39:05am
187 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:39:07am
188 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:39:14am

re: #177 Nevergiveup

And we’re ( us conservatives ) are suppose to care how the “LEFT” perceives us? Please.

Based on what I see here, conservatives spend a lot of time thinking about how they imagine the left to perceive them. ;)

189 SpaceJesus  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:39:39am

GOP politicians can’t say otherwise, because then they will lose the entire south. Hence why we must sell the entire south to Cuba for 4 dollars as soon as possible.

190 Bloodnok  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:39:48am

re: #161 Honorary Yooper

I’ll disagree with you here. Obama won for several reasons, but his rhetorical flourishes were not one of them. The man can barely think on his feet during a talk. His speechwriters were the ones who gave him the rhetorical and charismatic qualities.

However he did it, Obama is a salesman and people bought what he was selling. Comparing his and Reagan’s skills as orators (even though both read prepared speeches well Reagan definitely was better on his feet) does not change the fact that they both sold their intended message quite effectively.

Bruce Springsteen’s music does nothing for me, but I don’t doubt his ability to reach people.

191 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:40:29am

re: #186 taxfreekiller

Good thing the Democrat controlled teacher unions are not disrupting biology, geology, science classes and just about every thing in our schools.

Your on a roll today. Go for it!

192 avanti  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:40:35am

re: #177 Nevergiveup

And we’re ( us conservatives ) are suppose to care how the “LEFT” perceives us? Please.

You do if you want the vote from the left and middle, and you can’t win now with the base, and the base is getting smaller.

193 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:40:38am
194 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:40:48am

re: #177 Nevergiveup

And we’re ( us conservatives ) are suppose to care how the “LEFT” perceives us? Please.

I couldn’t care less how they perceive us. They’re snobs anyway.

195 rightside  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:41:01am

re: #191 Nevergiveup

Yeah, but is it a kimmelweck roll?

196 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:41:08am

Sarah Palin’s comments about wanting to teach creationism, by the way, seriously damaged the GOP’s chances in the last election, despite her subsequent reversal. Again, this is a pretty straightforward fact — it was an issue, and not a small one.

197 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:41:14am

re: #186 taxfreekiller

Good thing the Democrat controlled teacher unions are not disrupting biology, geology, science classes and just about every thing in our schools.

Classes are continuing on a daily basis…we’re good. Could use some new textbooks, though.

198 zombie  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:41:16am

re: #169 lawhawk

ANY speculation this far out as to who will be the nominee in 2012 is pointless. We won’t even begin to get a clear picture until March or April of 2012 itself, after Iowa and New Hampshire have voted in the primaries at least. Frontrunners fall by the wayside all the time, and dark horses leap to the front.

Seriously, if you had asked anyone in 2006 or 2007 or even the first half of 2008 about the likelihood of a McCain vs. Obama race, you would have been laughed at. Hillary had it “locked up,” and Giuliani was gonna duel it out with Romney, etc. Both McCain and Obama came out of nowhere, and the frontrunners diintegrated. And this was just a matter of months before the final election! Now we’re still 3 years out. Speculation is a waste of time.

199 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:41:24am

re: #188 SanFranciscoZionist

Based on what I see here, conservatives spend a lot of time thinking about how they imagine the left to perceive them. ;)

I don’t give it seconds thought and neither does any real conservative I know

200 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:41:34am

re: #187 buzzsawmonkey

Creationists aren’t “praying to the planet.” That’s the Gaia-worshipping Democrats.

And, again, a President has virtually nothing to do with school science classes.

You’re deliberately missing the point.

201 Desert Dog  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:41:41am

re: #181 rightside

Then why hasn’t the country been united? He was elected (one part) as a uniter. The divisions are even greater now.

If the electorate wanted bipartisanship, they should have voted in Ol’ Johnny Boy, he likes working both sides of the aisle. Obama? He is more rigidly partisan than any recent President I can recall. The idea of compromise and working with the other side just does not occur in his mindset. If the Republicans cave in, then it’s bipartisanship. If they stand their ground, it’s a negative reaction to Obama’s positive message. It’s his way or the highway.

202 jaunte  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:42:06am

re: #196 Charles

Pandering to ignorance by mocking research on fruit flies wasn’t a shining moment for the campaign, either.

203 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:42:08am

re: #183 iceweasel

Hey, *you* think that. That’s fine.

The people who voted for him obviously did not.

He won because more people disagreed with you than not.

Ice, as I said, there were a number of them, but his own ability to write speeches was not one of them. His speechwriters did that for him. That’s fact, as it was also fact for John McCain, as it was also fact for Bill Clinton, as it was also fact for George Bush (both), etc, etc. It’s been a long time since a presidential candidate made his own speeches, his own rhetoric, and his own charisma.

204 LGoPs  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:42:10am

re: #192 avanti

You do if you want the vote from the left and middle, and you can’t win now with the base, and the base is getting smaller.

We’ll take the middle. You can keep the Left to yourself. They’re hopeless.

205 keithgabryelski  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:42:34am

re: #177 Nevergiveup

And we’re ( us conservatives ) are suppose to care how the “LEFT” perceives us? Please.

you should at least acknowledge when a perception from an outside party is both warranted and undesireable.

206 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:42:40am

re: #188 SanFranciscoZionist

Based on what I see here, conservatives spend a lot of time thinking about how they imagine the left to perceive them. ;)

Ha!

Indeed, they do. Weird.

207 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:42:53am

re: #192 avanti

You do if you want the vote from the left and middle, and you can’t win now with the base, and the base is getting smaller.

See my #185 and were did i say I don’t care what the “middle” thinks. Please don’t misquote me OK.

208 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:43:02am
209 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:43:13am

re: #186 taxfreekiller

Good thing the Democrat controlled teacher unions are not disrupting biology, geology, science classes and just about every thing in our schools.

They just go after the civics and history classes instead.

Somedays it feels like six of one, a half dozen of the other.

210 HelloDare  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:43:26am

If Romney is the front runner for 2012, he will be savagely attacked for being a Mormon by democratic campaign surrogates. Mormonism will be portrayed as a weird cult. Hey, you can excuse Christianity with a history of two thousand years, but Mormonism was fabricated in the 1800’s. The left will cite the many Christian groups that already attack Mormonism. It’s not going to be pretty.

211 pianobuff  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:43:41am

re: #190 Bloodnok

However he did it, Obama is a salesman and people bought what he was selling. Comparing his and Reagan’s skills as orators (even though both read prepared speeches well Reagan definitely was better on his feet) does not change the fact that they both sold their intended message quite effectively.

Bruce Springsteen’s music does nothing for me, but I don’t doubt his ability to reach people.

Nearly any dem would have won. Hell, an actual donkey would have likely won this last cycle as long as it wasn’t Booosh.

I don’t believe Obama brought anything tangibly special in terms of objective vote-getting, and that’s based on my read of the vote totals, which were a lot closer than I would have suspected.

Despite the full court press and managing his image, he’s polling near the bottom of his class of peers at this point in his term.

He was in the right place at the right time.

212 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:44:14am

re: #191 Nevergiveup

Your on a roll today. Go for it!

A kaiser roll?

213 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:44:26am

re: #184 tedzilla99

If you say so, but you’ve had a reversal as well. It wasn’t a problem then, it apparently is now. Like I said, no worries, readers can make up their own minds.

No reversal here at all. I wanted Obama to be defeated, so I publicized Palin’s reversal of her position on creationism. It was too late, the damage was done.

But I was exceedingly clear in my post that I was NOT OK with her first stated position, that she wanted to teach “both.”

214 haakondahl  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:44:37am

re: #98 Charles

That’s right. She changed her position. She advocated teaching creationism, was criticized for it, and then backed away from the issue.

I’m pretty angry (in an detached sort of way) at the MSM & TV trash culture for the savaging that hounded her from public life. I’m angry because the bastards won, and took down a good pol who was fantastically popular in her own state. I’m angry at them because I don’t see her running for anything.
If she turns right around and runs after having bailed on an elected executive position, I’ll be just as mad at her. You get to quit once, fair enough. But then, you’re done. It’s declaring bankruptcy.
So as much as I like Palin, I wouldn’t support her if she ran. And that way I don’t have to reconcile my generally good impression of her with my cringing apprehension of the ID agenda.

215 keithgabryelski  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:44:59am

re: #186 taxfreekiller

Good thing the Democrat controlled teacher unions are not disrupting biology, geology, science classes and just about every thing in our schools.

please cite some references.

216 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:45:02am

Here’s another interesting factor, and one Republicans could play to shore up shrinking bases among minorities, which we really need to do. As long as we are the “anti” party, that’s not going to happen:

[Link: www.gallup.com…]

217 avanti  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:45:36am

re: #194 Ward Cleaver

I couldn’t care less how they perceive us. They’re snobs anyway.

That’s as lame as stereotype as the right being dumb. Worse yet, the snob comment makes me think of some on the rights stereotypical, anti intellectional thought. I see snob, elite, intellectional, Harvard grad comments, as part of that.

218 SixDegrees  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:45:45am

re: #101 Ward Cleaver

Bernanke said today that the Fed would hold down inflation. The thing is, how? By cranking interest rates up to 20+ percent, like Volcker did in the early ’80s? Or by Obamanite smoke and mirrors, and spin?

I wouldn’t be too concerned about inflation for a while. The housing market has all but collapsed, and until prices there rebound it will act like a stone around the neck of the economy - and inflationary pressures. And with the enormous inventory of homes on the market at foreclosure prices, values aren’t going to rebound to normal levels for quite a long time, probably a few years. If spending can be contained to what’s been allotted in the current stimulus package - or less, if anyone can muster the balls to take back what hasn’t already been spent, which right now is about 90% of the allottment - the economy can probably absorb the borrowing underlying the stimulus over the next few years without undue inflation. And the Fed’s tools - raising interest rates and buying up Treasury securities - are extremely effective at dealing with the demand component of inflation. They are not as effective at controlling structural inflationary pressures - like spikes in oil prices caused by embargoes, for example - but they are probably sufficient to control the devaluation of the dollar caused by stimulus spending - if it doesn’t exceed what has already been done.

Also, if any of the upcoming budget boondoggles like nationalized health care pass, the confiscation of wages necessary to pay for such programs will depress any surge in consumer demand for goods. It could also prolong the recovery from recession by an awfully long time, but that will certainly serve to keep inflation in check.

219 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:46:11am

re: #210 HelloDare

If Romney is the front runner for 2012, he will be savagely attacked for being a Mormon by democratic REPUBLICAN campaign surrogates. Mormonism will be portrayed as a weird cult. Hey, you can excuse Christianity with a history of two thousand years, but Mormonism was fabricated in the 1800’s. The left RELIGIOUS RIGHT will cite the many Christian groups that already attack Mormonism. It’s not going to be pretty.

No- it’s not going to be pretty. Not at all.

220 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:46:15am

re: #208 buzzsawmonkey

Not at all. I know enough about science to respect its value—and its limitations—and not to make a religion of it, or use it as a religious test.

The claim that ‘scientists make a religion out of science!’ or ‘atheists make a religion out of atheism!’ is an old, well-known, and debunked claim.

If you think a creationist is a great candidate for the GOP, run one.

221 hazzyday  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:46:31am

With Pawlenty saying it’s a local decision is a way to sleaze out of the question.

Intelligent Design believers fall into at least three categories.

1. They think it means God had more than a hand in designing the universe.
2. The Discovery institute has reached out to them and told them that their meaning of intelligent design agrees with them. But it doesn’t and Pawlenty is too lazy to figure it out.
3. They agree wholeheartedly with DI and know how to deflect the arguments against them with sleight of logic. Michael Medved and Ben Stein fall into this category. How to seem honest but not really be honest. I think Stein actually has malicious intent. Medved is just thrilled by a tricky argument that clouds his actual thinking.

Asking for opinions on the courts cases and about the age of the earth is how to separate them out.

The democrats would be fools in the next election to not ask candidates on Primetime TV how old the earth is? And pose the question to someone first who will give a specific number. Then the wafflers will seem like wafflers.

Followup to huckabee and ask him if the age of the earth should be written into the Huckabee Constitution.

222 Desert Dog  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:46:34am

re: #206 iceweasel

Ha!

Indeed, they do. Weird.

Yes, the left does not waste precious time worrying about the knuckle dragging creationist believing racist clean water hating Gaia killing dunces on the right…they are “correct” on all issues afterall

223 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:46:36am
224 avanti  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:47:08am

re: #204 LGoPs

We’ll take the middle. You can keep the Left to yourself. They’re hopeless.

I don’t feel the same about the right, we need both to reach a balance between doing too little, and doing too much.

225 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:47:20am
226 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:47:21am

re: #216 Thanos

The blatant racism on display these days certainly isn’t going to help. GOP officials keep getting busted passing around racist emails, Buchanan is on TV pretty much every day, comments of conservative blags are vile. I don’t see the GOP making gains among minorities any time soon.

227 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:47:48am

re: #219 Sharmuta

No- it’s not going to be pretty. Not at all.

Maybe it shouldn’t be pretty. Prettiness doesn’t knock out the bigots and dipsticks from either the right or the left.

228 avanti  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:48:11am

re: #223 taxfreekiller

Good thing Obama is the only human alive who has no faults.

His ears are too big, and his wife says he’s all stinky in the morning.

229 jacksontn  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:48:40am

re: #210 HelloDare

If Romney is the front runner for 2012, he will be savagely attacked for being a Mormon by democratic campaign surrogates. Mormonism will be portrayed as a weird cult. Hey, you can excuse Christianity with a history of two thousand years, but Mormonism was fabricated in the 1800’s. The left will cite the many Christian groups that already attack Mormonism. It’s not going to be pretty.

HD … the “church” of Black Liberation Theology that Obama went to for 20 years is okay? … if they bring up the Mormon issue then more examination of Obama’s church needs to take place … after electing a man who was involved with Black Liberation Theology for all those years and then to say Romney is not electable because he is Mormon is racist …

230 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:48:45am

re: #226 Killgore Trout

The blatant racism on display these days certainly isn’t going to help. GOP officials keep getting busted passing around racist emails, Buchanan is on TV pretty much every day, comments of conservative blags are vile. I don’t see the GOP making gains among minorities any time soon.

Add to that the Sotomayor circus. THAT isn’t going to help the GOP do anything but lose more of the hispanic vote.

231 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:48:47am

re: #179 buzzsawmonkey

I thought it was because he’d bought a Ronco Charis-Matic™ for $19.95 after seeing it on late-night TV.

I’ve always preferred the Charismatic Carpenter.

232 zombie  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:49:04am

re: #213 Charles

No reversal here at all. I wanted Obama to be defeated, so I publicized Palin’s reversal of her position on creationism. It was too late, the damage was done.

But I was exceedingly clear in my post that I was NOT OK with her first stated position, that she wanted to teach “both.”

The president has very little influence on the content of school curricula. It is not a federal issue. I think in fact that Bush himself was a creationist in his personal beliefs, but he neither tired to nor had the power to puish that agenda in the classroom. So Palin’s creationist beliefs mean little to me, politically. In fact, governors like Pawlenty and Palin have more power over school curricula than the president does.

Yes, the Left bashed Palin over creationism, but that comprised about 2% of their hatred of her. They would have savaged her, creationism or no creationism.

233 MandyManners  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:49:07am

re: #189 spacejesus

GOP politicians can’t say otherwise, because then they will lose the entire south. Hence why we must sell the entire south to Cuba for 4 dollars as soon as possible.

Oh, go fuck yourself.

234 Ben Hur  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:49:21am

re: #226 Killgore Trout

The blatant racism on display these days certainly isn’t going to help. GOP officials keep getting busted passing around racist emails, Buchanan is on TV pretty much every day, comments of conservative blags are vile. I don’t see the GOP making gains among minorities any time soon.

And Dem Senate candidates throwing around the N-word…

235 redstateredneck  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:49:25am

re: #228 avanti

His ears are too big, and his wife says he’s all stinky in the morning.


And he wears “mom-jeans”.

236 spudly  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:49:31am

When will these morons learn that separation of church and state will protect their religious beliefs in the long run.

237 keithgabryelski  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:50:10am

re: #225 taxfreekiller

The Whole Dallas Independet School Dist. Dalla Texas.

i don’t understand the reference. Can you point me to some article with information on what you are concerned about?

238 zombie  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:50:11am

but he neither tired to nor had the power to puish that agenda
=
but he neither tried to nor had the power to push that agenda

PIMF

239 HelloDare  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:50:21am

re: #228 avanti

His ears are too big, and his wife says he’s all stinky in the morning.

No problem. He flaps his ears to disperse his farts. That’s the myth anyway.

240 Bloodnok  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:50:33am

re: #211 pianobuff

Nearly any dem would have won. Hell, an actual donkey would have likely won this last cycle as long as it wasn’t Booosh.

I don’t believe Obama brought anything tangibly special in terms of objective vote-getting, and that’s based on my read of the vote totals, which were a lot closer than I would have suspected.

Despite the full court press and managing his image, he’s polling near the bottom of his class of peers at this point in his term.

He was in the right place at the right time.

I’m not sure any Dem would have won. He had to do a lot of things right -or at least “not wrong”. However he got those Independants (or if McCain/Palin simply lost them), he got ‘em.

241 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:51:11am

re: #222 Desert Dog

Yes, the left does not waste precious time worrying about the knuckle dragging creationist believing racist clean water hating Gaia killing dunces on the right…they are “correct” on all issues afterall

I read lefty blogs, and people are talking about pressuring Blue Dogs to be more progressive, organising to pressure Obama on various issues, and similar.

I read right blogs, and here, and many people are obsessed with how the left views them. Why do you even care?

242 HoosierHoops  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:51:14am

Good Afternoon Lizards!
what a beautiful day it is..Sunny..Warm, Blue skies…
hope today finds you all well

243 RELOADINGISNOTAHOBBY  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:51:28am

re: #196 Charles
This a huge issue!!
The basis for a belief in Creationism is Religion PERIOD!
Religion has no place in the PUBLIC School system period!
I went to private Chtristian Schools for 12 years and studied
SCIENCE in Science classes!
Religion in a Religion a class!
This Wrong…Just as foot baths and prayer rooms on a College Campus is wrong!
They better distance themselves from this or we’ll have
4 MORE years of the “O”!!

244 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:51:42am

Hate mail incoming!

245 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:52:27am

re: #232 zombie

Bush said evolution was not in conflict with faith.

246 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:52:46am
247 jaunte  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:52:49am

Dalla Texas:

An education think-tank that just gave Dallas ISD kudos in April for improving its graduation rate is not so complimentary in a new report released today. The report, created by the non-profit, Maryland-based Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, indicates that DISD’s graduation rate is down from 50.8 percent in 2005 to 40.7 percent in 2006, the latest year of data for all states.


[Link: dallasisdblo…] asnews.com/archives/student-achievement/

248 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:53:01am

re: #226 Killgore Trout

The blatant racism on display these days certainly isn’t going to help. GOP officials keep getting busted passing around racist emails, Buchanan is on TV pretty much every day, comments of conservative blags are vile. I don’t see the GOP making gains among minorities any time soon.

I don’t either. The cognitive dissonance created by that is what keeps us from being the majority party in the US.

The disparity is this: married couples are more likely to be R for some reason, my hypothesis is this comes out of concern for the future of their children. We could have a huge win coming on the fiscal and foreign policy front, but at the same time parents are faced with the haters and wondering if their kids are going to have to put up with pseudo science and religion in science class.

249 LGoPs  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:53:07am

re: #224 avanti

I don’t feel the same about the right, we need both to reach a balance between doing too little, and doing too much.

Well that’s fine and I appreciate you saying that. My comment is based on the fact that on balance, batshit crazy identifies the left far more than the right. And I exclude extremists from bioth sides in this characterization - they are equally batshit nuts..
Unfortunately, the President is one of those extremists.

250 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:53:08am

re: #244 Charles

Hate mail incoming!

Is it funny enough, sick enough, or unique enough to warrant a post?

251 hazzyday  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:53:09am

re: #196 Charles

But does she mean DI creationism? Probably does. I saw the vids of her pastor. I think she means Assemblies of God creationism. I saw her moving away from their interpretations. In that case it’s not meant for a science class. More so for a philosophy or anthropology classe. At my high school there was only one such class like that. Comparative Religion where you would look at beginnings from a lot of different perspectives.

No traction on this nationwide until someone like Chris Matthews wises up and learns how to ask the question.

