RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (63) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Presidential Politics & Antievolution, Tracking the issue< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2008,04:17   

This thread is for items and discussion about where antievolution issues pop up in the campaigns or media coverage in the race for the presidency.

Fox News ran an article by Bill Sammon casting several slurs at newly-revealed Democratic Vice President candidate Senator Joe Biden, including making an issue over comments of Biden's related to creationism and "intelligent design".

Quote

   Biden also used unusually strong language to ridicule those who believe in creationism or intelligent design.

   “I refuse to believe the majority of people believe this malarkey!” the senior senator from Delaware exclaimed.

   But less than six months earlier, CBS News conducted a poll that found a majority of Americans (51 percent) do believe that God created humans in their present form. Even larger majorities reject the theory of evolution, according to the poll.

   After the HBO show ended, a reporter asked Biden whether his dismissal of a belief held dear by most Americans might come back to haunt him if his White House bid gained traction.

   With characteristic bluntness, Biden shrugged and said yes.


I have a response on my weblog.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2008,09:18   

In the Republican debates, three wannabes raised their hands indicating they did not accept evolution. None of them will be on the ticket.

McCain appears to be a theistic evolutionist. He doesn't seem inclined to pick a yahoo for a running mate.

I'm more concerned about state legislatures and school boards.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2008,10:00   

We already have several threads devoted to antievolution efforts in specific states. I think having one for the executive branch takes nothing away from those.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2008,10:14   

I'm all for holding the candidate's feet to the fire on science. It would be odd to see candidates forced to deny being anti-evolution. That would be the day.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2008,10:56   

Well, I for one, have the audacity to hope that we can go forward, together, and dream of things that never were.

Here's my "Brush With Greatness" story.

Back in 2005 - 2006, when Santorum of PA was making a total ass of himself by making ID-sounding noises, I emailed my Jr. Senator from IL asking him to bitch-slap Santorem and tell him to shut up, we have a separation of church and state in the US.

So, Obama emailed back that while he would not slap Santorum, he would vote against his ID proposals and did believe in a strict separation of church and state.

Of course, this was before Obama's  dumb-ass meeting with the Mega-Church guy, and before he said he is okay with faith-based intiatives...

But he sure looks like a way better alternative to Johnny McSame.

My $.02 and worth every penny.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2008,11:35   

I think it should be obvious that politicians can't really have opinions on religion that aren't calculated. If anything matters, it is their voting record.

And even that isn't a sure thing, because laws are packaged in such a way that everyone winds up voting for something they don't like.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2008,18:07   

I think that the vagueness on anti-evolution is a symptom of a bigger problem with western governments at the moment.
Everything is so carefully managed that it is difficult to find much difference between the candidates and it doesn't pay to have any vision or take any risks.
I think that the danger here is that the US is at the edge of what could be a long and deep recession, admitting to it would be to somehow be un-American*. The problem for the US is that unlike other recessions, the Asian internal markets are developed enough to probably keep on growing.
In five years time my prediction will be that, unless something is done, China will be the superpower and a lot of the best research and universities will be done in Asia.

* In Australia, the opposition party blames the government for the downturn because they were "talking down the economy"

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2008,18:21   

China will eventually be the superpower simply because it has the most people and possibly the smartest.  Or the most smart people. Could take ten years or  fifty, but it's on the way.

India could compete in this arena if they undergo a similar cultural revolution, but I doubt they will in my lifetime. Of course I would have said the same thing about China 20 years ago.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Amadan



Posts: 1332
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2008,05:54   

Quote
In Australia, the opposition party blames the government for the downturn because they were "talking down the economy"


Proof, of which we can never have too much, that the world is round and that antipodeans are therefore upside-down: here in Ireland, the Government blames the slump on the opposition because they talked the economy down.

And the government is always right, you know. It even says so on their web site.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,10:52   

This just in:

John McSame picks FTK-like  Home-Schooling Mom Creationist as his VP selection:

from Daily kos:


McCain Picks FTK as VP

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,11:04   

Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 29 2008,10:52)
This just in:

John McSame picks FTK-like  Home-Schooling Mom Creationist as his VP selection:

from Daily kos:


McCain Picks FTK as VP

Frighteningly enough, yep, Dawg:

"FoxNews source releases information that Governor Sarah Palin is McCains VP pick. Fox News claims McCain Camp has verified by email. Gov Palin is a former Sportscaster, Mayor, and she is pro-life, NRA member, and originally from Idaho."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2070582/posts

From the Fox's Anus, so to speak: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008....-friday

Afarensis put a thread up:  

http://scienceblogs.com/afarens....the_ala  

-- she supports the teaching of creationism in schools.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,11:18   

Aw crap - another creotard. What a choice for Vice-MILF.