Pres Obama should fire a shot over the bow and just come out and say “Healthy minded people accept the science that the earth is billions of years old.”

252 Bloodnok  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:53:37am

re: #244 Charles

Hate mail incoming!

Who is it this time? Jupiter haters? Ajax haters?

253 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:53:37am

re: #226 Killgore Trout

The blatant racism on display these days certainly isn’t going to help. GOP officials keep getting busted passing around racist emails, Buchanan is on TV pretty much every day, comments of conservative blags are vile. I don’t see the GOP making gains among minorities any time soon.


Once again, you make all inclusive comments. GOP officials (name them please), Buchanan is on TV pretty much every day (times and channels please), comments of conservative blogs are vile (all of them, please) and you don’t see any gains among minorities (some facts please).

Shallow straw men, no details, worthless hyperbole.

254 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:53:58am

re: #232 zombie

The president has very little influence on the content of school curricula. It is not a federal issue. I think in fact that Bush himself was a creationist in his personal beliefs, but he neither tired to nor had the power to puish that agenda in the classroom. So Palin’s creationist beliefs mean little to me, politically. In fact, governors like Pawlenty and Palin have more power over school curricula than the president does.

I have to disagree. The Presidency is the world’s biggest podium, and presidents do have the power to advance and promote social agendas. Having an activist creationist like Bobby Jindal (or one of the other GOP politicians in the Discovery Institute’s pocket) in that position could be disastrous.

255 Baier  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:54:17am

re: #244 Charles

Hate mail incoming!

I wish you posted all you hate mail in some kind of gallery by topic. I’d be interested to read more than what you post.

256 LGoPs  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:54:35am

BBL

257 pianobuff  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:54:35am

re: #240 Bloodnok

I’m not sure any Dem would have won. He had to do a lot of things right -or at least “not wrong”. However he got those Independants (or if McCain/Palin simply lost them), he got ‘em.

Well, of course there was some hyperbole there. It was a Dem year and to your point, it was the Dems to lose. It still doesn’t change my essential point that Obama is nothing special (despite what the media pushes) and did nothing special electorally that any number of other Dems couldn’t and wouldn’t have done. It wasn’t really an issues election in my opinion. It was the “not-Booosh” election.

258 zombie  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:56:24am

re: #245 Sharmuta

“Bush said evolution was not in conflict with faith.

Yes — that’s the headline. But read the full quote:

“Asked about creation and evolution, Bush said: “I think you can have both. I think evolution can — you’re getting me way out of my lane here. I’m just a simple president. But it’s, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don’t think it’s incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution.”

He added, “I happen to believe that evolution doesn’t fully explain the mystery of life.””

Sounds to me that, personally, he’s still fairly creationist - -but he doesn’t push it on others. I’m OK with that.

259 HoosierHoops  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:56:34am

re: #254 Charles

If a creationist can control no child left behind legislation on a federal level as POTUS then our country’s Science classes will suffer grave harm…

260 SixDegrees  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:56:39am

re: #187 buzzsawmonkey


And, again, a President has virtually nothing to do with school science classes.

True - at least for the moment. The power of the Federal government over local schools increases with every passing year, however.

And, to be blunt - I cannot vote for anyone who declares themselves to be a creationist. Creationism is a sickening, repulsive distortion of science done deliberately, for the express purpose of sneaking a theocratic government into place through the back door of elementary school science classes. Anyone running for public office who declares that they are a creationist, displays creationist leanings or has a history of supporting creationist activity will instantly lose my vote. End of story.

261 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:56:42am

If you want to be for the future, then you have to at least accept science even if you can’t embrace it in a bear hug.

262 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:57:14am

re: #196 Charles

Sarah Palin’s comments about wanting to teach creationism, by the way, seriously damaged the GOP’s chances in the last election, despite her subsequent reversal. Again, this is a pretty straightforward fact — it was an issue, and not a small one.

Sorry I never got that impression. The MSM making her out to be an imbecile on foreign policy hurt alot more. Not to mention the hatchet job they did on her family and her personal choices.

263 Erik The Red  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:57:16am

re: #242 HoosierHoops

Good Afternoon Lizards!
what a beautiful day it is..Sunny..Warm, Blue skies…
hope today finds you all well

Hey 2H. Great day here in Orlando too. Not to hot and humid today. The weekend is meant to be a killer tho.

264 keithgabryelski  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:57:21am

re: #245 Sharmuta

Bush said evolution was not in conflict with faith.

He also said “teach both sides”.

There aren’t two sides to a coin, here. Science is science.
Creationism is not science.

It’s apples and Styrofoam peanuts.

That is the fundamental problem

265 pianobuff  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:57:32am

re: #260 SixDegrees

True - at least for the moment. The power of the Federal government over local schools increases with every passing year, however.

And, to be blunt - I cannot vote for anyone who declares themselves to be a creationist. Creationism is a sickening, repulsive distortion of science done deliberately, for the express purpose of sneaking a theocratic government into place through the back door of elementary school science classes. Anyone running for public office who declares that they are a creationist, displays creationist leanings or has a history of supporting creationist activity will instantly lose my vote. End of story.

Not a Reagan fan I take it?

266 snowcrash  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:57:55am

re: #257 pianobuff
Also “the historic election of a Black man” was a deciding point for many voters.

267 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:57:58am

re: #247 jaunte

Dalla Texas:


[Link: dallasisdblo…] asnews.com/archives/student-achievement/

The DISD is a total disaster, from the credit card scandal, to the millions of dollars missing from the budget that caused the district to lay off hundreds of teachers, to delays in releasing audits, to the board deciding unilaterally that they could extend their terms in office from two to three years (the courts said, “Nope!”), to…

268 dwells38  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:58:04am

re: #154 Nevergiveup

I usually would agree with you and have always voted. As I said if a candidate is religious that’s their business. But when they confuse religion with science they’ve lost me. I wouldn’t have confidence in their decisions because they’re either cynical and deceptive, shallow or just confused.

269 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:58:09am

re: #205 keithgabryelski

you should at least acknowledge when a perception from an outside party is both warranted and undesireable.

From the “left” —other than the fact the MSM is left—I could not care less. The “left” has not and will not ever define me

270 JustABill  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:58:12am

re: #142 doppelganglander

Excellent. In fact, I think Romney could be exactly the person to break the stranglehold the extreme religious right has on the party. They will obviously oppose him because he’s a Mormon. Huckabee is certain to be their mouthpiece. He has to hit back hard at that, very early, and expose them as bigots. If he can marginalize them, he’ll gain a lot of independent voters. The creationist politicians may or not genuinely believe what they say, but they do feel it’s politically necessary to support creationism in order to court the fundamentalist vote. Romney has a chance to stand up and say there’s no place for bigotry in the GOP. The fundamentalists are not exactly going to vote for Obama — they’ll just stay home, while moderates and independents would feel much more comfortable voting for Mitt. Everybody wins - Mitt, the GOP, and most of all the nation.

If that happens, there would be a real good chance that Obama would take the south. If the evangelicals stay home, and the Afro-American vote comes out strong for for Obama, the Democrats might pick up enough votes in the south to carve out a majority, even if the Republicans perform well in the swing states.

The best solution in my mind is for Mitt to pick a SoCon VP early in the primary season(possibly Hucksterbee) and use that to insure a boring primary. The VP candidate would have to keep from saying anything too stupid and possibly moderate some of his positions. Someone like Hucksterbee could do that and still draw southern SoCons. By keeping quiet and talking about “local” decision making in education, you keep the focus of the race in the swing states on the top of the ticket, while the bottom of the ticket is hopefully enough to keep the south in the red.

271 HoosierHoops  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:58:47am

re: #263 Erik The Red

Hey 2H. Great day here in Orlando too. Not to hot and humid today. The weekend is meant to be a killer tho.

Hi Erik! i’m going to drink a couple of adult beverages then jump in the swimming pool..Weee!

272 debutaunt  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:58:58am

re: #228 avanti

His ears are too big, and his wife says he’s all stinky in the morning.

He can’t control the size of his ears, but he should stop lying about having given up smoking.

273 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:59:06am

re: #246 buzzsawmonkey

Most scientists don’t make a religion out of science,

Check out the recent (Gallup?) poll about science and the public.

Only 6 percent of scientists now call themselves Republican.

Think the creationism and anti-science stances of the GOP have anything to do with that?

Yes, they do.

274 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:59:45am

re: #258 zombie

Except evolution doesn’t fully explain the mystery of life. Just speciation.

275 CommonCents  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:59:51am

Is it a game to only pigeon hole and split supporters off of Republican candidates by drilling them on beliefs in evolution, creationism, ID, religion, etc, etc? Meanwhile, Democrats get questions like, “I don’t want to put you in an awkward position Senator, but are you cheering for the White Sox or the Cubs tonight? Heh, heh, heh.”

276 Erik The Red  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 11:59:56am

re: #271 HoosierHoops

Hi Erik! i’m going to drink a couple of adult beverages then jump in the swimming pool..Weee!

Enjoy!!!

277 lawhawk  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:00:01pm

re: #226 Killgore Trout

As opposed to NYS candidate for the US Senate and current Rep. Carolyn Maloney who dropped an n-bomb on the radio today? She claims that she was merely quoting someone else, but hey, let’s not forget that the racism and use of such language repeatedly crosses political lines.

re: #230 iceweasel

What circus? I’m intrigued to see why you think it was a circus? A circus is what happened with Clarence Thomas being raked over the coals.

A circus was what happened to Robert Bork.

This was in line with the confirmations of Roberts, Alito, and before that Breyer, Souter, and Ginsberg - who started the tradition of never answering substantively about anything that might cross the Court’s path.

No, it was a dog and pony show where Sotomayor was outspoken by Senators by a 2-1 margin, all because the Senators wanted to hear themselves talk (but that’s all too prevalent in these confirmations). The GOP didn’t distinguish itself, but it wasn’t a circus either. I still wish they would have asked more questions about the substantive procedural efforts she made in reaching a decision on Ricci, but that wasn’t part of the plan. Too bad because the only way we’ll find out is when she starts rendering decisions as a Supreme Court justice.

278 pianobuff  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:00:02pm

re: #266 snowcrash

Also “the historic election of a Black man” was a deciding point for many voters.

Well, I guess I disagree with you on the real impact of that…

279 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:00:04pm

re: #268 dwells38

I usually would agree with you and have always voted. As I said if a candidate is religious that’s their business. But when they confuse religion with science they’ve lost me. I wouldn’t have confidence in their decisions because they’re either cynical and deceptive, shallow or just confused.

Well with out knowing what candidate specifically we are talking about, the discussion gets bogged down anyway.

280 SixDegrees  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:00:12pm

re: #236 spudly

When will these morons learn that separation of church and state will protect their religious beliefs in the long run.

They don’t want religious rights protected - they want the opportunity to trample them. They’ll be sewing colored badges onto non-believer’s clothing in a heartbeat, given the chance.

281 hazzyday  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:01:19pm

re: #226 Killgore Trout

The blatant racism on display these days certainly isn’t going to help. GOP officials keep getting busted passing around racist emails, Buchanan is on TV pretty much every day, comments of conservative blags are vile. I don’t see the GOP making gains among minorities any time soon.

I like to look left and right before crossing the street. The GoP is hispanic unfriendly. They haven’t done anything to convince me otherwise. They let the MSM keep themselves on a short leash.

There is blatant anti semitism on most democratic sites, but they like to look the other way and say it’s just in jest or something like that.

The GoP leadership should officially kick Buchanan and Sanford to the curb.

282 kansas  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:01:33pm

I’m not a creationist or IDer, but if enough people want 7 1/2 more years of this shit then more power to them.

283 haakondahl  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:01:49pm

re: #135 sngnsgt

If Mitt had run this time, 0bama wouldn’t have won by the margin he did.

This is why the Republican Primary system needs to be reformed, and not in some milquetoast fashion. It needs to be reformed not by an anonymous panel of innovators, but a starchy party-oriented cabal of stingy, hardened, humorless men and women who know how to get things done.

284 doppelganglander  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:02:00pm

re: #229 jacksontn

HD … the “church” of Black Liberation Theology that Obama went to for 20 years is okay? … if they bring up the Mormon issue then more examination of Obama’s church needs to take place … after electing a man who was involved with Black Liberation Theology for all those years and then to say Romney is not electable because he is Mormon is racist …

It’s not racist, since it’s not about race, but it’s certainly bigoted. As I said above, when he’s attacked from the right on the basis of his religion, he needs to hit back hard. I think the same applies with attacks from the left. Rising above it, McCain-style, does no good. Hitting back and exposing bigotry appeals to the majority of non-bigoted, fair-minded Americans. That is the key to neutralizing the religion issue.

/If any of Mr. Romney’s advisers would like to engage me as a consultant for a very reasonable fee, I would be delighted to discuss it with you.

285 avanti  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:02:05pm

re: #266 snowcrash

Also “the historic election of a Black man” was a deciding point for many voters.

Personally, I think his skin color cost him more votes then it won.

286 zombie  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:02:05pm

re: #254 Charles

I have to disagree. The Presidency is the world’s biggest podium, and presidents do have the power to advance and promote social agendas. Having an activist creationist like Bobby Jindal (or one of the other GOP politicians in the Discovery Institute’s pocket) in that position could be disastrous.

He can influence overall social attitudes, but what he can’t do is enforce specific curriculum details. That’s the key difference.

Also, there’s a big difference between nominating a creationist, whose beliefs may damage the Republican chances for winning; and having a creationist already in office, having already survived the election and won. I agree that nominating one will hurt the GOP’s chances of winning, but if they manage to win with a creationist anyway, I don’t think that necessarily means he’ll used the bully pulpit to “do anything” about it.

287 kansas  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:02:45pm

re: #272 debutaunt

He can’t control the size of his ears, but he should stop lying about having given up smoking.

He should stop lying about more than that.

288 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:03:11pm

re: #244 Charles

Hate mail incoming!

Let me guess, either about Nazi’s or Darwin. Probably Darwin on this thread.


Nazis And Darwin
- Sung to the tune of Alice Cooper’s Sex, Death, and Money

(Chanted)
Foot-balls
Foot-balls
Foot-balls

When I log on the blog
All I see on the screen
Are posts that just plain anger me
So I wrote on the thread
How I thought that this blog was not the way I wanted it
They laughed,
In my face,
They said Son,
You can post all that you want on-your-own-blog on the internet
The posts on this blog
Come from Charles, only Charles
It’s too bad if you don’t like it here

I was so offended
As I read for three hours
It was mental cruelty
I was so shocked
Just a little moby troll
Just a little moby dick
A little close to being banned
A little closer to the stick
I’ll never be the same

Nazi’s and Darwin, sonny
Makes this wicked blog go ‘round
Nazi’s and Darwin
They’re the topics here in Lizardtown
Nazi’s and Darwin, honey
Grease the threads and make them fly
Nazi’s and Darwin, sonny
They’re the posts where trolls are gonna fry

Stuck my troll in the door
Ended up on the grill
In the middle of a barbeque
They all said to my face
You should leave or the ban
will be done by the Lizard-with-the-banning-stick

I was so offended
As I read for three hours
It was mental cruelty
I was so shocked
Just a little moby troll
Just a little moby dick
A little close to being banned
A little closer to the stick
I’ll never be the same

Nazi’s and Darwin, sonny
Makes this wicked blog go ‘round
Nazi’s and Darwin
They’re the topics here in Lizardtown
Nazi’s and Darwin, honey
Grease the threads and make them fly
Nazi’s and Darwin, sonny
They’re the posts where trolls are gonna fry

289 hazzyday  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:03:37pm

re: #253 Walter L. Newton

What party affiliation is Buchanan? I had thought Constitutionlist? Conservative but no longer a Republican.

290 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:03:42pm

re: #272 debutaunt

He can’t control the size of his ears, but he should stop lying about having given up smoking.

My take.

291 kansas  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:04:15pm

re: #285 avanti

Personally, I think his skin color cost him more votes then it won.

You’ve got to be kidding.

292 keithgabryelski  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:04:17pm

re: #253 Walter L. Newton

Once again, you make all inclusive comments. GOP officials (name them please), Buchanan is on TV pretty much every day (times and channels please), comments of conservative blogs are vile (all of them, please) and you don’t see any gains among minorities (some facts please).

Shallow straw men, no details, worthless hyperbole.

I think his message was targeted at a person that has been reading websites regularly the past month, and years

And anyway, those claims would not be strawmen, they are bare assertions. Bare assertions need to be backed up, true — but to anyone who has been reading LGF for the last week would note the references.

Buchanan is on MSNBC quite often (more than once a week) and has stepped on his tongue a few times. Rachel Maddow’s show being the last example.

Conservative blogs such as Freerepublic.com

No gains among minorities:
[Link: www.fivethirtyeight.com…]

293 badger1970  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:04:18pm

re: #85 iceweasel

Charismatic as in a cult figure. Reagan was more of a fatherly figure that was giving positive, practical advice to people whose confidence needed a boost.

bo rhetoric was uniting people by placing this nations woes at the feet of the previous administration.

Comparing bo to Reagan is sacrilege.

294 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:04:25pm

Actually, it would be nice if politicians, scientist, anyone who has any input into shaping education would get out of the “god” business.

Anyone who expects politicians or scientist who do believe in a god to be free of any opinion on god or creation or evolution is crazy.

This whole problem would be solved if the parties would only put up candidates who are avowed atheist.

Would work for me.

295 SixDegrees  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:04:58pm

re: #265 pianobuff

Not a Reagan fan I take it?

I liked Reagan just fine. But times have changed, and the Religious Right has gained much traction in the intervening years. Even Reagan blew these assholes off when they began to overstep their bounds; his Justice Department was the first to successfully prosecute and jail prominent televangelists. Too bad the momentum didn’t last.

Now, we’ve got assholes like Tom Delay hammering citizens with the power of Congressional oversight into their personal affairs while stopping just short of calling down hellfire and brimstone against the transgressors. There’s way too much at stake to let these knuckle-draggers gain as much as another inch within the halls of power in this country.

296 hazzyday  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:05:13pm

Anything Palin critical from the left needs to be run through a misogyny filter first. Chickens, Home, Roost.

297 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:05:15pm

re: #286 zombie

You’ve been a staunch advocate for getting creationism out of the GOP in the past.

Now you just confuse me.

298 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:05:29pm

re: #289 hazzyday

What party affiliation is Buchanan? I had thought Constitutionlist? Conservative but no longer a Republican.

Facts don’t matter, consider the source.

299 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:05:30pm
300 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:05:59pm

re: #294 Walter L. Newton

Actually, it would be nice if politicians, scientist, anyone who has any input into shaping education would get out of the “god” business.

Anyone who expects politicians or scientist who do believe in a god to be free of any opinion on god or creation or evolution is crazy.

This whole problem would be solved if the parties would only put up candidates who are avowed atheist.

Would work for me.

From your mouth to G-D’s ear?

301 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:06:08pm

re: #262 Nevergiveup

Sorry I never got that impression. The MSM making her out to be an imbecile on foreign policy hurt alot more. Not to mention the hatchet job they did on her family and her personal choices.

[Link: www.google.com…]

302 doppelganglander  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:06:24pm

re: #270 JustABill

If that happens, there would be a real good chance that Obama would take the south. If the evangelicals stay home, and the Afro-American vote comes out strong for for Obama, the Democrats might pick up enough votes in the south to carve out a majority, even if the Republicans perform well in the swing states.

The best solution in my mind is for Mitt to pick a SoCon VP early in the primary season(possibly Hucksterbee) and use that to insure a boring primary. The VP candidate would have to keep from saying anything too stupid and possibly moderate some of his positions. Someone like Hucksterbee could do that and still draw southern SoCons. By keeping quiet and talking about “local” decision making in education, you keep the focus of the race in the swing states on the top of the ticket, while the bottom of the ticket is hopefully enough to keep the south in the red.

Interesting. I can see the value of having a so-con in the VP slot, but NOT Huckleberry. For one thing, with his inflated ego, he would not accept second place. I also doubt Mitt would consider him, considering what a back-stabbing creep he was in ‘08. Sanford would have been a natural choice if he hadn’t blown up his career. But a Southerner on the ticket would be a very good idea.

303 snowcrash  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:07:02pm

re: #285 avanti
I think Obama motivated many otherwise apathetic voters. There is probably plenty of voter demographic reports out there but it is all water under the bridge. He did win.

304 keithgabryelski  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:07:03pm

re: #269 Nevergiveup

From the “left” —other than the fact the MSM is left—I could not care less. The “left” has not and will not ever define me

you missed my point. Let me try again:

You don’t have to be defined by an outside observer to accept that some of their opinions of you are 1) true and 2) undesirable

305 kansas  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:07:15pm

re: #301 Charles

[Link: www.google.com…]

[Link: www.factcheck.org…]

306 Creeping Eruption  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:07:21pm

re: #302 doppelganglander

By the way, what is up with Sanford these days?

307 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:07:52pm
308 pianobuff  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:08:26pm

re: #295 SixDegrees

I liked Reagan just fine. But times have changed, and the Religious Right has gained much traction in the intervening years. Even Reagan blew these assholes off when they began to overstep their bounds; his Justice Department was the first to successfully prosecute and jail prominent televangelists. Too bad the momentum didn’t last.

Now, we’ve got assholes like Tom Delay hammering citizens with the power of Congressional oversight into their personal affairs while stopping just short of calling down hellfire and brimstone against the transgressors. There’s way too much at stake to let these knuckle-draggers gain as much as another inch within the halls of power in this country.

So, Reagan - a creationist - managed that faction successfully but you would not vote for a creationist period… ok… I get it.

309 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:08:38pm

re: #301 Charles

[Link: www.google.com…]

I know what’s out there, but I never saw any definitive poll saying her views on that, confusing as they were, had a large effect on the election. And While it was a hot topic of conversation here, I NEVER encountered it out in the real world where the liberals around me denounced her for EVERYTHING else.

310 kansas  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:08:54pm

re: #309 Nevergiveup

I know what’s out there, but I never saw any definitive poll saying her views on that, confusing as they were, had a large effect on the election. And While it was a hot topic of conversation here, I NEVER encountered it out in the real world where the liberals around me denounced her for EVERYTHING else.

[Link: www.factcheck.org…]

311 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:09:12pm

re: #300 Nevergiveup

From your mouth to G-D’s ear?

Boo.

I’m making a point. Because that’s what’s really being suggested here, without the suggestion actually being spelled out in those clear words.

I just jumped ahead and said it for anyone who doesn’t want to clarify it.

Let’s face it, if a politician or scientist believes in god, then that person is NOT going to be able to keep that belief out of decisions.

And if you think they can, then my suggestion that we only elected atheist should not be a problem.

312 haakondahl  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:09:19pm

re: #229 jacksontn

HD … the “church” of Black Liberation Theology that Obama went to for 20 years is okay? … if they bring up the Mormon issue then more examination of Obama’s church needs to take place … after electing a man who was involved with Black Liberation Theology for all those years and then to say Romney is not electable because he is Mormon is racist …

No, it’s a blunt truth because the MSM gets all baboon-assed for the current President.

313 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:09:20pm

re: #306 Creeping Eruption

By the way, what is up with Sanford these days?

Aren’t he and his son Lamont still running a junkyard?

314 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:10:04pm

re: #304 keithgabryelski

you missed my point. Let me try again:

You don’t have to be defined by an outside observer to accept that some of their opinions of you are 1) true and 2) undesirable

Let me try again. Anything the left thinks of me may be true but in no way is perceived by me as undesirable!

315 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:10:24pm

re: #293 badger1970

Charismatic as in a cult figure. Reagan was more of a fatherly figure that was giving positive, practical advice to people whose confidence needed a boost.

bo rhetoric was uniting people by placing this nations woes at the feet of the previous administration.

Comparing bo to Reagan is sacrilege.

Sorry, it isn’t sacrilege.

Sacrilege is the violation or injurious treatment of a sacred object. In a less proper sense, any transgression against the virtue of religion would be a sacrilege. It can come in the form of irreverence to sacred persons, places, and things.

You might not like the comparison, you might not agree with it. But it’s funny that you automatically fix on a religious image here.

316 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:10:28pm
317 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:10:38pm

re: #311 Walter L. Newton

Beliefs, or lack of belief, cannot be separated from an individual. It is very much a part of them, and will have an influence on how they act, what they do, and what they support.

318 hazzyday  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:11:00pm

Now why do the Young Earthers not just consider that the earth is only a day old? They just woke up this morning and a white mouse made everything for them. Nothing that happened yesterday ever existed. It’s an imaginary matrix God put in their head to keep them happy.

319 keithgabryelski  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:11:18pm

re: #305 kansas

[Link: www.factcheck.org…]

How does one “debate both sides” with out teach creationism in school.

Factcheck got that wrong on it face.

320 subsailor68  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:11:26pm

re: #302 doppelganglander

Interesting. I can see the value of having a so-con in the VP slot, but NOT Huckleberry. For one thing, with his inflated ego, he would not accept second place. I also doubt Mitt would consider him, considering what a back-stabbing creep he was in ‘08. Sanford would have been a natural choice if he hadn’t blown up his career. But a Southerner on the ticket would be a very good idea.

I don’t know Haley Barbour’s position on creationism, etc., but he does seem to have street cred from how Mississippi survived Katrina. Any possibility there as a VP pick for someone like Romney?

(Just askin’, because I really don’t know enough to have an opinion.)

321 J.D.  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:11:29pm

Deeply indebted

America’s Treasury released figures showing the federal budget deficit had exceeded $1 trillion for the first nine months of the fiscal year commencing October. This was twice the deficit for the whole of last year, and the largest deficit ever over a nine-month period.


Scroll down and see the budget deficit graph for ‘03 - ‘09.

322 SixDegrees  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:11:30pm

re: #308 pianobuff

So, Reagan - a creationist - managed that faction successfully but you would not vote for a creationist period… ok… I get it.

I’ll say it again, since you seem to have trouble reading what I actually wrote: the days of Ronald Reagan are long past. The world has changed. Creationists can not be allowed anywhere near the levers of power in today’s world and in their present incarnation.

Anything about that you don’t understand? Or are you going to continue to examine the world through a toilet paper tube while claiming to see the big picture?

323 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:11:42pm

re: #318 hazzyday

Now why do the Young Earthers not just consider that the earth is only a day old? They just woke up this morning and a white mouse made everything for them. Nothing that happened yesterday ever existed. It’s an imaginary matrix God put in their head to keep them happy.

That’s similar to Last Thursdayism and Last Tuesdayism.

324 Jack Burton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:12:03pm

re: #27 Charles

There’s absolutely no doubt that this is a serious losing issue for the GOP; it’s part of the overall perception — not entirely mistaken — that GOP politicians are anti-intellectual and anti-science. Almost every top GOP politician espouses creationism; this is a real problem.

I think an even bigger problem is not just that all the “stars” of the GOP are creationists, but that there are far too many non-creationists in the GOP who are willing to overlook the creationism issue as if it’s not a problem.

If you put forward the well-spoken slick car salesman as “your guy” and he talks about small government and fiscal responsibility, and then in the next breath wants to put ID in science classes… to the non-kool aid drinking fence sitter, limited government is now associated with kook beliefs.

Good way to put us on the road to ruin.

325 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:12:04pm

re: #311 Walter L. Newton

Boo.

I’m making a point. Because that’s what’s really being suggested here, without the suggestion actually being spelled out in those clear words.

I just jumped ahead and said it for anyone who doesn’t want to clarify it.

Let’s face it, if a politician or scientist believes in god, then that person is NOT going to be able to keep that belief out of decisions.

And if you think they can, then my suggestion that we only elected atheist should not be a problem.

I’m not auguring with ya, was just kidding around. A play on words so to speak?

326 SixDegrees  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:12:08pm

re: #306 Creeping Eruption

By the way, what is up with Sanford these days?

He bleated out another tearful apology last week. While insisting he wasn’t going to resign.

327 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:12:11pm

re: #307 buzzsawmonkey

Oh, so you’re saying that scientists do make a religion out of science?

No, but they won’t vote for or identify with cretins who try to make religion a science. :)

328 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:12:20pm

re: #317 Honorary Yooper

Beliefs, or lack of belief, cannot be separated from an individual. It is very much a part of them, and will have an influence on how they act, what they do, and what they support.

Bingo. So, this argument about conservatives who are creationist is moot.

If we don’t want a creationist in office, let’s make sure we vote on conservative atheists only.

329 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:12:27pm

re: #305 kansas

[Link: www.factcheck.org…]

Is that supposed to refute my point that creationism was a negative issue for Sarah Palin? Because all it does is reinforce it.

And in case you missed it, I pointed out the very same things in that Factcheck.org article, long before they did.

330 Russkilitlover  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:12:53pm

OT - Does this inspire confidence in anyone?
Bernanke says, Inflation? Pffft

Stock market is flat today, so Wall St. is digesting this as well. From my initial reading I hear big interest rate hikes (although, he says “far off” in the future) and tightening credit to keep the oodles of printed money from making their way into the financial sector. Hmmm. We’re in a fix, folks.

331 kansas  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:13:09pm

re: #319 keithgabryelski

How does one “debate both sides” with out teach creationism in school.

Factcheck got that wrong on it face.

Teaching that the belief exists is quite different from teaching it. I taught history some years back with chapters on the world’s religions. Covered Islam and Christianity. Didn’t advocate for against either.

332 snowcrash  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:13:29pm

re: #327 iceweasel
Cretins?

333 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:14:02pm

re: #329 Charles

Is that supposed to refute my point that creationism was a negative issue for Sarah Palin? Because all it does is reinforce it.

And in case you missed it, I pointed out the very same things in that Factcheck.org article, long before they did.

Would you prefer a conservative candidate who was a self declared atheist?

334 doppelganglander  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:14:07pm

re: #306 Creeping Eruption

By the way, what is up with Sanford these days?

The last I heard, he was continuing his non-apology tour. He said something about God forgiving him and using this to make him a better person and a better governor, or some such crap.

335 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:14:24pm

re: #332 snowcrash

Cretins?

I usually call creationists, “cretinists”, but that’s just my ever-so-humble opinion.

336 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:14:28pm

re: #333 Walter L. Newton

Would you prefer a conservative candidate who was a self declared atheist?

I’m not running and you can’t make me.

337 avanti  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:14:29pm

re: #307 buzzsawmonkey

Oh, so you’re saying that scientists do make a religion out of science?

More to do with the fact that scientists are way less religious then the general population.

338 Creeping Eruption  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:14:31pm

re: #326 SixDegrees

He bleated out another tearful apology last week. While insisting he wasn’t going to resign.

Like a lamb to the slaughter …

339 kansas  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:14:54pm

re: #329 Charles

Is that supposed to refute my point that creationism was a negative issue for Sarah Palin? Because all it does is reinforce it.

And in case you missed it, I pointed out the very same things in that Factcheck.org article, long before they did.

So her position was that creationism should be advocated in the public schools? Then Fact Check is wrong.

340 Baelzar  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:15:00pm

Regardless of personal beliefs, if the Republicans continue to talk about forcing Intelligent Design into science class, or continue attacking Roe v. Wade for any reason, they are going to get hammered at the polls.

The Obama election was partially a referendum on these issues.

Personally, I think it’s too late for the Republicans. They are so intermeshed with the Religious Right that there’s no way to pry them apart.

I don’t remember Reagan suggesting religion be taught in science class.

341 Oh no...Sand People!  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:15:02pm

I for one have already signed my son up for Islamic Science 101. High emphasis on combustible chemicals…could come in handy in the future…somehow.

/

342 haakondahl  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:15:27pm

re: #292 keithgabryelski

Buchanan is on MSNBC quite often (more than once a week) and has stepped on his tongue a few times. Rachel Maddow’s show being the last example.

Speaking of ‘have you looked outside the window lately’, Buchanan is not stepping on his tongue, he’s goose-stepping on our party. He is a Nazi sympathizer anti-semite, and believe me, each of those assertions stands independent of the other.

343 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:15:33pm

re: #336 CyanSnowHawk

I’m not running and you can’t make me.

Funny, I can’t seem to get a strait answer to that question or my other suggestions about atheist and politicians.

344 JustABill  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:15:45pm

re: #302 doppelganglander

Interesting. I can see the value of having a so-con in the VP slot, but NOT Huckleberry. For one thing, with his inflated ego, he would not accept second place. I also doubt Mitt would consider him, considering what a back-stabbing creep he was in ‘08. Sanford would have been a natural choice if he hadn’t blown up his career. But a Southerner on the ticket would be a very good idea.

You may be right, its unfortunate that the egos of these politicians gets in the way of doing right by the party and country.

The reason I suggested Hucksterby is that because he is a minister, many SoCons would hold their nose and vote for Romney. If there were another person who could get southern SoCons to vote for a Mormon I’d love to see them step forward.

345 Creeping Eruption  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:15:53pm

re: #334 doppelganglander

The last I heard, he was continuing his non-apology tour. He said something about God forgiving him and using this to make him a better person and a better governor, or some such crap.

… but ever other adulterer is going to hell. God gave him a pass because he found his soul mate.//

346 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:15:57pm
347 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:15:57pm

re: #232 zombie

The president has very little influence on the content of school curricula. It is not a federal issue. I think in fact that Bush himself was a creationist in his personal beliefs, but he neither tired to nor had the power to puish that agenda in the classroom. So Palin’s creationist beliefs mean little to me, politically. In fact, governors like Pawlenty and Palin have more power over school curricula than the president does.

Yes, the Left bashed Palin over creationism, but that comprised about 2% of their hatred of her. They would have savaged her, creationism or no creationism.

zombie: Bush did say “teach the controversy” while he was President, but in December of last year, after the election, he apparently had a change of heart.

He told an interviewer that evolution and creationism are not incompatible, and said that the Bible was “probably not” literally true. As you might imagine, this inflamed the Right to no end. But it was also Christmas season, and they had the War on Christmas to deal with, so…

348 jcm  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:16:14pm

re: #333 Walter L. Newton

Would you prefer a conservative candidate who was a self declared atheist?

Newton ‘12!

349 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:16:16pm

re: #333 Walter L. Newton

Would you prefer a conservative candidate who was a self declared atheist?

You’ve still got to use some caution, even with them. Just because the guy is an atheist does not automatically mean he supports evolutionary theory. The guy could be a panspermia advocate who believes aliens created all life on Earth.

/Actually ran into a guy like this once.

350 hazzyday  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:16:17pm

re: #330 Russkilitlover

OT - Does this inspire confidence in anyone?
Bernanke says, Inflation? Pffft

Stock market is flat today, so Wall St. is digesting this as well. From my initial reading I hear big interest rate hikes (although, he says “far off” in the future) and tightening credit to keep the oodles of printed money from making their way into the financial sector. Hmmm. We’re in a fix, folks.

All that really seems to happen here is a fable. Pres Obama running around in circles yelling. “The sky is falling, the sky is falling” “We must act now!” then after a certain amount of time. “Everything is ok now, I have saved you!!!” “Vote for me again if you want to be saved again.” All the while just voting present.

Chicken Little
The Sneetches

351 debutaunt  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:16:19pm

re: #337 avanti

More to do with the fact that scientists are way less religious then the general population.

than

352 doppelganglander  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:16:33pm

re: #320 subsailor68

I don’t know Haley Barbour’s position on creationism, etc., but he does seem to have street cred from how Mississippi survived Katrina. Any possibility there as a VP pick for someone like Romney?

(Just askin’, because I really don’t know enough to have an opinion.)

I don’t know much more than you do. Barbour used to be chairman of the RNC, so anything he said or did in those years would be dragged out. He did a great job with Katrina, but you’d never know that because all the MSM does is blame Bush for the cluster f*** that was NOLA.

353 allan5oh  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:16:43pm

re: #274 Sharmuta

You’re right it doesn’t. I was talking with a friend a while back, and he came up with the statement:

“I just don’t see how you can go from a singularity(pre big bang) to human life…”

Yet he was conveniently wrapping up big bang theory, abiogenesis, and evolution all into one very short time frame. They’re separate theories, and need to be analyzed separately.

354 Dianna  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:17:46pm

re: #333 Walter L. Newton

Would you prefer a conservative candidate who was a self declared atheist?

That’s a really interesting question.

I think a lot of us would react to that without too much dismay, provided the candidate were a “weak” atheist - that is, one for whom his/her atheism were not an article of faith. However much the irony would appeal to me, personally.

355 avanti  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:17:58pm

re: #330 Russkilitlover

OT - Does this inspire confidence in anyone?
Bernanke says, Inflation? Pffft

Stock market is flat today, so Wall St. is digesting this as well. From my initial reading I hear big interest rate hikes (although, he says “far off” in the future) and tightening credit to keep the oodles of printed money from making their way into the financial sector. Hmmm. We’re in a fix, folks.

The market was flat, was up, then down, now up again. (at the moment)

356 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:18:07pm

re: #340 Baelzar

Regardless of personal beliefs, if the Republicans continue to talk about forcing Intelligent Design into science class, or continue attacking Roe v. Wade for any reason, they are going to get hammered at the polls.

The Obama election was partially a referendum on these issues.

Personally, I think it’s too late for the Republicans. They are so intermeshed with the Religious Right that there’s no way to pry them apart.

I don’t remember Reagan suggesting religion be taught in science class.

I don’t think Obama’s “victory” was in anyway a referendum on those issues. It was almost all about the last 8 Years of the Bush administration.

357 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:18:23pm

re: #349 Honorary Yooper

You’ve still got to use some caution, even with them. Just because the guy is an atheist does not automatically mean he supports evolutionary theory. The guy could be a panspermia advocate who believes aliens created all life on Earth.

/Actually ran into a guy like this once.

You make a point there. Hell, the other day at a bar, I ran into a whole group of them, had their own dart team. They all thought Cricket was the prize, not the name of the game.

358 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:18:28pm

re: #339 kansas

So her position was that creationism should be advocated in the public schools? Then Fact Check is wrong.

Quote:

“Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”

359 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:18:32pm

re: #343 Walter L. Newton

Funny, I can’t seem to get a strait answer to that question or my other suggestions about atheist and politicians.

I haven’t been following LGF closely lately, or read this whole thread, so haven’t seen your questions about that, but I know that “There is no god” makes a lousy campaign slogan.

360 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:18:32pm

re: #346 buzzsawmonkey

No, they won’t vote for people who try and comingle religion with science.

I don’t think that most grownups, including those who work in the sciences, are looking to “identify with” the people they vote for. Leftists and other people of childlike mind do that.

“identify with”= “call themselves Republican”

That’s why only 6 percent of scientists “identify as” republicans.

361 Dianna  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:19:16pm

re: #349 Honorary Yooper

I love people who promote aliens to the status of god.

362 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:19:43pm

re: #354 Dianna

That’s a really interesting question.

I think a lot of us would react to that without too much dismay, provided the candidate were a “weak” atheist - that is, one for whom his/her atheism were not an article of faith. However much the irony would appeal to me, personally.

Thanks for a very honest answer. I would think that anyone who were worried about a creationist in office would have no problem with electing an atheist.

363 jcm  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:19:47pm

re: #353 allan5oh

You’re right it doesn’t. I was talking with a friend a while back, and he came up with the statement:

“I just don’t see how you can go from a singularity(pre big bang) to human life…”

Yet he was conveniently wrapping up big bang theory, abiogenesis, and evolution all into one very short time frame. They’re separate theories, and need to be analyzed separately.

When the universe is 6013 years old, you have to take some shortcuts.

364 debutaunt  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:20:13pm

re: #359 CyanSnowHawk

I haven’t been following LGF closely lately, or read this whole thread, so haven’t seen your questions about that, but I know that “There is no god” makes a lousy campaign slogan.

The opponent could pull a Reagan and say: There you god again.

365 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:20:23pm

re: #333 Walter L. Newton

Would you prefer a conservative candidate who was a self declared atheist?

You don’t have be an atheist to reject creationist pseudo-science.

366 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:21:01pm

re: #353 allan5oh

Folks get chided around here for conflating OOL and evolution. Whether because he knows it was true or it was accidental, President Bush was exactly right. Regardless- he surprised me with that interview. Not sure he would have won the nomination had he said that in 2000.

367 MandyManners  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:21:02pm

Nordstrom is coming to Manhattan!

368 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:21:20pm
369 el_raton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:21:20pm

Why does Jindal contradict Catholic doctrine (not to mention common sense) that precedes his birth by over twenty years? Does he dare to challenge the Pope on such an issue?