And if they think Obama doesn't have enough experience, this one - oh dear...

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,11:49   

A slightly different take (though Afarensis and I are working from the same news sources): McCain Picks Palin: Medium Threat to Science Education

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,11:51   

Until we get more data, I'm treating Palin as having fallen for "fairness argument" rhetoric rather than being a fully-invested antievolution advocate. Lots of people do...

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,11:51   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 29 2008,11:18)
Aw crap - another creotard. What a choice for Vice-MILF.

And if they think Obama doesn't have enough experience, this one - oh dear...

What do mean?  

She's got a solid 1 1/2 years in as the Gov of the state with the 47th smallest population...

and only a little "whiff of corruption" attached to her!

added in edit:  Palin's Abuse Of Power

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,13:45   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 29 2008,12:04)
Afarensis put a thread up:  

http://scienceblogs.com/afarens....the_ala  

-- she supports the teaching of creationism in schools.

I just read the afarensis post and was going to come over here to say that about creationism, she doesn't seem opposed to it, but she doesn't seem particularly enthusiastic either. She's certainly no Pill I mean Bill Buckingham.

   
PTET



Posts: 133
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,14:18   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 29 2008,13:45)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 29 2008,12:04)
Afarensis put a thread up:  

http://scienceblogs.com/afarens....the_ala  

-- she supports the teaching of creationism in schools.

I just read the afarensis post and was going to come over here to say that about creationism, she doesn't seem opposed to it, but she doesn't seem particularly enthusiastic either. She's certainly no Pill I mean Bill Buckingham.

I'm not Americanian and I don't live in Americania... But I did watch all of "The Wire"*, so I feel qualified to comment on Americanian politics.

I don't see that Sarah Palin said any more in support of creationism than the bear minimum required to get elected Republican...






* I also loved "Bonanza" and "Batman" when I was v young.

--------------
"It’s not worth the effort to prove the obvious. Ridiculous ideas don’t deserve our time.
Even the attempt to formulate ID is a generous accommodation." - ScottAndrews

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,14:55   

I get the feeling its a flailing attempt to show republicans are not all irrelevant octogenarians who wear their pants up high by their nipples and are distrustful of them coloureds, wimmin and those who are too light on their feet, wink-wink.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Quidam



Posts: 229
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,15:38   

Sarah Palin = Dan Quayle

- with tits


--------------
The organized fossils ... and their localities also, may be understood by all, even the most illiterate. William Smith, Strata. 1816

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,16:12   

Supposedly Karl Rove was urging McSame in no uncertain terms NOT to pick Lieberman. I wonder if 'Quayle with Boobs' was his idea?

Swell. Another four years with Turdblossom.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1030
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2008,20:54   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 29 2008,11:04)
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 29 2008,10:52)
This just in:

John McSame picks FTK-like  Home-Schooling Mom Creationist as his VP selection:

from Daily kos:


McCain Picks FTK as VP

Frighteningly enough, yep, Dawg:

"FoxNews source releases information that Governor Sarah Palin is McCains VP pick. Fox News claims McCain Camp has verified by email. Gov Palin is a former Sportscaster, Mayor, and she is pro-life, NRA member, and originally from Idaho."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2070582/posts

From the Fox's Anus, so to speak: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008....-friday

Afarensis put a thread up:  

http://scienceblogs.com/afarens....the_ala  

-- she supports the teaching of creationism in schools.

Actually, that is a post from 2006 that has suddenly become relevant - to my intense surprise.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2008,00:13   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 29 2008,11:51)
Until we get more data, I'm treating Palin as having fallen for "fairness argument" rhetoric rather than being a fully-invested antievolution advocate. Lots of people do...

I'll go along with that.