370 Russkilitlover  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:21:33pm

re: #350 hazzyday

All that really seems to happen here is a fable. Pres Obama running around in circles yelling. “The sky is falling, the sky is falling” “We must act now!” then after a certain amount of time. “Everything is ok now, I have saved you!!!” “Vote for me again if you want to be saved again.” All the while just voting present.

Chicken Little
The Sneetches

That does seem to be this Administration’s SOP. And it’s been effective. The decay of common sense in America has brought us to this point. Hope it can make a recovery.

371 Kragar  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:22:22pm

re: #361 Dianna

I love people who promote aliens to the status of god.

Which only changes the question to “How did the Aliens evolve then?”

372 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:22:28pm

re: #352 doppelganglander

I don’t know much more than you do. Barbour used to be chairman of the RNC, so anything he said or did in those years would be dragged out. He did a great job with Katrina, but you’d never know that because all the MSM does is blame Bush for the cluster f*** that was NOLA.

Regarding Barbour and creationism, a quick Google found this (and only this out of four pages):

Is Haley Barbour A Creationist?

The verdict seems to be “hard to tell”.

373 solomonpanting  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:22:44pm

re: #294 Walter L. Newton

Actually, it would be nice if politicians, scientist, anyone who has any input into shaping education would get out of the “god” business.

Anyone who expects politicians or scientist who do believe in a god to be free of any opinion on god or creation or evolution is crazy.

This whole problem would be solved if the parties would only put up candidates who are avowed atheist.

Would work for me.

But not for the majority.

…

The Feb. 9-11, 2007, poll asked Americans whether they would vote for “a generally well-qualified” presidential candidate nominated by their party with each of the following characteristics: Jewish, Catholic, Mormon, an atheist, a woman, black, Hispanic, homosexual, 72 years of age, and someone married for the third time.

Between now and the 2008 political conventions, there will be discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates — their education, age, religion, race, and so on. If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be …, would you vote for that person?

>…Yes, would …No, would not
>…vote for …vote for
>…%…%

Catholic…95…5
Black…95…4
Jewish…92…7
A Woman…88…11
Hispanic…87…12
Mormon…72…24
Married for the third time…67…30
72 years of age…57…42
A homosexual…55…43
An atheist…45…53

374 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:22:48pm

re: #367 MandyManners

Nordstrom is coming to Manhattan!

EVERYBODY RUN!

375 Dianna  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:23:10pm

re: #362 Walter L. Newton

Thanks for a very honest answer. I would think that anyone who were worried about a creationist in office would have no problem with electing an atheist.

It does look that way. Frankly, were I running for office (heaven forfend!), I would simply say I would never dream of inserting my religious beliefs into the public debate.

At least I would, were I thinking.

376 pianobuff  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:23:26pm

re: #322 SixDegrees

I’ll say it again, since you seem to have trouble reading what I actually wrote: the days of Ronald Reagan are long past. The world has changed. Creationists can not be allowed anywhere near the levers of power in today’s world and in their present incarnation.

Anything about that you don’t understand? Or are you going to continue to examine the world through a toilet paper tube while claiming to see the big picture?

I understand you just fine buddy. It’s a single-issue voting deal with you.

377 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:23:36pm

re: #367 MandyManners
The store??
So you wanna change the subject allready??

378 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:23:42pm

re: #365 Charles

You don’t have be an atheist to reject creationist pseudo-science.

I didn’t ask you if you had to be an atheist. I asked, if you had a choice between a creationist and an atheist, that’s the choice, would you vote for the atheist?

379 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:23:47pm

re: #368 buzzsawmonkey

And four out of five dentists surveyed recommend Strident for their patients who vote for bums.

I’m not overly impressed, knowing nothing about how big the poll from which this percentage is derived is, how many people told the pollsters to f*ck off instead of answering the question—and what the criteria were for calling those surveyed “scientists.” It’s quite an elastic term.

Hey, you don’t have to be impressed by it. It’s funny that without having read it, you’re already gearing up to claim they didn’t actually survey scientists.

As I said: run some more creationists and see how that works for you. :)

380 haakondahl  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:24:01pm

re: #349 Honorary Yooper

You’ve still got to use some caution, even with them. Just because the guy is an atheist does not automatically mean he supports evolutionary theory. The guy could be a panspermia advocate who believes aliens created all life on Earth.

/Actually ran into a guy like this once.

Well then he was not a *true* secular conservative.

381 avanti  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:24:26pm

re: #365 Charles

You don’t have be an atheist to reject creationist pseudo-science.

As a agnostic, I don’t get atheists, I can’t “know” that there is not a supreme being, I just don’t think that if there is one, organized religion has got it right. As a matter of fact, I hope they don’t have it right.

382 Ben Hur  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:24:36pm

re: #367 MandyManners

Nordstrom is coming to Manhattan!

You’re in Manhattan?!?

383 SixDegrees  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:24:38pm

re: #348 jcm

Newton ‘12!

Isaac Newton? Not even close to being an atheist. A Christo-mystic with strong leanings toward numerology is about the closest I can come to describing him. He was into some really weird shit outside of his day job.

384 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:24:41pm
385 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:24:56pm

re: #349 Honorary Yooper

You’ve still got to use some caution, even with them. Just because the guy is an atheist does not automatically mean he supports evolutionary theory. The guy could be a panspermia advocate who believes aliens created all life on Earth.

/Actually ran into a guy like this once.

Actually, panspermia is a valid scientific theory, not that aliens created life on Earth. It purports that life was formed in one place and spread throughout the universe. And depending on the exact version, it could just be the basics of life as we know it - the amino acids, DNA, etc - not entire organisms, or at least, not entire complex organisms. Maybe bacteria came from space, and mutated on earth into other life forms; that could still fit under the panspermia umbrella.

Whereas, if the guy you met was smart, he’d make a religion of it and crank in the bucks. Unless the Scientologists took a dim eye to the competition.

386 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:25:02pm
387 Dianna  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:25:08pm

re: #371 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Which only changes the question to “How did the Aliens evolve then?”

I had that objection as long ago as high school. There was no good answer offered.

388 Russkilitlover  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:25:12pm

re: #355 avanti

The market was flat, was up, then down, now up again. (at the moment)

38 pts is not very “up.” I think we’ll see Wall Street’s take on today’s Bernanke tap dance tomorrow or by the end of the week. If Wall St. sees that the Fed is going to artificially block inflation now, it could be very good for stocks in the short term. Bernanke said that he wants banks to “hold onto” the monies they have (i.e., tighten credit), this will be very bad for small business and employment.

389 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:25:14pm

re: #375 Dianna

It does look that way. Frankly, were I running for office (heaven forfend!), I would simply say I would never dream of inserting my religious beliefs into the public debate.

At least I would, were I thinking.

Good.

390 subsailor68  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:25:36pm

re: #352 doppelganglander

I don’t know much more than you do. Barbour used to be chairman of the RNC, so anything he said or did in those years would be dragged out. He did a great job with Katrina, but you’d never know that because all the MSM does is blame Bush for the cluster f*** that was NOLA.

Hmmm…here’s the Wiki article on Haley Barbour (yeah, I know, gotta take it with a grain of salt). Doesn’t look like anything devastating. Interesting info on his RNC chairmanship:

In 1993, Barbour became chairman of the Republican National Committee. In 1994, during his tenure as RNC chair, Republicans captured both houses of the United States Congress, taking the House of Representatives for the first time in forty years.[9][10] In 1997, Barbour ceased being chairman of the RNC.

Pretty good work there I should think.

391 haakondahl  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:25:48pm

re: #359 CyanSnowHawk

I haven’t been following LGF closely lately, or read this whole thread, so haven’t seen your questions about that, but I know that “There is no god” makes a lousy campaign slogan.

A real uniter would say “God is not dead. He’s just resting.”

392 Yashmak  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:25:59pm

re: #362 Walter L. Newton

Thanks for a very honest answer. I would think that anyone who were worried about a creationist in office would have no problem with electing an atheist.

I wouldn’t care if it were an atheist running for office, as long as it wasn’t central to his/her campaign, and as long as said candidate had no interest in foisting off his/her views on others through legislation or appointments. I feel exactly the same about religious candidates. You’re welcome to your beliefs, just don’t try to force them on me or my children, either through legislation or education.

393 allan5oh  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:26:21pm

re: #366 Sharmuta

I too thought President Bush’s opinion on the subject was just about spot on. How he handled it, is how most GOP front runners should handle it IMO.

Creation pseudo-science should not be in schools. It fails even the basic test of being a theory. There is nothing anti-religious or anti-creationist about that whatsoever.

394 turn  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:26:28pm

re: #309 Nevergiveup

I know what’s out there, but I never saw any definitive poll saying her views on that, confusing as they were, had a large effect on the election. And While it was a hot topic of conversation here, I NEVER encountered it out in the real world where the liberals around me denounced her for EVERYTHING else.

A google search for +palin +daughter yields 10 times as many hits as the creationism. This may be from people who were genuinely curious but I must agree with you, the hatchet job on the kids hurt her way more than any creationism argument did. I’m down with those here who would rather see a creationist in there than another four years of o. A creationist president would be so tied up with four years of serious reversal of o’s policies that there wouldn’t be any time available to push creationism in schools, assuming they even intended too or had the influence to do so.

395 Dianna  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:26:31pm

re: #374 CyanSnowHawk

EVERYBODY RUN!

Or put a hard lock on your wallet.

396 doppelganglander  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:27:09pm

re: #344 JustABill

You may be right, its unfortunate that the egos of these politicians gets in the way of doing right by the party and country.

The reason I suggested Hucksterby is that because he is a minister, many SoCons would hold their nose and vote for Romney. If there were another person who could get southern SoCons to vote for a Mormon I’d love to see them step forward.

Huckabee is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the extreme conservative Christian wing of the party. He’s poorly educated, bigoted, convinced he’s on God’s speed dial, and willing to destroy anyone that gets in his way. I am trying to think of a Southern Republican who doesn’t have too much baggage — subsailor68 mentioned Haley Barbour — but no one with a national reputation springs to mind. OTOH, no one had heard of Sarah Palin two years ago (Or Obama, for that matter).

397 SixDegrees  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:27:14pm

re: #365 Charles

You don’t have be an atheist to reject creationist pseudo-science.

Just for the record, the Pope does just that. So did his predecessor. As far as I know, the Catholic Church has never held that evolutionary theory violated doctrine.

398 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:27:33pm
399 haakondahl  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:27:41pm

re: #387 Dianna

I had that objection as long ago as high school. There was no good answer offered.

“I got ya there, sonny. It’s turtles all the way down!”

400 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:27:41pm

re: #378 Walter L. Newton

I didn’t ask you if you had to be an atheist. I asked, if you had a choice between a creationist and an atheist, that’s the choice, would you vote for the atheist?

All other things being equal, and assuming I didn’t have problems with other positions, I would vote for anyone other than a creationist.

401 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:27:50pm

re: #381 avanti

As a agnostic, I don’t get atheists, I can’t “know” that there is not a supreme being, I just don’t think that if there is one, organized religion has got it right. As a matter of fact, I hope they don’t have it right.

Atheism just means you see no reason to believe in a god. It’s stronger than the merely neutral position of “I don’t know, maybe, maybe not” which is agnosticism.

Compare: I don’t know for sure that there isn’t a leprechaun in my garden right now, but I don’t see any reason at all to think there is. It wouldn’t be right to describe me as ‘agnostic’ about leprechauns.

402 zombie  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:27:57pm

re: #297 Sharmuta

You’ve been a staunch advocate for getting creationism out of the GOP in the past.

Now you just confuse me.

I wager that I am the strongest evolution advocate on LGF. I’ve been arguing with creationists here since 2004, long before it was even a standard topic of discussion. The reason i don’t vociferously argue about it anymore is simply that I believe there’s nothing left to argue about — creationism has 0% scientific credibility, and I’m not going to re-argue the same points over and over til the end of time with every newbie creationist troll.

And I would just LOVE it if being an aggressive creationist immediately disqualified any politician from running for office. Unfortunately, reality is reality, and there are a lot of creationists in the country, and a lot of them choose to run for office. And others vote for them and get the creationists elected. I’m not happy about that, but facts is facts.

So now that puts me in a “lesser of two evils” situation. Being a creationist is a black mark against any politician in my book, but it is not the be-all-and-end-all litmus test. If a creationist politician who is good in other areas runs against a non-creationist who is bad in those other areas — I’ll likely vote for the creationist.

The 2004 presidential elelction is a good example. I suspected even then that Bush was a private creationist or semi-creationist as the quotes above show, but the country needed a president to press the Iraq War to victory. It was obvious that Bush had the intention of winning the Iraq War, which is exactly what he did, to his eternal credit. And it was just as obvious that Kerry planned to cut and run, leaving the Middle East and the rest of the world in a terrible mess. But Kerry was pro-evolution.

So: Do i choose the evolutionist over the creationist, based on that one issue? Or do I choose the person who I think will be best for the world overall, taking all issues into account?

As it turned out, I chose the best overall, and voted against the evolutionist.

I’m not happy about this state of affairs, and will dance a happy dance if the GOP nominates someone who accepts evolution, but if they go ahead with a creationist anyway in 2012 — I once again will have to sit down and choose from among the lesser of two evils.

The most obvious example: In a Palin (creationist) vs. Obama (evolutionist) race, I’d almost certainly vote Palin, because the other issues (fiscal responsibility, support for Israel, vigorous foreign policy) are in Palin’s favor, and they trump creationism in importance.

At least, that’s my take on the situation.

I’m as upset — more upset, actually — as anyone that people still cling to the incoherent jumble-sale philosophies known as “conservativism” and “liberalism”, which are both a frustrating patchwork of internally contradictory philosophies. I’m looking for a new political orientation, so I’ll have to create it myself. Which I plan to do.

403 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:28:15pm

re: #391 haakondahl

A real uniter would say “God is not dead. He’s just resting.”

Neitsche light?

404 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:28:20pm

re: #392 Yashmak

I wouldn’t care if it were an atheist running for office, as long as it wasn’t central to his/her campaign, and as long as said candidate had no interest in foisting off his/her views on others through legislation or appointments. I feel exactly the same about religious candidates. You’re welcome to your beliefs, just don’t try to force them on me or my children, either through legislation or education.

So, you believe that a candidate with religious beliefs, a belief in a god, a belief that the god created life (using evolution, creationism what ever) can make policy decision without ever consider his/her religious beliefs?

Could you?

405 avanti  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:28:43pm

re: #368 buzzsawmonkey

And four out of five dentists surveyed recommend Strident for their patients who vote for bums.

I’m not overly impressed, knowing nothing about how big the poll from which this percentage is derived is, how many people told the pollsters to f*ck off instead of answering the question—and what the criteria were for calling those surveyed “scientists.” It’s quite an elastic term.

You can track dedication to faith by eduction level. More HS grads and below are regular church goers than college grads, more college grads then doctorates.
Of course there are exceptions, but that’s the general rule. Also, those attending church more often, tend to be conservatives.

406 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:28:49pm

re: #393 allan5oh

Creation pseudo-science should not be in schools. It fails even the basic test of being a theory. There is nothing anti-religious or anti-creationist about that whatsoever.

I agree. They’re free to believe what they want, but they can’t use the public schools to teach other people’s children about religion.

407 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:29:10pm

re: #367 MandyManners

Nordstrom is coming to Manhattan!

Between them and the new JCPenney in Manhattan, there’s no reason to visit the overpriced junk store at Herald Square.

408 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:29:18pm

re: #361 Dianna

I love people who promote aliens to the status of god.

I think that’s what a lot of the UFO-ologists to. They want some kind of more powerful being, can’t believe in G-d, so they believe in aliens.

409 soxfan4life  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:29:45pm

re: #394 turn

A google search for +palin +daughter yields 10 times as many hits as the creationism. This may be from people who were genuinely curious but I must agree with you, the hatchet job on the kids hurt her way more than any creationism argument did. I’m down with those here who would rather see a creationist in there than another four years of o. A creationist president would be so tied up with four years of serious reversal of o’s policies that there wouldn’t be any time available to push creationism in schools, assuming they even intended too or had the influence to do so.

Why can’t a leading candidate come out and say Education is a local issue and Roe vs. Wade is not going away. Thus making the MSM’s divide and conquer strategy useless and let us focus on stopping this out of control spending, before we have an invading country tell us what is in our best interest with the sole of their boot to our throat.

410 Dianna  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:30:11pm

re: #388 Russkilitlover

38 pts is not very “up.” I think we’ll see Wall Street’s take on today’s Bernanke tap dance tomorrow or by the end of the week. If Wall St. sees that the Fed is going to artificially block inflation now, it could be very good for stocks in the short term. Bernanke said that he wants banks to “hold onto” the monies they have (i.e., tighten credit), this will be very bad for small business and employment.

Um…forgive me, but how does one “artificially block inflation”? Either inflation is cut off at the knees, or it’s not; money supply measures are either in balance, or they’re not.

411 avanti  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:30:31pm

re: #388 Russkilitlover

38 pts is not very “up.” I think we’ll see Wall Street’s take on today’s Bernanke tap dance tomorrow or by the end of the week. If Wall St. sees that the Fed is going to artificially block inflation now, it could be very good for stocks in the short term. Bernanke said that he wants banks to “hold onto” the monies they have (i.e., tighten credit), this will be very bad for small business and employment.

Keep the doom and gloom going, I’m still trying to ride the market.

412 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:30:43pm

re: #386 buzzsawmonkey

I’ve read enough polls to know that four out of five of them are crap.

And your braying reiteration of “run some more creationists” when I have recommended nothing of the sort is getting drearier by the moment.

So, you have nothing left but insults. Again.

Glad we have that sorted.

413 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:30:56pm

re: #400 Charles

All other things being equal, and assuming I didn’t have problems with other positions, I would vote for anyone other than a creationist.

Good answer. I up dinged ya, I know you can use it :)

414 schlagerman  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:31:05pm

re: #17 lawhawk


My thoughts exactly lawhawk. With the current economic situation, it seems creationism is far down the list of issues which would matter to the average voter. I don’t believe ID (thinly veiled creationism) should be taught in schools; however, if the decision was between a GOP candidate who espoused creationism but vowed to be fiscally conservative and strong on national defense, or a Dem candidate who even remotely supported Obama’s policies, I would vote for the creationist. Granted, they would not be my choice in the GOP primary, but in the general election, there’s no question.

415 HelloDare  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:31:29pm

re: #229 jacksontn

HD … the “church” of Black Liberation Theology that Obama went to for 20 years is okay? … if they bring up the Mormon issue then more examination of Obama’s church needs to take place … after electing a man who was involved with Black Liberation Theology for all those years and then to say Romney is not electable because he is Mormon is racist …

If the press didn’t delve into the BLT mess back then when it was “news” they sure aren’t going to get into it in the next election cycle. The same way they didn’t go into Obama’s lack of experience when they pilloried Palin for her supposed lack of experience.

When the press was literally digging through Palin’s garbage cans, it took Stanley Kurtz to uncover Annenberg Challenge documents that proved Obama was lying about his association with Ayers. The NYT or local Chicago papers or broadcast media didn’t do it. It was a blogger. I don’t anticipate much will change.

416 badger1970  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:31:56pm

re: #397 SixDegrees

They’re more concerned about the what was done than the how it was done.

417 subsailor68  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:32:11pm

re: #405 avanti

You can track dedication to faith by eduction level. More HS grads and below are regular church goers than college grads, more college grads then doctorates.
Of course there are exceptions, but that’s the general rule. Also, those attending church more often, tend to be conservatives.

Hi avanti! Hmmm…that means that Heaven is a giant prom, and Hell an eternal round of master’s theses and doctoral presentations?

(Just kidding, my friend!)

418 ladycatnip  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:32:19pm

Just read this off Drudge - Obama not familiar with House health care bill.

During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” (quote begins at 17:10)

Morons! How did we elect this guy?

419 Russkilitlover  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:32:25pm

re: #398 taxfreekiller

what he is saying,

the money the banks have, I want them to keep it in U.S. Treasury investments, ie, loaned to the Obama Adm..

Yup. You got it in one.

420 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:32:40pm
421 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:33:14pm
422 Erik The Red  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:33:19pm

re: #402 zombie

I wager that I am the strongest evolution advocate on LGF. I’ve been arguing with creationists here since 2004, long before it was even a standard topic of discussion. The reason i don’t vociferously argue about it anymore is simply that I believe there’s nothing left to argue about — creationism has 0% scientific credibility, and I’m not going to re-argue the same points over and over til the end of time with every newbie creationist troll.