I hurriedly exaggerated her position on the matter of teaching creationism (I simply posted too fast without doing research, which is stupid on my part, and the kind of crap I dislike when others do it) -- anyways, I'll rachet that back a few notches. My apologies.

I'll wait to see what the fundy bloc presses her to say, and if she says it.    

I tried finding any more info out, but didn't get far. She doesn't appear to be an extremist, and is actually impressive in regards to her ethical stances on several matters -- corruption in various venues and upholding rulings on gay rights that she didn't personally endorse, but saw fit to take a stand on ( the last detailed here: http://dwb.adn.com/news....8c.html ).

Afarensis mentioned this article in the Anchorage Daily News from Oct. 27 2006:
http://www.adn.com/news....4c.html

But there's also this, from Oct. 24 2006, a two-part bio in the Anchorage Daily News
Part one:
http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/story/8334949p-8231037c.html

Part two:
http://dwb.adn.com/news....0c.html

I don't want to be accused of taking part in any feeding frenzy against her because the truth is that I'm impressed with the backbone she's demonstrated --  this shouldn't be taken to mean I'd ever endorse her in *this* race,  particularly when I'm not convinced McCain is entirely sane.

n.b. I recall a mod or regular poster at IIDB (Internet Infidels) or Dawkins' joint being from Eagle River, so maybe I can look that person up and see if they can offer any insight from a local view. In the meantime, Wikipedia has a good profile on her that includes this cited statement:

" Concerning education, while running for Governor of Alaska and asked about the teaching of creationism in public school science classes, Palin answered that she thought it was healthy for both creationism and evolution to be taught together; although she clarified the next day that she meant that open debate between the two ideas should not be prohibited if it came up in discussion, but that creationism did not need to be part of the curriculum. She also added that she would not appoint State Board of Education members based on their opinions on evolution or creationism. "

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2008,00:48   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 30 2008,01:13)
I hurriedly exaggerated her position on the matter of teaching creationism (I simply posted too fast without doing research, which is stupid on my part, and the kind of crap I dislike when others do it)

I don't think anybody here would hold against you a few crap posts out of 1766. I'm lucky if 10% of mine are worth a hoot :p

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2008,05:15   

I think you got your numbers reversed there, chief;   hanging out here, I was bound to learn stuff eventually --I should have listened to reason about chasing the great white Hawkins whale, come to think of it. Anyway, when I had problems with mods elsewhere, I always pointed to this place as being about as good as it gets. Adding Lou and Kristine just spiffed it up even more.

I blame Louis, Arden and the sinister richardthughes for anything bad here. Evil bastards.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2008,06:13   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 30 2008,11:15)
I think you got your numbers reversed there, chief;   hanging out here, I was bound to learn stuff eventually --I should have listened to reason about chasing the great white Hawkins whale, come to think of it. Anyway, when I had problems with mods elsewhere, I always pointed to this place as being about as good as it gets. Adding Lou and Kristine just spiffed it up even more.

I blame Louis, Arden and the sinister richardthughes for anything bad here. Evil bastards.

You blame me?

I'm shocked, shocked I say.

Louis

P.S. You only blame me for exposing you as the deviant squirrelist you really are. Mind you, you guys are about to get a Python as VP so it's all good. What? It's not Michael Palin? It's some creationist appeasing chick? That's changes things!

--------------
Bye.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2008,07:03   

Louis (and other non-colonials tempted to insert their 2 cents)

Look what can happen :O

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2008,08:24   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 30 2008,05:15)
I think you got your numbers reversed there, chief;   hanging out here, I was bound to learn stuff eventually --I should have listened to reason about chasing the great white Hawkins whale, come to think of it. Anyway, when I had problems with mods elsewhere, I always pointed to this place as being about as good as it gets. Adding Lou and Kristine just spiffed it up even more.

I blame Louis, Arden and the sinister richardthughes for anything bad here. Evil bastards.

I LIKED your digging, and I think that I went off too fast, too far, and I hate that in others too... but she is NO Hillary Clinton.  

I also did a little MORE digging, and now I think she is an even worse choice.  According to a voter in her home town, she mis-managed a property buy for the town, and the town wound up paying @ 10 times what they should have for the project.  

That's not change - that's more of the same!

And I still don't trust her science / creation position.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2008,09:07   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 30 2008,11:15)
[SNIP]

I should have listened to reason about chasing the great white Hawkins whale, come to think of it.

[SNIP]

I forgot to ask, how goes your Hawkins hunting? Is Ericmurphy still on the case?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2008,09:10   

I don't think I was advocating "trust", just a modicum of caution in classification. Palin might straighten up if she seriously got up to speed on the evolution v. creationism issue, but she has come out of the gate as having sided with the deceptionists. It is certainly cause for concern.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2008,09:17   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 30 2008,15:10)
I don't think I was advocating "trust", just a modicum of caution in classification. Palin might straighten up if she seriously got up to speed on the evolution v. creationism issue, but she has come out of the gate as having sided with the deceptionists. It is certainly cause for concern.

In all seriousness I'll go along with that. I have to say I "like" the fact that when pressed on what seemed to be overtly antievolution comments she retreated to "teach both sides" rhetoric.

Why I said I "like" that is because:

a) Even though WE all know "teach both sides" is standard antievolutionist deception it doesn't me she does. She could be well meaning and ignorant about the methods of antievolutionists, "teach both sides/the controversy" is an easy and apparently reasonable position to occupy for someone unaware of the history and issues associated with antievolution. It's also simple political sense: appear to support everyone until you can afford not to

b) The chances that she is a dyed in the wool creationist loon are lessened by that retreat. It *could* be deception on her part, but I have no evidence to suspect that it is. So don't assume it until demonstrable.

It could have been Huckabee after all....

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2008,17:52   

Not evilution, precisely, but ScienceDebate2008 answers from Obama!

Also:

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2008,21:49   

Quote (ERV @ Aug. 30 2008,17:52)
Not evilution, precisely, but ScienceDebate2008 answers from Obama!

Also:

PERFECT!  - NAILED it!  Well, figuratively, anyway.

In my reading I came accross something else scary..
Consider Palin vs. Putin - ouch!

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2008,03:09   

The science debate looks like a good idea. I wish the networks would devote a major debate to science.

The image, however, strikes me as something that will backfire. The results of making fun of Reagan's age and senility come to mind.

The experience issue would make more sense if Biden were topping the Democrat ticket and Obama and Palin were opponents at the same level.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2008,05:57   

AiG has weighed in:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article....tionist

Quote
In 2006, then-candidate Palin indicated in a TV debate that creation should be taught alongside evolution in the state’s public schools, declaring that schools should “teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”3 Now, in stating this, she may have been advocating the teaching of scientific creationism, as opposed to biblical creationism4 (the latter having been deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 19875), but we don’t really know.

“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.”In an interview the next day, Palin (if the Anchorage Daily News report is correct) appeared to backpedal somewhat, saying that she meant to say that a discussion of alternative views should be allowed but not forced on students, adding: “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.” In other words, Palin was not suggesting that the teaching of creation should be mandated (perhaps realizing that her statement the day before came across as arguing that creation must be in the science curriculum).

The Anchorage newspaper also reported her as saying she would not push the state’s board of education (governors in Alaska appoint board members, and the legislators confirm them) to add creationist alternatives to evolution to the state’s curriculum. The paper asked for her personal view on evolution, and she said, “I believe we have a creator.”


She's clearly a YEC but just wont admit it.

  
lkeithlu



Posts: 321
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2008,09:29   

There seems to be some dominionist connections possible.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/08/be_afraid_1.php#comments

These groups make Huckabee look mainstream.

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2008,10:06   

And there's more:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/163234/559/495/579213

  
Amadan



Posts: 1332
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,06:16   

It seems to me that there's a bit of over-hyping going on here. What it seems to boil down to is that Palin avoids offending The Core in her statements on education and would probably go along with Teaching the Controversy™ more out of sympathy than conviction. She said "I believe we were created" or words to that effect. Big deal. So do all the theistic evos.

Is she a dominionist trojan horse? The evidence (?) is that her pastor is a bit of a nut-job who associates with the osculospumatory fringe.

Rev. Wright, anyone?