And I would just LOVE it if being an aggressive creationist immediately disqualified any politician from running for office. Unfortunately, reality is reality, and there are a lot of creationists in the country, and a lot of them choose to run for office. And others vote for them and get the creationists elected. I’m not happy about that, but facts is facts.

So now that puts me in a “lesser of two evils” situation. Being a creationist is a black mark against any politician in my book, but it is not the be-all-and-end-all litmus test. If a creationist politician who is good in other areas runs against a non-creationist who is bad in those other areas — I’ll likely vote for the creationist.

The 2004 presidential elelction is a good example. I suspected even then that Bush was a private creationist or semi-creationist as the quotes above show, but the country needed a president to press the Iraq War to victory. It was obvious that Bush had the intention of winning the Iraq War, which is exactly what he did, to his eternal credit. And it was just as obvious that Kerry planned to cut and run, leaving the Middle East and the rest of the world in a terrible mess. But Kerry was pro-evolution.

So: Do i choose the evolutionist over the creationist, based on that one issue? Or do I choose the person who I think will be best for the world overall, taking all issues into account?

As it turned out, I chose the best overall, and voted against the evolutionist.

I’m not happy about this state of affairs, and will dance a happy dance if the GOP nominates someone who accepts evolution, but if they go ahead with a creationist anyway in 2012 — I once again will have to sit down and choose from among the lesser of two evils.

The most obvious example: In a Palin (creationist) vs. Obama (evolutionist) race, I’d almost certainly vote Palin, because the other issues (fiscal responsibility, support for Israel, vigorous foreign policy) are in Palin’s favor, and they trump creationism in importance.

At least, that’s my take on the situation.

I’m as upset — more upset, actually — as anyone that people still cling to the incoherent jumble-sale philosophies known as “conservativism” and “liberalism”, which are both a frustrating patchwork of internally contradictory philosophies. I’m looking for a new political orientation, so I’ll have to create it myself. Which I plan to do.

Very well stated Zombie!!!

423 Yashmak  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:33:41pm

re: #402 zombie

The reason i don’t vociferously argue about it anymore is simply that I believe there’s nothing left to argue about — creationism has 0% scientific credibility, and I’m not going to re-argue the same points over and over til the end of time with every newbie creationist troll.

It gets old, doesn’t it? Sadly, they never stop coming.

424 turn  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:33:57pm

re: #409 soxfan4life

Why can’t a leading candidate come out and say Education is a local issue and Roe vs. Wade is not going away. Thus making the MSM’s divide and conquer strategy useless and let us focus on stopping this out of control spending, before we have an invading country tell us what is in our best interest with the sole of their boot to our throat.

Oh I agree, that would be a strong candidate for me. Incidentally, I was thinking that an out and out atheist would have a snow balls chance in hell of getting nominated. It has to be someone like Bush or Reagan that were religious but never pushed ID or the elimination of roe vs wade.

425 Creeping Eruption  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:33:58pm

re: #422 Erik The Red

Pretty articulate for the walking dead, huh?

426 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:34:00pm

re: #383 SixDegrees

That reminds me of one of my favorite Ali G quotes. He was interviewing a scientist and asked him “Why did Sir Isaac Neutron shoot an apple off that geezer’s head?”

427 avanti  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:34:05pm

re: #417 subsailor68

Hi avanti! Hmmm…that means that Heaven is a giant prom, and Hell an eternal round of master’s theses and doctoral presentations?

(Just kidding, my friend!)

Go to heaven for the weather, hell for the company. :)

428 Russkilitlover  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:34:07pm

re: #410 Dianna

Um…forgive me, but how does one “artificially block inflation”? Either inflation is cut off at the knees, or it’s not; money supply measures are either in balance, or they’re not.

Fed controls the interest rate, which banks lend to each other. They can most certainly manipulate this to an extent for a short period of time. Fed Chiefs have been doing it for a long time, whether they are inflation or deflation sensitive.

429 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:34:13pm
430 Randall Gross  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:34:15pm

re: #367 MandyManners

Nordstrom is coming to Manhattan!

I used to drink with Max at Tommy’s Elbow Room. He lived in a small apartment above his furniture store on Fifth ave. in Fbx. The kids are a lot different than Max was.

431 Kragar  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:34:31pm

re: #387 Dianna

I had that objection as long ago as high school. There was no good answer offered.

Its obvious we are all just spawn of Ubbo-Sathla

432 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:34:31pm

The whole point of posting about this, by the way, is to try to inform people about a serious problem in the GOP. If you just sit back and say “It doesn’t matter, it’s not important, who cares,” you probably are going to end up in a position where you have to choose between a creationist or a Democrat.

And in that situation, the Democrats are going to win. The Republican Party is losing share in America, big time, and it’s at least partly because sane people don’t speak out against the fanatical domination of the party by religious extremists.

433 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:34:57pm

re: #405 avanti

You can track dedication to faith by eduction level. More HS grads and below are regular church goers than college grads, more college grads then doctorates.
Of course there are exceptions, but that’s the general rule. Also, those attending church more often, tend to be conservatives.

First off, some facts please, some links to stats like that.

Second, do you know how many progressive go to church, well educated progressives, to very liberal churches?

Why do you have some sort of blindness to the fact that the left has church goers? Educated church goers.

I guess Obama is one of those odd exceptions you mention above, since he is very educated and went to a church for a good 20 years.

Hmmm…

434 Lincolntf  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:35:01pm

re: #418 ladycatnip

For a guy who’s supposed to be some sort of genius, he sure says “I don’t know” a lot.

435 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:35:11pm

re: #429 buzzsawmonkey

No, I’m tired of you intentionally misrepresenting something because it gives you a leg-tingle. That is a statement of fact, not an insult—unless you can’t stand the sight of yourself in the mirror, which I would certainly understand.

What an interesting reply. Wow, it certainly refutes what I said:

#412 iceweasel

So, you have nothing left but insults. Again.

Glad we have that sorted.

436 Dianna  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:35:27pm

re: #408 Kosh’s Shadow

I think that’s what a lot of the UFO-ologists to. They want some kind of more powerful being, can’t believe in G-d, so they believe in aliens.

Well, for one thing, it’s a lot easier to appease their image of aliens than it is the current vision of a supreme being.

437 Ben Hur  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:35:45pm

So, if someone voted for The One, then voted against him in the 2nd term election, is that person a racist?

438 KansasMom  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:35:58pm

re: #402 zombie

Unfortunately, voting is a game of the lesser of the evils.
Creationism is a bad trait in a politician, but for me its only a deal-breaker if they are running for school board. Otherwise, its one of many political stances I will take into account. Single issue voting is for those who don’t do thorough research.

439 haakondahl  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:36:28pm

re: #378 Walter L. Newton

I didn’t ask you if you had to be an atheist. I asked, if you had a choice between a creationist and an atheist, that’s the choice, would you vote for the atheist?

Your choice needs tweaking. You can choose more evenly between a Christian and an atheist. Creationism is not a statement of religious perspective so much as it is a consideration of details addressed by various schools of thought, and is more evenly paired with “evolutionist”, although I don’t think that’s a word.

440 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:36:36pm

re: #421 buzzsawmonkey

I wouldn’t expect them to. But if that person has been an active practitioner of their faith, you have some idea what you’re getting—unless, of course, that person merely attended a racist preacher’s church for 20 years.

Right, so, if any conservative is concerned with creationist candidate, even if that candidate says he/she will not allow their belief to effect their policy decisions, I don’t believe it.

Elect an atheist, that’s the answer.

441 Russkilitlover  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:36:45pm

re: #402 zombie

A thousand updings if I were so empowered!

442 soxfan4life  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:37:01pm

re: #437 Ben Hur

So, if someone voted for The One, then voted against him in the 2nd term election, is that person a racist?

I’d say they were a born again patriot.

443 Creeping Eruption  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:37:36pm

re: #442 soxfan4life

I’d say they were a born again patriot.

Were they created or did they evolve?/

444 kansas  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:37:52pm

re: #358 Charles

Quote:

“Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”

I guess you can take this statement any way you want. That she advocates for teaching creationism as science, or that she simply advocates for teaching that there are those who believe in creationism. As far as science goes, evolution belongs in science and biology. Creationism in history or social studies.

445 zombie  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:37:58pm

re: #400 Charles

All other things being equal, and assuming I didn’t have problems with other positions, I would vote for anyone other than a creationist.

That’s my position too. But the emphasis is on “All other things being equal.” Creationism is a big minus. But things rarely are completely “equal” when it comes to politicians, so almost always other issues must be weighed.

Frankly, where I REALLY resist voting for creationists is in governor, county commisioner and local school board elections. THAT’s where it matters. In the presidential race — not so much. Unless of course, someone is an aggressive creationist, who really plans to push the issue as president. Then I’d really have to think twice. But if they’re a passive personal creationist (like Bush), then i don’t mind so much.

446 debutaunt  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:38:02pm

re: #437 Ben Hur

So, if someone voted for The One, then voted against him in the 2nd term election, is that person a racist?

A realist who saw what happened.

447 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:38:08pm

re: #439 haakondahl

Your choice needs tweaking. You can choose more evenly between a Christian and an atheist. Creationism is not a statement of religious perspective so much as it is a consideration of details addressed by various schools of thought, and is more evenly paired with “evolutionist”, although I don’t think that’s a word.

Ok, adding your little fine tuning to my statement, answer it.

448 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:38:22pm

re: #436 Dianna

Well, for one thing, it’s a lot easier to appease their image of aliens than it is the current vision of a supreme being.

Wear Nikes, drink the kool-aid, and wait for the comet to pick you up.

449 Dianna  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:38:39pm

re: #417 subsailor68

Hi avanti! Hmmm…that means that Heaven is a giant prom, and Hell an eternal round of master’s theses and doctoral presentations?

(Just kidding, my friend!)

A couple of Ph.D.’s I know would probably do anything at all to avoid an eternity of orals.

450 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:38:50pm

re: #17 lawhawk

Ditto

451 redstateredneck  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:38:58pm

re: #433 Walter L. Newton

Second, do you know how many progressive go to church, well educated progressives, to very liberal churches?


My brother is an excellent example of this and he is a member of a United Church of Christ. I dare say you’d be hard pressed to find a conservative leaning member of that particular congregation.

452 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:39:12pm

re: #432 Charles

If you just sit back and say “It doesn’t matter, it’s not important, who cares,” you probably are going to end up in a position where you have to choose between a creationist or a Democrat.

Goldwater warned about this and no one bothered to heed him. 40+ years later and here we are. At some point this has to stop- and procrastination isn’t helping.

453 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:39:13pm
454 Shr_Nfr  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:39:26pm

Hopefully, they get this out of their system. Religious beliefs are fine in private and ratty in public. While I do not believe so, the religious Catholic believes in transubstantiation at the Eucharist. The wine and wafer become the real blood and body. Ok, if it gives your life meaning, who am I to argue. I will only argue when you force me to believe the same thing.

455 zombie  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:39:36pm

re: #414 schlagerman

I don’t believe ID (thinly veiled creationism) should be taught in schools; however, if the decision was between a GOP candidate who espoused creationism but vowed to be fiscally conservative and strong on national defense, or a Dem candidate who even remotely supported Obama’s policies, I would vote for the creationist. Granted, they would not be my choice in the GOP primary, but in the general election, there’s no question.

That’s exactly my position, put more succinctly. Thank you.

456 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:39:56pm
457 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:40:03pm

re: #408 Kosh’s Shadow

I think that’s what a lot of the UFO-ologists to. They want some kind of more powerful being, can’t believe in G-d, so they believe in aliens.

SID - UFO sighted, sector blue, range 90 thousand kilometers, speed 0 decimal 045 c.
Lt. Harrington - Interceptors immediate launch.

458 Erik The Red  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:40:07pm

re: #444 kansas

I guess you can take this statement any way you want. That she advocates for teaching creationism as science, or that she simply advocates for teaching that there are those who believe in creationism. As far as science goes, evolution belongs in science and biology. Creationism in history or social studies.

Religious education.

FTFY

459 JacksonTn  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:40:48pm

re: #415 HelloDare

If the press didn’t delve into the BLT mess back then when it was “news” they sure aren’t going to get into it in the next election cycle. The same way they didn’t go into Obama’s lack of experience when they pilloried Palin for her supposed lack of experience.

When the press was literally digging through Palin’s garbage cans, it took Stanley Kurtz to uncover Annenberg Challenge documents that proved Obama was lying about his association with Ayers. The NYT or local Chicago papers or broadcast media didn’t do it. It was a blogger. I don’t anticipate much will change.

HD … true but maybe when he runs for election in 2012 he will not seem so “historic” and people will have a better feel for what he is really about … his mask is slipping every day … there was only a small look taken at the preacher Wright and hardly any looking into the real basics of the teaching of the church … what is based on … Cone … I know it seems like I don’t let go of this issue but I will not because it made me really mad during the campaign and I will not forget it …

Oh and on the blue dog dems … I had another conversation with my blue dog this afternoon … second time this week … he is getting many calls against the Health Care Obama wants and the Card Check crap … he better vote against it …

460 dwells38  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:41:25pm

re: #333 Walter L. Newton

Would you prefer a conservative candidate who was a self declared atheist?

Sounds good to me! But such a candidate could not be elected for the same reason in Sagan’s movie adapted Contact Jody Foster’s character did not initially get to go to Vega.

461 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:41:43pm
462 Dianna  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:42:05pm

re: #428 Russkilitlover

Fed controls the interest rate, which banks lend to each other. They can most certainly manipulate this to an extent for a short period of time. Fed Chiefs have been doing it for a long time, whether they are inflation or deflation sensitive.

That wasn’t my question. I’m at least cursorily familiar with the mechanisms of the Fed. My question was about your word choices, specifically “artificially block inflation.”

Surely, one either curbs inflation (slays it and stomps it flat, in my view) or one doesn’t.

463 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:42:18pm

re: #456 buzzsawmonkey

You certainly go into whine overdrive at warp speed when you are called on your repetitions of a lying canard.

If you were to admit that you were intentionally lying, repeatedly, when you attempted to suggest that I was advocating creationist candidates, you would go far towards not justifying your choice of “weasel” as a moniker.

You’ve repeatedly changed the subject and repeatedly resorted to insults because you’re losing the argument. Again.

And you do the same here. Again.

You won’t find me having to insult you anywhere. To quote someone else, it’s because I won.

Cheers.

464 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:42:48pm
465 turn  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:43:02pm

re: #402 zombie

turn only has one ding zomb, well said. Exactly the way I see it, lesser of two evils. oh, and remember I had dibs on zombideology!

466 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:43:09pm
467 haakondahl  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:43:19pm

re: #218 SixDegrees

I wouldn’t be too concerned about inflation for a while. The housing market has all but collapsed, and until prices there rebound it will act like a stone around the neck of the economy - and inflationary pressures. And with the enormous inventory of homes on the market at foreclosure prices, values aren’t going to rebound to normal levels for quite a long time, probably a few years. If spending can be contained to what’s been allotted in the current stimulus package - or less, if anyone can muster the balls to take back what hasn’t already been spent, which right now is about 90% of the allottment - the economy can probably absorb the borrowing underlying the stimulus over the next few years without undue inflation. And the Fed’s tools - raising interest rates and buying up Treasury securities - are extremely effective at dealing with the demand component of inflation. They are not as effective at controlling structural inflationary pressures - like spikes in oil prices caused by embargoes, for example - but they are probably sufficient to control the devaluation of the dollar caused by stimulus spending - if it doesn’t exceed what has already been done.

Also, if any of the upcoming budget boondoggles like nationalized health care pass, the confiscation of wages necessary to pay for such programs will depress any surge in consumer demand for goods. It could also prolong the recovery from recession by an awfully long time, but that will certainly serve to keep inflation in check.

You are sanguine about consumer demand driven inflation, and rightly so. The threat is money supply driven inflation. It is simply not possible to so drastically expand the money supply without reducing the value of money. If the inflation is not expressed directly as spiralling prices within the country, then it will certainly take hold as a de-valuing of the dollar in ForEx, which will have the exact same effect internally—prices spiral upward.
With this occurring at the same time so many are unemployed, and getting more so each month, we are about to party like it’s 1979.
Stagflation. Misery index. Austerity Measures.

468 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:43:47pm

I’m not going to continue promoting the problem by voting for the antithesis of Goldwater conservatism. Keep procrastinating this issue and doom the party. Great plan.

469 Yashmak  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:43:50pm

re: #404 Walter L. Newton

So, you believe that a candidate with religious beliefs, a belief in a god, a belief that the god created life (using evolution, creationism what ever) can make policy decision without ever consider his/her religious beliefs?

Could you?

I’m pretty sure I could differentiate between faith and scientific evidence, if that’s what you’re asking. I would tend to set aside my personal beliefs as much as possible, convinced that’s the intent of the separation clause. What you ask is a question faced by each elected official, I’m sure. To me, on the issue of creation vs. evolution, however, it’s much clearer. It takes a great deal of willful blindness to discount the sheer volume of supporting evidence behind evolution.

When you come right down to it, I would prefer we not have leaders who allow belief to overcome mountains of empirical evidence to the contrary.

470 schlagerman  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:44:02pm

re: #455 zombie

I have a coherent thought once in a while. Right now I’m at work, so I try to banish coherent thoughts from my head. I don’t know how that one slipped through. :)

471 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:44:06pm

re: #452 Sharmuta

Goldwater warned about this and no one bothered to heed him. 40+ years later and here we are. At some point this has to stop- and procrastination isn’t helping.

Sharm: Goldwater! Hear, hear! One particular quote I thought was prescient beyond belief…

“However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly.

“The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C,’ and ‘D.’

“Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of ‘conservatism.’ “

Wonder how that message would go over today? :)

472 zombie  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:44:08pm

re: #432 Charles

The whole point of posting about this, by the way, is to try to inform people about a serious problem in the GOP. If you just sit back and say “It doesn’t matter, it’s not important, who cares,” you probably are going to end up in a position where you have to choose between a creationist or a Democrat.

And in that situation, the Democrats are going to win. The Republican Party is losing share in America, big time, and it’s at least partly because sane people don’t speak out against the fanatical domination of the party by religious extremists.

I fully agree.

I guess you have more confidence than I do in our ability to influence who it is the GOP nominates for president. In my experience, the GOP nominee is usually someone I would never have even considered — while the obvious “best” nominee is usually roadkill on the way to the convention hall.

473 ladycatnip  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:44:58pm

#404 Walter L. Newton

So, you believe that a candidate with religious beliefs, a belief in a god, a belief that the god created life (using evolution, creationism what ever) can make policy decision without ever consider his/her religious beliefs?

Could you?

Since the inception of our country men and women have been elected that apparently had no problem with that.

474 haakondahl  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:45:15pm

re: #432 Charles
It’s not often I upding the host. I mean what would be the point? But for this one, Amen, Brother, Amen!

475 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:45:33pm

re: #432 Charles

The whole point of posting about this, by the way, is to try to inform people about a serious problem in the GOP. If you just sit back and say “It doesn’t matter, it’s not important, who cares,” you probably are going to end up in a position where you have to choose between a creationist or a Democrat.

And in that situation, the Democrats are going to win. The Republican Party is losing share in America, big time, and it’s at least partly because sane people don’t speak out against the fanatical domination of the party by religious extremists.

After 8 years of a very divisive Republican Administration in the midst of what many of us thought was a War, it is not surprising that the “Opposition” party would gain ground. It has happened before and it will happen again. I have no doubt that what you call the “religious right” has alienated some or perhaps even many in the “middle”. However, if the economy had not tanked, and if the War had been explained better and waged better, the issues of “creationism” would not be as prominent as it is today. And while I think it is a unfortunate distraction for the Republican Party, I do not think it is as important as you seem to think it is.

476 subsailor68  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:45:47pm

Well all, must go. I truly hope everyone has a wonderful evening, does something fun, and looks forward to a great day tomorrow!!

477 Dianna  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:45:49pm

re: #448 Kosh’s Shadow

Wear Nikes, drink the kool-aid, and wait for the comet to pick you up.

Sadly.

478 kansas  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:46:05pm

re: #368 buzzsawmonkey

And four out of five dentists surveyed recommend Strident for their patients who vote for bums.

I’m not overly impressed, knowing nothing about how big the poll from which this percentage is derived is, how many people told the pollsters to f*ck off instead of answering the question—and what the criteria were for calling those surveyed “scientists.” It’s quite an elastic term.