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
dheddle



Posts: 540
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,09:30   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Aug. 31 2008,10:06)
And there's more:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/163234/559/495/579213

This is absurd. The only thing I knew about the dailyKos until the Palin announcement is that darkSyde wrote for them, and I like darkSyde. But in the last two days I see that dailyKos is a) “reporting” that Palin’s Down child is actually her grandchild, and now b) Palin is a hardcore dominionist. I dunno. Maybe being a sort of apolitical centrist helps me to see that many in either camp will accept crap uncritically, as long as it is crap from their side. I don’t see any difference at all between “Palin is a dominionist” and “Obama is a Moslem.” And the dailyKos, I must conclude, is a worthless World Net Daily sort of rag.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,10:36   

There is a disparity in sourcing of political crap, it seems to me. We've got bloggers at DailyKos being weird. I didn't like guilt-by-way-too-tenuous-association when dished up by John Stormer, and it doesn't seem to have improved. On the other side, we've seen Karl Rove do his business as part of the campaigning and administration. I doubt we'll see a negative campaign out of the Obama camp that comes anywhere near the Rovian "black love child" stunt used against McCain in 2000.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,12:39   

Even if Palin is covering up for her daughter's pregnancy, it would only matter if she were a Dem.  The fundies will howl and moan if it is true and Palin will apologize to god and they will all get along because the fundies need the Reps. and the Reps. need the fundies.

Isn't that why McCain went a courtin' at Bob Jones and Liberty Universities?  Didn't he also make overtures towards ID in schools?  He's willing to do or say anything to get elected (maverick my arse) and if supporting ID would get him there, he would do it.  If polls say that 51% of Americans want ID taught in schools, do you think he would speak against it?

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,12:55   

Quote (GCT @ Sep. 01 2008,12:39)
Even if Palin is covering up for her daughter's pregnancy, it would only matter if she were a Dem.  The fundies will howl and moan if it is true and Palin will apologize to god and they will all get along because the fundies need the Reps. and the Reps. need the fundies.

Isn't that why McCain went a courtin' at Bob Jones and Liberty Universities?  Didn't he also make overtures towards ID in schools?  He's willing to do or say anything to get elected (maverick my arse) and if supporting ID would get him there, he would do it.  If polls say that 51% of Americans want ID taught in schools, do you think he would speak against it?

I predict that it will eventually be revealed that Rove et al. planted the story about Palin's daughter (remember that Rover learned his political ethics as a Nixon operative in the days of CREEP). This results in a  distraction for the left and mobilizes the troops on the right.

As long as the country falls for these "issues" about personalities and possible peccadilloes, the Republicans win. They won't win on the issues, and this allows the issues to be ignored.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,13:40   

Heads up, people.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,13:47   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 01 2008,13:40)
Heads up, people.

Why are you whoring your blog here FTK? What's up, clicks down to single figures? Interest in ID waning? Desperate for a bit of attention.

Yeah, big whoop. Real blogs had the news hours ago in any case.

What do you think about the fact that Palen went on record as opposed to "explicit" sex education when abstinence education could be given instead?

Do you think their situation is somehow related to that?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Quidam



Posts: 229
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,17:04   

Obama's response is appropriate and stands in stark contrast to McCain's attack on Chelsea Clinton in 1998

Quote
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno."


--------------
The organized fossils ... and their localities also, may be understood by all, even the most illiterate. William Smith, Strata. 1816

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,17:30   

Quote (Quidam @ Sep. 01 2008,17:04)
Obama's response is appropriate and stands in stark contrast to McCain's attack on Chelsea Clinton in 1998

   
Quote
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno."

Your guy McCondo$ is a class act, eh, FTK?

Do you share his "family values," like the one that says it's cool to dump your wife for a filthy-rich beer heiress because:

1) she was crippled in a car accident, and
2) you were a POW?

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,17:47   

Um, perhaps you can point out where I suggested that McCain is a class act?    I've toyed around with idea of not voting at all in the Presidential election.   I find Palin interesting, but as yet know next to nothing about her.  

I think McCain was an ass to leave his his first wife.  Period.  Leaving her to marry a millionaire several times over doesn't impress me much either, but then none of us are without fault which makes it difficult to throw stones.

I still don't know for sure where I stand in this campaign, but I do feel like this Palin chick has more in common with the average joe than some of these folks on capital hill.  