I see the problem with you and the Weasel. Strident was a medicated pad for acne, therefore would not have been recommended by dentists. They recommended Trident. If they were paid enough.: )

479 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:47:06pm

re: #472 zombie

You’re confusing me again. You agree completely with Charles or it doesn’t matter because the president doesn’t really deal with this issue?

480 haakondahl  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:47:06pm

re: #408 Kosh’s Shadow

I think that’s what a lot of the UFO-ologists to. They want some kind of more powerful being, can’t believe in G-d, so they believe in aliens.


What’s more, they get in on the ground floor of this one! It’s not the aliens they elevate to Godhood—it’s themselves.

481 zombie  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:47:11pm

re: #438 KansasMom

Unfortunately, voting is a game of the lesser of the evils.
Creationism is a bad trait in a politician, but for me its only a deal-breaker if they are running for school board. Otherwise, its one of many political stances I will take into account. Single issue voting is for those who don’t do thorough research.

Absolutely agree. School Board is where it matters (and governor). In other races, the creationism issue is a minor one, in my political calculations (for my personal vote). Although I do agree with Charles too that the Dems will use the creationism issue as a campaign “kill shot” given half a chance, even in races for positions where one’s creationism beliefs are borderline irrelevant.

482 Son of the Black Dog  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:47:52pm

re: #417 subsailor68

Hi avanti! Hmmm…that means that Heaven is a giant prom, and Hell an eternal round of master’s theses and doctoral presentations?

(Just kidding, my friend!)

Heaven is a place where:

The police are English;
the mechanics are German;
the chefs are French;
the lovers are Italian; and
the organizers are Swiss.

Hell is a place where:

The police are German;
the mechanics are French;
the chefs are English;
the lovers are Swiss; and
the organizers are Italian.

483 Ben Hur  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:47:55pm

re: #448 Kosh’s Shadow

Wear Nikes, drink the kool-aid, and wait for the comet to pick you up.


[Link: www.eatliver.com…]

484 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:47:56pm

re: #478 kansas

I see the problem with you and the Weasel. Strident was a medicated pad for acne, therefore would not have been recommended by dentists. They recommended Trident. If they were paid enough.: )


Oh god, not another health care fight! ///

:)

485 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:48:09pm
486 Russkilitlover  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:48:11pm

re: #462 Dianna

That wasn’t my question. I’m at least cursorily familiar with the mechanisms of the Fed. My question was about your word choices, specifically “artificially block inflation.”

Surely, one either curbs inflation (slays it and stomps it flat, in my view) or one doesn’t.

The Fed can, for a time, keep a lid on interest rates. Can’t do it for very long because that inflation will escape like a gaseous cloud. But by keeping interest rates “artificially” low for a while, it will give the appearance that the economy is more stable than it is. Once a recovery begins or is in full swing; however, interest rates will have to rise (probably exponentially) in order to rein in inflation.

487 Dianna  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:48:54pm

re: #463 iceweasel

You’ve repeatedly changed the subject and repeatedly resorted to insults because you’re losing the argument. Again.

Not to my observation.

Project, much?

488 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:49:02pm

re: #485 buzzsawmonkey

You’re thinking of Stridex. I was referring to “Strident” both to play off Trident and because of the stridency of some political advocates. And iceweasel.

You’re being humourless. Here and above.

489 avanti  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:49:24pm

re: #433 Walter L. Newton

First off, some facts please, some links to stats like that.

Second, do you know how many progressive go to church, well educated progressives, to very liberal churches?

Why do you have some sort of blindness to the fact that the left has church goers? Educated church goers.

I guess Obama is one of those odd exceptions you mention above, since he is very educated and went to a church for a good 20 years.

Hmmm…

Walter, you missed by “there are exceptions” comment . Sure the left has regular church goers, just not as many percentage wise. BTW, I think Obama attended church largely for the connections to local politics, he’s not attending much now.

490 wrenchwench  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:49:31pm

re: #472 zombie

I fully agree.

I guess you have more confidence than I do in our ability to influence who it is the GOP nominates for president. In my experience, the GOP nominee is usually someone I would never have even considered — while the obvious “best” nominee is usually roadkill on the way to the convention hall.

If everything is working as it should, influence starts at the bottom.

491 turn  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:49:39pm

re: #463 iceweasel

Are you two secretly married or something?
/

492 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:50:16pm
493 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:50:31pm

re: #254 Charles

I have to disagree. The Presidency is the world’s biggest podium, and presidents do have the power to advance and promote social agendas. Having an activist creationist like Bobby Jindal (or one of the other GOP politicians in the Discovery Institute’s pocket) in that position could be disastrous.

I am not normally in the habit of correcting spelling mistakes, especially those of our host, but I feel compelled to point out the mistake I have bolded above.

Sorry to point it out, Charles, but you misspelled atavist.
//

494 Russkilitlover  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:50:32pm

re: #471 ShanghaiEd

Wonder how that message would go over today? :)

A Republican who spoke those words today would win. More so if they were fiscally conservative.

Also the roof would blow off the White House from all the head’s exploding.

495 Dianna  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:50:42pm

re: #467 haakondahl

Thanks - that’s what I was thinking about.

496 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:51:02pm

re: #489 avanti

Walter, you missed by “there are exceptions” comment . Sure the left has regular church goers, just not as many percentage wise. BTW, I think Obama attended church largely for the connections to local politics, he’s not attending much now.

Probably can’t find a racist church up to his standards in Washington?

497 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:51:05pm

re: #487 Dianna

Not to my observation.

Project, much?

How’d that work out for you last time? Your projection?

You know, when you were picking on capitalist piglet, Walter and others for no reason today?

Not so hot, huh?

498 Dianna  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:51:43pm

re: #486 Russkilitlover

Thanks - I am way, way behind on this thread. Good answer, or expansion of your initial answer.

499 haakondahl  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:51:46pm

re: #447 Walter L. Newton

Ok, adding your little fine tuning to my statement, answer it.

I would of course prefer (and vote for) an evolutionist rather than an creationist. One of these people has a shot at not being full of shit.
I have no preference between a Christian and an atheist. I guess you could say I’m agnostic on that one.

500 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:51:56pm

re: #489 avanti

Walter, you missed by “there are exceptions” comment . Sure the left has regular church goers, just not as many percentage wise. BTW, I think Obama attended church largely for the connections to local politics, he’s not attending much now.

How can you say I missed “there are exceptions” when I said…

I guess Obama is one of those odd exceptions you mention above, since he is very educated and went to a church for a good 20 years.

Sometimes I don’t understand you one bit.

501 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:52:34pm

re: #491 turn

Are you two secretly married or something?
/

It would explain a lot!

502 badger1970  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:53:16pm

Hypothetically, is creationism is more of a put off than abortion, higher taxes, weak defense and assault on personal freedoms?

If not, then why is it an issue? If so, how did those governors become governors?

Now, wouldn’t it be hypocritical to vote against an otherwise good candidate just because of one issue? What am I not getting?

503 rayamehemna  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:53:17pm

I want a creationist!
I don’t want a homosexual atheist!

504 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:54:01pm
505 callahan23  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:54:10pm

re: #402 zombie

A heartfelt THANK YOU.

506 avanti  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:54:16pm

re: #500 Walter L. Newton

Sometimes I don’t understand you one bit.

That’s why we enjoy the back and forth, I don’t get you either.

507 MTF  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:54:23pm

Charles, you say “In other words, if local school boards want to teach nonsensical pseudo-science to schoolchildren, Pawlenty’s just fine with that. After all, he believes the pseudo-science himself.”

I disagree with your interpretation of his position. From the little I’ve read about Pawlenty I don’t see anything that says he himself believes in “pseudo-science”. Instead, I see him trying to evade answering a question that he thinks is a stupid trap. It’s a trap because there are lots of voters out there who might ordinarily vote for him that he knows Brokaw is trying hard to alienate from him, and it’s stupid because no decision a governor makes can influence the deliberate idiocy a local school board decides to inflict on students in any event.

508 Yashmak  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:54:43pm

re: #498 Dianna

Thanks - I am way, way behind on this thread. Good answer, or expansion of your initial answer.

The trick, especially with creationism related threads (and other fast-growing commentaries), is to not TRY to keep up. I used to try, and it just made me jumble up quotes, reply to the wrong commentor, etc. etc. :)

509 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:54:50pm

re: #503 rayamehemna

What?

510 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:54:53pm
511 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:54:53pm

re: #503 rayamehemna

I want a creationist!
I don’t want a homosexual atheist!

What about a dead bear?

/hee hee

512 jcm  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:54:54pm

re: #503 rayamehemna

I want a creationist!
I don’t want a homosexual atheist!

If the creationist was a Marxist.
And the homosexual atheist was a Goldwater conservative?

513 keithgabryelski  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:55:38pm

re: #440 Walter L. Newton


Elect an atheist, that’s the answer.

Sarcasm aside, there are basically two choices for Republicans:

1) Marginalize those in the party that what to push creationism into science classes
2) Rebuild a new party with-out the creationists.

The former is not easy, but the latter requires many years to get critical mass.

514 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:55:55pm

re: #512 jcm

If the creationist was a Marxist.
And the homosexual atheist was a Goldwater conservative?

Goldwater was a homosexual atheist?

/starting an ugly rumor

515 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:55:57pm

re: #502 badger1970

Hypothetically, is creationism is more of a put off than abortion, higher taxes, weak defense and assault on personal freedoms?

If not, then why is it an issue? If so, how did those governors become governors?

Now, wouldn’t it be hypocritical to vote against an otherwise good candidate just because of one issue? What am I not getting?

The perfect is the enemy of the good- while this is true, the real issue with creationism is the undermining of the Constitution. So while the creationist candidate night tell you they stand here or there on other issues, how can you be so sure when they fail to support the very foundation of our system?

516 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:56:09pm

re: #506 avanti

That’s why we enjoy the back and forth, I don’t get you either.

I get you Avanti, but I forgive you.

517 Ben Hur  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:56:16pm

re: #509 Slumbering Behemoth

What?

We want a pitcher!
Not a belly itcher!

518 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:56:20pm

re: #504 buzzsawmonkey

Iceweasel has given us an impression of a bichon frise puppy worrying someone’s sock. Apparently, it’s a great hit at parties.

Buzz has been impersonating a Shih Tzu doing what it does best.

It’s a great impression, but oddly enough doesn’t make him popular at parties.

519 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:56:24pm
520 avanti  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:56:25pm

re: #504 buzzsawmonkey

Iceweasel has given us an impression of a bichon frise puppy worrying someone’s sock. Apparently, it’s a great hit at parties.

Take it easy on the token leftie, we are a endangered species in Lizard land. :)

521 pink freud  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:56:30pm

re: #463 iceweasel


You won’t find me having to insult you anywhere. To quote someone else, it’s because I won.

Cheers.

May I recommend you find a bit of introspection and explore one of your own oft-mentioned topics, that of “serial bully”.Your text to link…

522 capitalist piglet  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:56:37pm

re: #311 Walter L. Newton

Boo.

I’m making a point. Because that’s what’s really being suggested here, without the suggestion actually being spelled out in those clear words.

I just jumped ahead and said it for anyone who doesn’t want to clarify it.

Let’s face it, if a politician or scientist believes in god, then that person is NOT going to be able to keep that belief out of decisions.
And if you think they can, then my suggestion that we only elected atheist should not be a problem.

I hope I’m not missing some context (trying to catch up here) - and this is purely anecdotal, but I wanted to mention that one of my brothers is a scientist with a PhD, working right this minute at the same research lab where’s he worked for many years. His work involves species of fish.

He absolutely believes in God, but he has no difficulty at all leaving religion out of his work - he is accomplished, respected, and very successful.

Because of this, I don’t think we should assume that scientists who are believers are in conflict, but maybe that isn’t what you intended to say.

523 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:56:41pm

re: #507 MTF

Charles, you say “In other words, if local school boards want to teach nonsensical pseudo-science to schoolchildren, Pawlenty’s just fine with that. After all, he believes the pseudo-science himself.”

I disagree with your interpretation of his position. From the little I’ve read about Pawlenty I don’t see anything that says he himself believes in “pseudo-science”.

Quote:

Intelligent design is something that, in my view, is plausible and credible and something that I personally believe in…

524 callahan23  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:56:50pm

re: #503 rayamehemna

You’ve certainly forgot the sarc tag.

525 dwells38  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:57:09pm

re: #381 avanti

As a agnostic, I don’t get atheists, I can’t “know” that there is not a supreme being, I just don’t think that if there is one, organized religion has got it right. As a matter of fact, I hope they don’t have it right.

The way I think of it is I’m an atheist until there’s any evidence for a supreme being. Right now there is none. There’s only everyone talking about one and buildings dedicated to one and no scientific proof or evidence direct or indirect for a supreme supernatural being.

Why should I be agnostic (not knowing) when right now I know there’s no evidence. And there’s tons of evidence for a natural process that occurred over eons. That I also know. When someone produces the supreme being evidence I’ll adjust my beliefs pronto.

526 Russkilitlover  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:57:15pm

re: #498 Dianna

Thanks - I am way, way behind on this thread. Good answer, or expansion of your initial answer.

I’m no expert on economics, but I hang out with a few and try to nod and sound intelligent on occasion!

(They are not a happy group right now and all are seriously drinking heavily).

527 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:57:40pm

re: #521 pink freud

May I recommend you find a bit of introspection and explore one of your own oft-mentioned topics, that of “serial bully”.Your text to link…

Hey Pink! Have you found those links on Kitty Genovese yet that you promised? We’re still eager to see them.

528 JacksonTn  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:57:58pm

re: #520 avanti

Take it easy on the token leftie, we are a endangered species in Lizard land. :)

avanti … Really? … I would say you have multiplied lately …

529 Dianna  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:58:27pm

re: #497 iceweasel

How’d that work out for you last time? Your projection?

You know, when you were picking on capitalist piglet, Walter and others for no reason today?

Not so hot, huh?

Excuse me?

I wasn’t “picking” on anyone.

Both Walter and CP are quite capable of standing up for themselves. Or whinging for themselves, if they’re in a mood for such.

I call that grasping after straws.

Your remark does not apply to me.

Try again? (Y/N)

530 J.S.  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:58:35pm

re: #487 Dianna

When Buzz noted that a certain individual was conflating two wholly different ideas…the weasel responded: “Your conflation is what’s silly. If creationists were happy to pray to their sixthousand year old planet in piece [sic], I wouldn’t care if we elected one.” Whereas previously, it was an emphatic absolutist stance opposing any vote for a “creationist.” Now, that’s humor! along with gibberish…and why it’s on GAZE…

531 avanti  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:59:00pm

re: #516 Nevergiveup

I get you Avanti, but I forgive you.

Glad to hear that. I may not agree with everyone’s politics, but I’ll defend your right to what ever politics you like.

532 jcm  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:59:00pm

re: #514 Ward Cleaver

Goldwater was a homosexual atheist?

/starting an ugly rumor

He was in Washington at the same time as J. Edgar Hoover…

/// even uglier…

533 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:59:24pm

re: #506 avanti

That’s why we enjoy the back and forth, I don’t get you either.

You and Walter are like Felix and Oscar. :)

534 Russkilitlover  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:59:29pm

re: #512 jcm

If the creationist was a Marxist.

Can’t exist…opium of the masses and stuff. No Marxist would be a creationist.

535 SixDegrees  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:59:36pm

re: #418 ladycatnip

Just read this off Drudge - Obama not familiar with House health care bill.

Morons! How did we elect this guy?

To be fair, 0bama shouldn’t be expected to be familiar with the bill’s details yet, as it is still being drafted and will certainly change substantially before it ever gets out of committee, let alone what may happen to it once on the floor. Such details aren’t his concern until the bill passes both houses and lands on his desk for a signature, or a veto.

At that point, he damn well better know what he’s signing. But right now, members of the House are the ones who should be charged with knowing that information, not the President.

536 dwells38  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 12:59:52pm

re: #383 SixDegrees

Isaac Newton? Not even close to being an atheist. A Christo-mystic with strong leanings toward numerology is about the closest I can come to describing him. He was into some really weird shit outside of his day job.

He meant our own Walter here. The other guy was way into Alchemy when he wasn’t goofing around inventing Calculus.

537 DaddyG  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:00:23pm

When the GOP leadership can get together and create a solid candidate from dust I’ll apologize for my old earth beliefs.

538 zombie  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:00:38pm

re: #479 Sharmuta

You’re confusing me again. You agree completely with Charles or it doesn’t matter because the president doesn’t really deal with this issue?

I agree with Charles that the GOP ought not to nominate a creationist, because the Dems will use that issue to embarrass the nominee and make him or her look anti-science (and rightfully so), thereby losing a lot of votes from the GOP column.

Where we “disagree” on this one issue is that I think we bloggers have very little influence on how the GOP party nomination process works; Charles is optimistic that we can influence the GOP against nominating a creationist, I conversely am rather pessimistic on this topic, and from the looks of things, it seems quite likely that a creationist will be the GOP candidate, whether we here at LGF like it or not.

We also “disagree,” but in a rather minor and vague way apparently, about whether or not a creationist president would have much real influence when it comes to school curricula. I suspect that MANY of 20th-century presidents were creationists, and probably MOST of 19th-century presidents — and yet not a single one has ever really pressed the issue.

539 HelloDare  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:01:11pm

re: #459 JacksonTn

HD … true but maybe when he runs for election in 2012 he will not seem so “historic” and people will have a better feel for what he is really about … his mask is slipping every day … there was only a small look taken at the preacher Wright and hardly any looking into the real basics of the teaching of the church … what is based on … Cone … I know it seems like I don’t let go of this issue but I will not because it made me really mad during the campaign and I will not forget it …

Oh and on the blue dog dems … I had another conversation with my blue dog this afternoon … second time this week … he is getting many calls against the Health Care Obama wants and the Card Check crap … he better vote against it …

Yes, his halo is slipping. We can never predict what is going to happen. Maybe some symbolic gaffe will occur. Another, but better, Joe the Plumber moment that will expose Obama’s feet of clay. Strange how these things work. He can support the bogus Honduran ex-President, no problem. But if he were seen kicking his dog, he’d be finished.

540 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:01:15pm

re: #503 rayamehemna

I want a creationist!
I don’t want a homosexual atheist!

Then never run for office.

541 Gus  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:01:20pm

In the previous gubernatorial election Tim Pawlenty ran against Mike Hatch. Mike Hatch ran as a member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. Other candidates for the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party have included:

Al Franken for US Senator
Keith Ellison for US Representative

Highlights of Keith Eillison’s career includes support of Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, and his public defense of terrorist Kathleen Soliah.

One supporter of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party includes Randall Hayes who believes that President Bush allowed 911 to happen as a pretext to war:

In October 2004, Hayes joined such prominent activists as the Marxist anti-war speaker Stan Goff and Progressive Caucus member Cynthia McKinney in signing the 911 Truth Statement, “which called for immediate public attention to unanswered questions suggesting that people within the current [George W. Bush] administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.

Of course this is just scratching the surface on the party that surrounds Tim Pawlenty’s opponent, Mike Hatch and the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.

542 Jack Burton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:01:26pm

re: #402 zombie

I’m looking for a new political orientation, so I’ll have to create it myself. Which I plan to do.

I’ve had to do that myself, but I haven’t come up with a fancy name (I probably wont) and I don’t strive for any set-in-stone internal consistency which causes problems down the road anyway. It’s basically just taking every issue on a case by case basis and viewing it through the prism of limited government and personal responsibility.

543 Dianna  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:02:31pm

re: #526 Russkilitlover

Anyone looking at the economy is tempted to drink heavily!

544 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:02:34pm

Religious fundamentalists share the same vision with socialists- they think they can improve mankind if only the right people were in charge. Obviously, religious fundamentalists and socialists have differing ideas on who those “right people” are, but the thought process is the same- they don’t know the proper role or scope of government.

Not really inspiring me to elect them to the offices of the very government whose boundaries they fail to recognize or understand.

545 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:03:39pm

re: #530 J.S.

When Buzz noted that a certain individual was conflating two wholly different ideas…the weasel responded: “Your conflation is what’s silly. If creationists were happy to pray to their sixthousand year old planet in piece [sic], I wouldn’t care if we elected one.” Whereas previously, it was an emphatic absolutist stance opposing any vote for a “creationist.” Now, that’s humor! along with gibberish…and why it’s on GAZE…

It was perfectly clear that creationism isn’t some sort of privately held belief, but that creationists insist on trying to force their religious beliefs into science and/or scientific education. But I’m happy to be on GAZE for you, or any others.

546 lobo91  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:03:40pm

re: #535 SixDegrees

To be fair, 0bama shouldn’t be expected to be familiar with the bill’s details yet, as it is still being drafted and will certainly change substantially before it ever gets out of committee, let alone what may happen to it once on the floor. Such details aren’t his concern until the bill passes both houses and lands on his desk for a signature, or a veto.

At that point, he damn well better know what he’s signing. But right now, members of the House are the ones who should be charged with knowing that information, not the President.

Normally, that would be true, but I seriously doubt that much having to do with his administration’s self-described “signature issue” legislation happens without White House consultation and/or direction.

547 capitalist piglet  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:03:47pm

re: #488 iceweasel

You’re being humourless. Here and above.

He’s not “humourless”. He’s Churchillian.

Personally, I thought Churchill said some beautifully witty things on occasion.

“If you were my wife…”

548 Dianna  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:03:52pm

re: #530 J.S.

I caught part of it. Including the self-hugging bit.

549 callahan23  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:04:16pm

re: #541 Gus 802

In the previous gubernatorial election Tim Pawlenty ran against Mike Hatch. Mike Hatch ran as a member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. Other candidates for the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party have included:

Of course this is just scratching the surface on the party that surrounds Tim Pawlenty’s opponent, Mike Hatch and the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.

Nice diggin’ there Gus. Thanks.

550 lurking faith  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:04:34pm

re: #463 iceweasel

You won’t find me having to insult you anywhere. To quote someone else, it’s because I won.

If you have to tell people you won, you didn’t.

551 ladycatnip  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:04:56pm

#490 wenchwrench

If everything is working as it should, influence starts at the bottom.

We are forgetting an organization - the ACLU - that would never, ever, never, ever allow creationism to be taught in the public schools. The last thing we have to sorry about, imo, is a person of faith who believes in creation. More pressing issues are those leftists who are taking our country into socialism; those who are allowing islam to be taught in public charter schools; those who would tax the crap out of us so we can spread our own meager “wealth” around. There’s so much more at stake.

This is not a popular opinion here, but I think there are far worse things than electing a person of faith who also happens to believe God created all things. It marginalizes the individual, and he/she gets pidgeon-holed for that one thing while everything else is ignored.

One thing we can all bet on and that is this country will NEVER be a Christian theocracy. Maybe other types of theocracies but not a Christian one.

552 jaunte  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:05:10pm

re: #544 Sharmuta

Is “unconstrained boundaries’ listed in the DSM-V?

553 SixDegrees  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:05:12pm

re: #502 badger1970

Hypothetically, is creationism is more of a put off than abortion, higher taxes, weak defense and assault on personal freedoms?

If not, then why is it an issue? If so, how did those governors become governors?

Now, wouldn’t it be hypocritical to vote against an otherwise good candidate just because of one issue? What am I not getting?

Creationism is a stealth political movement aimed at establishing a fundamentalist psuedo-Christian theocracy that rules the United States. They have admitted as much - see the “Wedge Document” for starters, and any of their websites for a host of putrid details. There’s no difference between voting for a creationist and voting for a card-carrying member of the Taliban who is seeking political office; they both have exactly the same goals, although their tactics differ somewhat.

Creationism is the most anti-American political idea since Communism. Everything upheld in the Constitution is anathema to a creationist, who would shred that document and replace it with the fundo-Christian version of sharia law in a heartbeat given the power to do so.

554 zombie  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:05:12pm

re: #507 MTF

Charles, you say “In other words, if local school boards want to teach nonsensical pseudo-science to schoolchildren, Pawlenty’s just fine with that. After all, he believes the pseudo-science himself.”

I disagree with your interpretation of his position. From the little I’ve read about Pawlenty I don’t see anything that says he himself believes in “pseudo-science”. Instead, I see him trying to evade answering a question that he thinks is a stupid trap. It’s a trap because there are lots of voters out there who might ordinarily vote for him that he knows Brokaw is trying hard to alienate from him, and it’s stupid because no decision a governor makes can influence the deliberate idiocy a local school board decides to inflict on students in any event.

Actually, I disagree: Governors DO have significant power when it comes to state educational policy (at least in most states), whether it be appointing statewide school directors, or approving textbooks, or appointing judges who will decide on various school curricula issues, etc.

555 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:05:52pm

re: #544 Sharmuta

The hard-line fundamentalist, the socialist, the fascist. Same cloth, different patterns.

556 avanti  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:06:09pm

re: #525 dwells38

The way I think of it is I’m an atheist until there’s any evidence for a supreme being. Right now there is none. There’s only everyone talking about one and buildings dedicated to one and no scientific proof or evidence direct or indirect for a supreme supernatural being.

Why should I be agnostic (not knowing) when right now I know there’s no evidence. And there’s tons of evidence for a natural process that occurred over eons. That I also know. When someone produces the supreme being evidence I’ll adjust my beliefs pronto.

I’m a agnostic because I’m sick of everyone making up their own concept of a supreme being, and what he/she wants of us.
If there is a supreme being, we are too ignorant to speculate on such issues. My own idea of a supreme being would be more based on enjoying the life we’ve been given, while bringing joy to others, not worship, damnation and the rest. My idea of a supreme being is being better then us, not needing worship, nor being vengeful.
There I go, making up my own version, a waste of time.

557 Flyers1974  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:06:14pm

re: #346 buzzsawmonkey

No, they won’t vote for people who try and comingle religion with science.

I don’t think that most grownups, including those who work in the sciences, are looking to “identify with” the people they vote for. Leftists and other people of childlike mind do that.

I think a great many people base their vote largely on who they identify with. I’d say “leftists” and “rightists” would be the exception because they know exactly what they believe in. Wasn’t “likability” an important factor in Bush beating Gore and Kerry?

558 Gus  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:06:37pm

re: #549 callahan23

Nice diggin’ there Gus. Thanks.

You’re welcome. Didn’t take much to find. Mike Hatch also had an incident in which he called a male reporter a “Republican whore.” Not being a one issue voter I like to put things in perspective and I’m usually sitting on it — my wallet. After reading some of the comments here I find myself in the uncomfortable position of being an atheist that would probably support Pawlenty.

559 SixDegrees  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:06:38pm

re: #544 Sharmuta

Religious fundamentalists share the same vision with socialists- they think they can improve mankind if only the right people were in charge. Obviously, religious fundamentalists and socialists have differing ideas on who those “right people” are, but the thought process is the same- they don’t know the proper role or scope of government.

Not really inspiring me to elect them to the offices of the very government whose boundaries they fail to recognize or understand.

Exactly.

560 Baelzar  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:07:10pm

re: #356 Nevergiveup

Bush’s religious policies (Faith Based Initiatives, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, science funding in general) certainly had some effect. His regular quotes about his faith certainly had some effect.

561 avanti  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:07:22pm

re: #533 iceweasel

You and Walter are like Felix and Oscar. :)

I hope he’s the neat one, or we’re in deep shit.

562 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:07:34pm

re: #520 avanti

Take it easy on the token leftie, we are a endangered species in Lizard land. :)

There are many more of you than you think

563 J.S.  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:07:58pm

re: #548 Dianna

Yes. pathetic…but, o well, takes all kinds I suppose. (i don’t think it’s productive attempting to carry on any form of “dialogue” with the weasel. useless imo; just ends up with insults and projections; or perhaps that nursery rhyme? how’s that go? I’m rubber, you’re glue? lol).

564 Lincolntf  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:08:41pm

re: #546 lobo91

Not to mention that Obama is out there telling everyone how great and necessary the bill is. But he doesn’t know what’s in it? The question that he was asked is a huge part of the prospective law. It makes no sense that he’s ignorant of it.

565 iceweasel  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:08:47pm

re: #550 lurking faith

If you have to tell people you won, you didn’t.

So Obama didn’t? :)

566 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:08:54pm

re: #560 Baelzar

Bush’s religious policies (Faith Based Initiatives, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, science funding in general) certainly had some effect. His regular quotes about his faith certainly had some effect.

Nah, if the economy was booming, it would have been just background noise

567 zombie  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:09:14pm

re: #542 ArchangelMichael

I’ve had to do that myself, but I haven’t come up with a fancy name (I probably wont) and I don’t strive for any set-in-stone internal consistency which causes problems down the road anyway. It’s basically just taking every issue on a case by case basis and viewing it through the prism of limited government and personal responsibility.

I’ll nominate you as Chancellor of Reasonableness when i finally get around to formalizing my concept (which seem to be the same concept as yours).

568 Dianna  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:09:28pm

re: #563 J.S.

Who cares?

Off to the new thread, leaving all animosity on this thread.

Motto: Every thread is a fresh sheet of paper.

569 solomonpanting  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:09:30pm

re: #565 iceweasel

So Obama didn’t? :)

My, my, my. How Presidential of you!

570 dwells38  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:10:00pm

re: #433 Walter L. Newton

First off, some facts please, some links to stats like that.

Second, do you know how many progressive go to church, well educated progressives, to very liberal churches?

Why do you have some sort of blindness to the fact that the left has church goers? Educated church goers.

I guess Obama is one of those odd exceptions you mention above, since he is very educated and went to a church for a good 20 years.

Hmmm…

But politicians don’t count because they do and say a lot of things in order to pander for for votes. Not necessarily because they believe in them.

571 MTF  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:10:12pm

By the way, even though I disagree with Charles’s interpretation of Pawlenty’s position, as expressed in the Brokaw interview comments, I very much agree with this point: “The whole point of posting about this, by the way, is to try to inform people about a serious problem in the GOP. If you just sit back and say “It doesn’t matter, it’s not important, who cares,” you probably are going to end up in a position where you have to choose between a creationist or a Democrat.”

The Republicans have to find a way to drive out the kooks from policy making without losing their votes.

572 ladycatnip  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:11:02pm

#535 Six Degrees

To be fair, 0bama shouldn’t be expected to be familiar with the bill’s details yet, as it is still being drafted and will certainly change substantially before it ever gets out of committee, let alone what may happen to it once on the floor. Such details aren’t his concern until the bill passes both houses and lands on his desk for a signature, or a veto.

At that point, he damn well better know what he’s signing. But right now, members of the House are the ones who should be charged with knowing that information, not the President.

Totally disagree with you. Obama has been PUSHING this bill, intimidating those who don’t support it, threatening, etc. If he’s going to those lengths he better d@m# well know what’s in it.

573 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:11:08pm

re: #538 zombie

No- I have a very fundamental issue that I’m no longer willing to compromise, because that compromise undermines everything I hold dear- The Constitution, the rule of law, evolved systemic processes, individual liberty, freedom of conscience, the Enlightenment… everything. They are no different foundationally than the other party.

574 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:11:24pm
575 lobo91  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:11:31pm

re: #564 Lincolntf

Not to mention that Obama is out there telling everyone how great and necessary the bill is. But he doesn’t know what’s in it? The question that he was asked is a huge part of the prospective law. It makes no sense that he’s ignorant of it.

That was the only possible way he could respond to the question without making it painfully obvious that he’s been lying through his teeth about what’s going to happen if it passes.

576 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:11:44pm

re: #494 Russkilitlover

A Republican who spoke those words today would win. More so if they were fiscally conservative.

Also the roof would blow off the White House from all the head’s exploding.

Russ: I agree on your second point. Would sure be entertaining to see that explosion.

Wish I could agree on your first. I think you may underestimate the numbers and wrath of the Religious Right. Worth a try, though.

577 KansasMom  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:11:45pm

re: #568 Dianna


Every thread is a fresh sheet of paper.

Rotating Banner Nominee!

578 Jack Burton  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:12:13pm

re: #567 zombie

I’ll nominate you as Chancellor of Reasonableness when i finally get around to formalizing my concept (which seem to be the same concept as yours).

Does the position come with a funny hat? Or would that be unreasonable?

579 DaddyG  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:12:16pm

re: #544 Sharmuta

Religious fundamentalists share the same vision with socialists- they think they can improve mankind if only the right people were in charge. Obviously, religious fundamentalists and socialists have differing ideas on who those “right people” are, but the thought process is the same- they don’t know the proper role or scope of government.

Not really inspiring me to elect them to the offices of the very government whose boundaries they fail to recognize or understand.

Amen! I wish I had a better word then religious fundamentalists. I am a very dogmatic person and a “true believer” but I also think imperfect mankind is better off being ruled by law and liberty.

I don’t care so much what my president thinks about the Consitution and God so much as he or she follows the Constitution.

580 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:12:25pm

re: #571 MTF

By the way, even though I disagree with Charles’s interpretation of Pawlenty’s position, as expressed in the Brokaw interview comments …

It’s not an “interpretation” to say that Pawlenty believes in creationism. Those are his very words. Again, the quote:

Intelligent design is something that, in my view, is plausible and credible and something that I personally believe in.

581 eschew_obfuscation  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:12:26pm

re: #538 zombie

I agree with Charles that the GOP ought not to nominate a creationist, because the Dems will use that issue to embarrass the nominee and make him or her look anti-science (and rightfully so), thereby losing a lot of votes from the GOP column.

Where we “disagree” on this one issue is that I think we bloggers have very little influence on how the GOP party nomination process works; Charles is optimistic that we can influence the GOP against nominating a creationist, I conversely am rather pessimistic on this topic, and from the looks of things, it seems quite likely that a creationist will be the GOP candidate, whether we here at LGF like it or not.

We also “disagree,” but in a rather minor and vague way apparently, about whether or not a creationist president would have much real influence when it comes to school curricula. I suspect that MANY of 20th-century presidents were creationists, and probably MOST of 19th-century presidents — and yet not a single one has ever really pressed the issue.


I think that may be true if you’re using “creationist” in its classical sense rather than the way we now use it. There was a time, not long ago, when “creationist” meant only that one, usually Christian, believe that G_d created all that exists. Some believed it took seven earth-days to do and others who believed 7 days was a sort of time-compressed simile, 7 stages of creation as it were that could have represented a very long period of time. Most in government didn’t want to force their beliefs on anyone.

Today, “Creationist” seems to be synonymous with “YEC” who wants to force their religious beliefs on everyone.

582 Gus  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:13:11pm

BBL I have to figure out how to get some work in.

Later

583 wrenchwench  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:13:16pm

re: #551 ladycatnip

This is not a popular opinion here, but I think there are far worse things than electing a person of faith who also happens to believe God created all things.

Do you realize that this is not the definition of a creationist?

584 Lincolntf  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:14:00pm

re: #575 lobo91

That’s my take, too. Though there is the tiniest possibility that he truly did farm out the entire project to his aides/lobbyist pals/union cronies, etc. and honestly has no clue what they put in there.

585 callahan23  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:14:28pm

re: #558 Gus 802

You’re welcome. Didn’t take much to find. Mike Hatch also had an incident in which he called a male reporter a “Republican whore.” Not being a one issue voter I like to put things in perspective and I’m usually sitting on it — my wallet. After reading some of the comments here I find myself in the uncomfortable position of being an atheist that would probably support Pawlenty.

The same with me when we all learned of Palins nomination as VP-candidate. I as an atheist am supporting, even strongly so a very religious VP-candidate here on the other side of the pond. A lot of mud-hurling was aimed in my direction. Which is why Zombies comment: re: #402 zombie reflected so much of what I think of this issue.

586 lurking faith  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:15:00pm

re: #565 iceweasel

So Obama didn’t? :)

Actually, I think he’s still not sure.

Either that, or it’s because what he won is only a stepping stone to what he really wants.

(I wish I could put a sarc tag here.)

587 capitalist piglet  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:15:06pm

re: #568 Dianna

Who cares?

Off to the new thread, leaving all animosity on this thread.

Motto: Every thread is a fresh sheet of paper.

I will upding that.

588 kansas  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:15:39pm

re: #485 buzzsawmonkey

You’re thinking of Stridex. I was referring to “Strident” both to play off Trident and because of the stridency of some political advocates. And iceweasel.

I feel like such an ass.

589 BatGuano  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:16:32pm

I love this! I just walked into the argument clinic. :)

590 pianobuff  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:16:35pm

re: #418 ladycatnip

Just read this off Drudge - Obama not familiar with House health care bill.

Morons! How did we elect this guy?

I read he also met with the CBO yesterday… Do you know if that’s a routine thing for presidents to do? I always thought they (CBO) were supposed to be the independent/impartial oversight group.

591 ladycatnip  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:16:39pm

#567 zombie

#567 zombie

I’ll nominate you as Chancellor Czar of Reasonableness when i finally get around to formalizing my concept (which seem to be the same concept as yours).

FIFY

592 debutaunt  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:17:04pm

re: #562 Nevergiveup

There are many more of you than you think

I’ve stepped in multiple steaming piles.

593 SixDegrees  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:17:45pm

re: #572 ladycatnip

#535 Six Degrees

Totally disagree with you. Obama has been PUSHING this bill, intimidating those who don’t support it, threatening, etc. If he’s going to those lengths he better d@m# well know what’s in it.

You began by calling him a moron for not knowing about the provision in question. Now you’re claiming he knows everything that’s in the bill. Which one is it?

If you have some evidence that 0bama personally inserted this explicit provision into the bill, and then lied about it, please provide a reference. I’m certain that even the jaded, biased news media wouldn’t be able to restrain themselves from reporting such a story.

594 DaddyG  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:18:04pm

re: #589 BatGuano

I love this! I just walked into the argument clinic. :)


Shut up and take a number newbie! //

595 BatGuano  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:19:40pm

re: #594 DaddyG

Shut up and take a number newbie! //

I beg your pardon. I’ll sit down and wait my turn. :)

596 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:19:41pm

re: #555 Slumbering Behemoth

The hard-line fundamentalist, the socialist, the fascist. Same cloth, different patterns.

It’s human nature- we all have an inner authoritarian. That’s why our American system of government was designed to resist the pitfalls of human nature as best as possible by designing the checks and balances against all branches of government.

It is the nature of all governments to take whatever powers they can. Which is why our system of government added a bill of rights to protect the people from the government encroaching upon them.

Of course- a system of government designed like this wouldn’t appeal to authoritarians of varying degrees, because they can’t force their will upon others. And as you pointed out- these sorts of people take different forms, based on their end conclusions, but their thought process is the same: to force what they think is best on the rest of us for our own good.

597 kansas  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:20:11pm

re: #590 pianobuff

I read he also met with the CBO yesterday… Do you know if that’s a routine thing for presidents to do? I always thought they (CBO) were supposed to be the independent/impartial oversight group.

What did think BO stood for?/

598 wrenchwench  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:20:32pm

re: #538 zombie

I think we bloggers have very little influence on how the GOP party nomination process works; Charles is optimistic that we can influence the GOP against nominating a creationist, I conversely am rather pessimistic on this topic, and from the looks of things, it seems quite likely that a creationist will be the GOP candidate, whether we here at LGF like it or not.

Take a longer view. We may not have a good candidate in 2012, but if it weren’t for LGF, I wouldn’t know what a creationist is, nor would I have recognized the DI talking points when they were deployed in my direction a few weeks ago. Now I am armed with information. This will have an impact down the road.

599 ladycatnip  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:22:36pm

#590 pianobuff

I read he also met with the CBO yesterday… Do you know if that’s a routine thing for presidents to do? I always thought they (CBO) were supposed to be the independent/impartial oversight group.

I caught the tail end of the news on my way to work this morning and they were saying normally in July figures are released from the CBO to the public. Obama wants those figures delayed. Maybe that’s why he met with them.

More transparency from this pretender.

600 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:22:51pm

re: #598 wrenchwench

Rooting out creationism from the GOP isn’t going to happen if we keep procrastinating.

601 lurking faith  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:24:12pm

re: #588 kansas

I feel like such an ass.

But at least you have good skin!
(Since you don’t remember Stridex very well, I mean.)

602 wrenchwench  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:26:15pm

re: #600 Sharmuta

Rooting out creationism from the GOP isn’t going to happen if we keep procrastinating.

I’m going to a meeting tonight. No procrastination here (except when it comes to w*rk. Time to get back to it!)

603 ladycatnip  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:26:52pm

#593 SixDegrees

You began by calling him a moron for not knowing about the provision in question. Now you’re claiming he knows everything that’s in the bill. Which one is it?

I didn’t claim anything - read my post again - slowly.

If Obama is demanding that this health care bill gets pushed through and he’s using threats and intimidation tactics to do so, then, I repeat - he better d@m# well know what’s in it.

Simple.

604 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:28:11pm

re: #602 wrenchwench

Rock on, Sister!

605 haakondahl  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:30:08pm

re: #491 turn

Are you two secretly married or something?
/

Naah. They’re both intelligent, both passionate, both well-spoken. But they argue in different styles. Taken altogether, it’s a recipe for disaster around here.

[popcorn]

606 pianobuff  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:30:53pm

re: #603 ladycatnip

#593 SixDegrees

I didn’t claim anything - read my post again - slowly.

If Obama is demanding that this health care bill gets pushed through and he’s using threats and intimidation tactics to do so, then, I repeat - he better d@m# well know what’s in it.

Simple.

Agreed. Even a used car salesman makes an attempt to know the features. And Dear Leader is in high octane sales mode right now.

607 zombie  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:31:11pm

re: #578 ArchangelMichael

Does the position come with a funny hat? Or would that be unreasonable?

Not just a funny hat, but you get to carry a sceptre with a clown head which also wears a miniature version of the same funny hat.

608 y0kkles  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:31:26pm

Polling shows a majority of Americans do not accept evolution.

So how does creationism hurt the GOP?

Same thing with gay marriage.

A majority of Americans oppose it.

How does an anti gay marriage position hurt the GOP?

I’m not being combative. I really would like an explanation and maybe I’d change my mind on to what extent both issues should be stressed in the party platform.

609 wrenchwench  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:37:03pm

re: #608 y0kkles

I really would like an explanation

Then show us your links to the polls.

610 mrkwong  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:37:25pm

I don’t think creationism is, in and of itself, going to be an issue that costs the GOP the White House. I have no problem with it being taught in schools - in the proper place, sociology or comparative religions, not science.

Personally, I’d have no problem voting for someone with personal creationist beliefs as long as they don’t run their office as a pulpit (that is, I’d happily vote for Palin but I’d never vote for Huckabee.)

I regard the Church of Climate Change as much more frightening, and I’d never vote for a committed global-warmist.

611 [deleted]  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:39:45pm
612 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:42:32pm

Comments complaining about this topic will be deleted.

613 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:46:30pm

re: #610 mrkwong

I don’t think creationism is, in and of itself, going to be an issue that costs the GOP the White House.

Which is why I wrote:

… it’s one reason why Democrats control both houses of Congress…

And I strongly believe that. It’s anecdotal evidence, but I personally know quite a few people who see the GOP as the creationist party, and dislike it for that reason — among others.

Apart from the anecdotes, though, the GOP’s market share in American politics is at an all-time low. Creationism isn’t the only reason, but it certainly is one.

614 haakondahl  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 1:48:43pm

re: #608 y0kkles

Polling shows a majority of Americans do not accept evolution.

So how does creationism hurt the GOP?

Same thing with gay marriage.

A majority of Americans oppose it.

How does an anti gay marriage position hurt the GOP?

I’m not being combative. I really would like an explanation and maybe I’d change my mind on to what extent both issues should be stressed in the party platform.

y0kkles


—-

Karma: 22
Registered since: Oct 12, 2008 at 8:00 pm
(Logged in)

No. of comments posted: 12
No. of links posted: 0


Go away.

615 y0kkles  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 2:10:56pm

yes “go away” and provide some statistics on my comment history, that’s an intelligent response?

Links to polls showing a majority of Americans don’t accept evolution:
[Link: www.cbsnews.com…]
[Link: www.cbsnews.com…]
[Link: www.gallup.com…]

Looks like 50/50 at best, no?

617 kansas  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 2:19:14pm

re: #458 Erik The Red

Religious education.

FTFY

That doesn’t “fix” anything. Why wouldn’t the “fact” that there are people who believe in and advocate creationism be reasonably taught in history or social studies.

618 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 2:22:42pm

re: #616 Charles

Republicans, Democrats Differ on Creationism

Those polls only depress me about how huge a fraction of America does not get science. Those who do not accept science at all are in astonishing turn out.

Science is not a democracy. It is little wonder that science in this nation is under such siege.

People actually believe that science is something they can accept or reject in the same way as fashion.

619 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 2:23:51pm

re: #615 y0kkles

yes “go away” and provide some statistics on my comment history, that’s an intelligent response?

Links to polls showing a majority of Americans don’t accept evolution:
[Link: www.cbsnews.com…]
[Link: www.cbsnews.com…]
[Link: www.gallup.com…]

Looks like 50/50 at best, no?

If 75% of Americans thought the Earth was flat, they would still be wrong, and a responsible government would not make policy based on having a flat Earth.

620 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 2:24:10pm

re: #555 Slumbering Behemoth

The hard-line fundamentalist, the socialist, the fascist. Same cloth, different patterns.

Communists, fascists, and theocrats are all just different flavors of collectivist totalitarians.

They are all anathema to constitutional democratic republics.

621 Flyers1974  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 2:26:57pm

re: #614 haakondahl

I wonder how Republicans could win national elections without keeping a great majority of social conservatives. Obviously, not many conservatives seriously advocate expelling them from the Republican Party, but if a majority are lost because the social issues part of the platform is deemphasized (or even more so, rejected) how do they make up for those lost votes? I guess the obvious scenario would be attracting more independents and Democrats, combined with most socons staying put rather than not voting or voting for a third party.

622 hanoch  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 2:44:48pm

Two questions:

1. On the political calculus, I have had many discussions with those on the left side of the political spectrum and heard my share of criticism of Bush and the Republicans in the last 8 years. Mainly, it has been all about Iraq, torture, allegedly illegal surveillance activities, the purported superiority of the European social welfare system, etc. Obviously, this is anecdotal, but I have not heard anyone in these debates suggests that the content of school elementary science courses was a major factor in the way they vote. So what is the basis/evidence that “[t]his is a huge problem for the GOP, and it’s one reason why Democrats control both houses of Congress”? Are there poll statistics on this issue?

2. On the educational question, assuming schools teach that life evolved over time on Earth, how are science teachers supposed to handle questions from students about how the universe and the most basic components of life originated? Should the teachers simply demur to such questions, should they assert that it is not a valid scientific question (I would disagree), should they be permitted to posit the possibility that a being/force beyond the natural world created the natural world, or some other type of response?

623 theheat  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 2:50:01pm

re: #621 Flyers1974

but if a majority are lost because the social issues part of the platform is deemphasized (or even more so, rejected) how do they make up for those lost votes?

Socons aren’t going to vote Democrat, no matter what, so the socons have nowhere else to go. Why the GOP contorts itself over making them happy is a mystery. For every bone they needlessly throw the socons, they lose moderates and wavering lefties. This is what will help them lose future elections. The GOP’s blindness about the situation is, well, staggering.

Fiscal conservatism, strong defense, job expansion, realistic and workable solutions to environmental concerns, smaller government, staying out of people’s personal lives - these are all ideas the GOP can win with. All that other crap to placate socons/ anti-science /the morality blockwatch is as unwise as it is unnecessary. The GOP’s current philosophy is also one guaranteed to lose elections, unless Obama is caught red-handed drowning kittens.

624 blizzard  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 3:09:25pm

I don’t think that creationism is as big of a deal to most Americans as it is to the posters on LGF. Pawlenty is a fiscal conservative and has stood up to a tidal wave of spending proposed by Minnesota donks. He will be evaluated on that, not his personal views of the origins of life.

625 doppelganglander  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 3:15:00pm

re: #553 SixDegrees

Creationism is a stealth political movement aimed at establishing a fundamentalist psuedo-Christian theocracy that rules the United States. They have admitted as much - see the “Wedge Document” for starters, and any of their websites for a host of putrid details. There’s no difference between voting for a creationist and voting for a card-carrying member of the Taliban who is seeking political office; they both have exactly the same goals, although their tactics differ somewhat.

Creationism is the most anti-American political idea since Communism. Everything upheld in the Constitution is anathema to a creationist, who would shred that document and replace it with the fundo-Christian version of sharia law in a heartbeat given the power to do so.

I think you’re describing a fairly small number of people, most of whom are activists in things like the Discovery Institute and the Christian Identity movement. As far as those folks go, I agree with you, but it’s only fair to note that the majority of believers, and the majority of creationists, do not want to implement a Christian theocracy.

626 spankerfish  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 3:58:31pm

am i missing something in the incessant creationist vs. evolution posts? what’s wrong with teaching both? i went to a Christian school that taught there are two modes of thought - creation and the Big Bang. that’s an issue?

627 jackflash  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 4:15:19pm

re: #626 spankerfish

Spankerfish said:

“what’s wrong with teaching both? i went to a Christian school that taught there are two modes of thought - creation and the Big Bang. that’s an issue?”

I argue that the problem is that Intelligent Design is not a scientific “theory” (i.e., it is not falsifiable) and should not be presented as such to kids who don’t yet understand how science works or the correct construction and use of theories. “Teaching both” is not a real option since one is a fairy tale and is appropriate only for the uneducated, while evolution actually explains how species develop and change over time without need for some invisible father figure to come down and take care of the problem. “God works in mysterious ways” only if you refuse to let you or your kids learn scientific method.

Sorry - too many words. Writing too fast. JF

628 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 4:21:51pm

re: #626 spankerfish

am i missing something in the incessant creationist vs. evolution posts?

Yeah, they’re so “incessant” that this is the only post on creationism currently on the front page.

what’s wrong with teaching both? i went to a Christian school that taught there are two modes of thought - creation and the Big Bang. that’s an issue?

Good grief.

629 keithgabryelski  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 4:24:20pm

re: #626 spankerfish

am i missing something in the incessant creationist vs. evolution posts? what’s wrong with teaching both? i went to a Christian school that taught there are two modes of thought - creation and the Big Bang. that’s an issue?

a few things.

First: “big bang” and “evolution” are not competing theories. You (or your teachers) conflated them.

Second: “Evolution” and “creationism” are not “competing science”. One is science, one is faith. They, also, do not speak about the same things.

Third: “teaching both” — where would you “teach creation”. In what class?
It’s not science, so you can’t teach it there. History? It its own class on religion? Is it reasonable to teach religion in public schools?

630 revgdright  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 4:26:57pm

I’d take a flat earth geocentric creationist over a tax-raising gangster communist any day.

631 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 4:29:11pm

re: #626 spankerfish

am i missing something in the incessant creationist vs. evolution posts? what’s wrong with teaching both? i went to a Christian school that taught there are two modes of thought - creation and the Big Bang. that’s an issue?

Respectfully one of them actually happened and has the scientific data and observation to prove it. The other is your Christian school’s take on the book of Genesis.

632 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 4:52:42pm

Well, I for one am not interested in anything Tim Hussein Pawlenty has to say until I see a birth certificate.

633 Chekote  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 5:18:36pm

Let’s face it. There is a reason that the GOP is seen as anti-science. And it ain’t a smear campaign from the MSM. Earlier today I posted a link about a Ugandan study showing that women prefer partners who are circumcised. I got the link from Hot Air and it was report by ABC Health correspondent. One of the contributors deleted my comment because she thought it was pornographic. These types of individuals are not good for the GOP. They are not good for the conservative movement.

634 Chekote  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 5:22:24pm

The reality is that many SoCons have theocratic tendencies which undercut the conservative message of limited government and individual freedom. Said individuals would happily embrace big government to ban pornography, gambling and push creationism.

635 Flyers1974  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 5:38:15pm

re: #623 theheat

Socons aren’t going to vote Democrat, no matter what, so the socons have nowhere else to go. Why the GOP contorts itself over making them happy is a mystery. For every bone they needlessly throw the socons, they lose moderates and wavering lefties. This is what will help them lose future elections. The GOP’s blindness about the situation is, well, staggering.

Fiscal conservatism, strong defense, job expansion, realistic and workable solutions to environmental concerns, smaller government, staying out of people’s personal lives - these are all ideas the GOP can win with. All that other crap to placate socons/ anti-science /the morality blockwatch is as unwise as it is unnecessary. The GOP’s current philosophy is also one guaranteed to lose elections, unless Obama is caught red-handed drowning kittens.

I agree completely that Socons would never vote for the Democrats. But I still question whether a majority would stay with the GOP as opposed to simply not voting or voting for say, Ron Paul for example. My reasoning is that I think the social issues aren’t side issues but the main issues, for them. If the party began to downplay or reject this part of the platform, It’s hard for me to see the Socons complain, vent their anger but then move on to voting as usual. I guess it would all come down to whether the Socons would abstain from voting, etc…, in any significant numbers, and if so, could those numbers be replaced by drawing independents and Democrats.

636 Chekote  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 6:04:55pm

re: #635 Flyers1974

It is time to call the SoCon bluff. If they also care about fiscal issues and a strong defense, they will vote for the GOP.

637 Grand Poobah  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 6:37:19pm

How did the state that elected Al Franken to Senate office as opposed to Coleman, elect a Republican governor? Mixed signals ftl.

638 hanoch  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 7:15:29pm

re: #635 Flyers1974

Don’t forget that a big part of it, besides the voting issue, is fundraising.

639 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 7:24:33pm

The problem with Repub politicians pandering to the RR socons is that they are going to want something for their votes, and what they’re going to want is for the pols they help elect to either push their issues (creationism in public schools, anti-gay rights, anti-abortion), or to not stand in their way when the RR socons push them themselves. And pols of any stripe are more often than not venal enough to make such a theocratic devil’s bargain.

And everyone else we’re trying to tap support from - centrists, moderates, independents, personal freedom advocates, religious freedom acolytes, 1st Amendment supporters and church-state separation people - will take notice, and vote accordingly.

And I will be voting with them against RR socon pandering pols, regardless of the party from which they hail.

640 Lynn B.  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 7:54:00pm
spankerfish

Registered since: Dec 2, 2008 at 7:26 pm
No. of comments posted: 9
No. of links posted: 0

~~~


revGDright

Registered since: Dec 2, 2008 at 6:53 pm
No. of comments posted: 16
No. of links posted: 0

Probably just a coincidence. But maybe worth a check?

641 Chekote  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 7:59:20pm
And I will be voting with them against RR socon pandering pols, regardless of the party from which they hail.

Me too. I have looked the other way because I don’t agree with the Dems on fiscal and defense issues. But the SoCons are pushing a form of theocracy. I will not longer stand for it.

642 Sharmuta  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 10:03:40pm

re: #641 Chekote

Me too. I have looked the other way because I don’t agree with the Dems on fiscal and defense issues. But the SoCons are pushing a form of theocracy. I will not longer stand for it.

I agree. The longer we allow them to push without standing up and saying “enough!” the longer this problem is going to stay. We can’t keep putting off this confrontation in our own ranks. To do so only delays the inevitable and prolongs the suffering.

643 Salamantis  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 10:11:10pm

re: #642 Sharmuta

I agree. The longer we allow them to push without standing up and saying “enough!” the longer this problem is going to stay. We can’t keep putting off this confrontation in our own ranks. To do so only delays the inevitable and prolongs the suffering.

I have quoted the french phenomenological philosopher Paul Ricoeur here before:

The one thing that tolerant people cannot in all good conscience tolerate is the coercive intolerance of others.

I can also paraphrase his maxim in another, very relevant context:

The one thing that reasonable people cannot reasonably accept is the coercive imposition of unreason by unreasonable others.

644 HarryTheHawk  Tue, Jul 21, 2009 10:38:29pm

hmmm…if you asked Pawlenty, Jindal, et. al. “was the earth created 5000 or 5 billion years ago” i’m pretty sure they would answer the latter.

645 CurlyDave  Wed, Jul 22, 2009 12:00:02am

How old did Washington and Jefferson think the earth was?

I don’t think it hurt their politics at all.

646 idioma  Wed, Jul 22, 2009 5:26:17am

re: #645 CurlyDave

How old did Washington and Jefferson think the earth was?

I don’t think it hurt their politics at all.

That Swooshing noise you just heard above you was the point, and you just missed it.

647 scogind  Wed, Jul 22, 2009 8:36:47am

re: #643 Salamantis

Oxymoron: reasonable people

Take all the truly reasonable people, roll them up and put them inside all the people who think they are reasonable, shake them. It will sound like a BB rattling around inside a boxcar.

648 MTF  Wed, Jul 22, 2009 9:27:55am

re: #580 Charles

Sorry to have missed your earlier response with the Pawlenty quote, which I missed in reading the original Meet The Press transcript. That about covers the issue, I guess, unless Pawlenty has amended the comment elsewhere. Frankly, I had assumed someone smart enough to be in high public office cannot possibly believe evolution is not a fact. I obviously have to reexamine my assumptions, but I persist in thinking he must just be pandering.

649 AndyMacOP  Wed, Jul 22, 2009 9:29:44am

re: #644 HarryTheHawk

hmmm…if you asked Pawlenty, Jindal, et. al. “was the earth created 5000 or 5 billion years ago” i’m pretty sure they would answer the latter.

This is the problem with discussing creationism. I believe God created all that is, but billions of years ago according to current scientific research. Others are Young Earth Creationists and I have found that this is not the beliefs of most Christians. Further, who really cares what Pawlenty or Jindal thinks about the origins of the universe? They are not scientists as far as I know, they are politicians. I do not take my scientific and religious information from politicians. So what if they legislate teaching ID or Young Earth Creationism some day. It will be put through the ringer of scientific inquiry and fall apart. And if some people want to cling to a non-scientific idea such as Young Earth Creationism, well then go ahead. Freedom of thought, religion and speech are still part of the American way.

650 craginm  Wed, Jul 22, 2009 11:19:06am

I must confess that this debate and its constant prominent display on LGF is the single reason I seldom visit this site any more. As an Evangelical Christian, it’s true that I believe in ID rather than Darwinianism, but I’m willing to “live and let live.” I read & hear that many Darwinists believe that Creationists (and Christians in general) are attempting to impose our views on all those who disagree.

However, among my Christian friends, I know of none who would try to force ID down anyone’s throat. I acknowledge that in the bad old days, there were Christians who practiced forced conversion, but today, I think that’s the sole purview of Islam (Thank you, Charles, for keeping a sharp eye out for the practices of the ROP - it’s one of the things that kept me coming to this site for accurate reporting on the Islamists!).

As Christians, we are called to ” … go into all the world, making disciples of all nations.” Frankly, I have no idea how one could make another person into a disciple coercively. So, in the true spirit of Christian love and charity, I invite all who disagree with ID to adopt a more Christ-like attitude toward Christians and proponents of ID from other faith traditions and please leave behind the personal attacks and hateful content of your postings. We can disagree without being disagreeable!

Soli Deo Gloria!

651 keithgabryelski  Wed, Jul 22, 2009 11:21:18am

re: #645 CurlyDave

How old did Washington and Jefferson think the earth was?

I don’t think it hurt their politics at all.

They had at least a running knowledge of contemporary science — and the key point there is “contemporary”

Would you think either of them would be as successful, right now, if they only had the knowledge of ammunition, war tactics, political science that an well educated man had in the 1700s?

652 libertyvista  Wed, Jul 22, 2009 3:41:56pm
If the GOP puts up a creationist for president, expect to see Democrats in power for the next 8 years (at least).

But from a Darwinian perspective, eight years is nothing.

653 Salamantis  Thu, Jul 23, 2009 1:31:07pm

re: #649 AndyMacOP

This is the problem with discussing creationism. I believe God created all that is, but billions of years ago according to current scientific research. Others are Young Earth Creationists and I have found that this is not the beliefs of most Christians. Further, who really cares what Pawlenty or Jindal thinks about the origins of the universe? They are not scientists as far as I know, they are politicians. I do not take my scientific and religious information from politicians. So what if they legislate teaching ID or Young Earth Creationism some day. It will be put through the ringer of scientific inquiry and fall apart. And if some people want to cling to a non-scientific idea such as Young Earth Creationism, well then go ahead. Freedom of thought, religion and speech are still part of the American way.

Creationism/ID has ALREADY been put through the ringer of scientific inquiry asnd fallen apart. Which is precisely why it should not be taught in public high school science classes, and why we should vote against any true-believing or pandering pol who makes legislating its teaching in public high school science classes part of his platform.

People are free to say, think, and believe as they will, but in any America worth having they should NOT be free to abuse the machinery of the state in order to forcibly indoctrinate other unwilling peoples’ children in their pet sectarian religious dogmas.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
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
4 days ago
Views: 127 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
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
2 weeks ago
Views: 289 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1