BTW, you'll probably remember Obama's words where he stated that if his girls "made a mistake" he wouldn't want them "punished" by having a child.  I prefer to believe that he didn't think that comment through, as a child should never be considered a "punishment" regardless of what the situation is.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,17:59   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 01 2008,09:30)
 
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Aug. 31 2008,10:06)
And there's more:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/163234/559/495/579213

This is absurd. The only thing I knew about the dailyKos until the Palin announcement is that darkSyde wrote for them, and I like darkSyde. But in the last two days I see that dailyKos is a) “reporting” that Palin’s Down child is actually her grandchild, and now b) Palin is a hardcore dominionist. I dunno. Maybe being a sort of apolitical centrist helps me to see that many in either camp will accept crap uncritically, as long as it is crap from their side. I don’t see any difference at all between “Palin is a dominionist” and “Obama is a Moslem.” And the dailyKos, I must conclude, is a worthless World Net Daily sort of rag.

Daily Kos is a self-moderated (read:  not moderated)blog.  As such, it attracts more than its share of nutters.  In fact, I would suspect that there are a great numbers of Repubs masquerading as "loyal liberals".

So, Heddle anad others, don't get your knickers in a twist.  It's the old "good bloggers at bad sites, and bad bloggers at good sites" meme.

Obama and Dems have reiterated "families are off limits", and I have seem more condemnations of scurilous attacks by kos bloggers than distatesful posts.

On a lighter note:

Here is a link to   FTK's   Sarah Palin's blog about being a candidate.



FTK / Sarah Palin's Blog

edited for extremely bad spelling

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,18:02   

Of course, the rest of the world is jealous of our freedoms.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,18:04   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 01 2008,17:47)
Um, perhaps you can point out where I suggested that McCain is a class act?

Um, perhaps you can point out where I claimed that you did?
 
Quote
I've toyed around with idea of not voting at all in the Presidential election.   I find Palin interesting, but as yet know next to nothing about her.

I find her to be a predictably, profoundly dishonest Christianist scumbag. Did you hear that she's already lawyered up for the Troopergate scandal?  
 
Quote
I think McCain was an ass to leave his his first wife.  Period.

So why are so many of your fellow fundies cool with it?
 
Quote
Leaving her to marry a millionaire several times over doesn't impress me much either, but then none of us are without fault which makes it difficult to throw stones.

Jesus Christ spoke against hypocrisy, didn't He? I don't recall him saying anything about homosexuality or abortion or evolution, though.
 
Quote
I still don't know for sure where I stand in this campaign, but I do feel like this Palin chick has more in common with the average joe than some of these folks on capital hill.

But not in a good way. I want my leaders to be exceptional people. Why don't you? 
 
Quote
BTW, you'll probably remember Obama's words where he stated that if his girls "made a mistake" he wouldn't want them "punished" by having a child.  I prefer to believe that he didn't think that comment through, as a child should never be considered a "punishment" regardless of what the situation is.

Yep, and I see how you are dishonestly twisting them, too. The child herself is not the punishment, bearing and caring for the child is the punishment. Of course, you're probably too blinded by racism to see how you used the straw man fallacy there.

How about that abstinence-based sex education BS Palin endorses?

How about the idea that a 44-year-old woman (high-risk on the basis of age alone) who travels in her third trimester, has contractions (not B-H) and amniotic fluid leakage, yet remains in Texas to give a speech, flies through Seattle, drives through Anchorage and its NICUs, to give birth ~12 hours later in a suburban hospital with NO facilities for high-risk mothers or babies?

Did you know that her physician is a family practicioner, not OB-GYN?

Did you know that her physician has privileges at at least one of the Anchorage hospitals with an NICU? Why didn't she just meet them there?

You can't explain a single one of these actions as those of someone who views her baby's life as precious, FTK. On top of that, her decision to accept McCondo$'s offer and put her pregnant daughter in the spotlight was incredibly selfish. Her daughter has been punished like no child deserves to be punished.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,18:07   

It occurs to me, Sarah Palin reminds me a lot of FTK, or at least, what I think FTK aspires to.

And again, I bet it'll be revealed that Sarah Palin was Karl Rove's bright idea. It's far too fucked up and cynical a choice to have been thought up by anyone else.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,18:44   

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 01 2008,18:04)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 01 2008,17:47)
Um, perhaps you can point out where I suggested that McCain is a class act?

Um, perhaps you can point out where I claimed that you did?

Well, you did say:
Quote
Your guy McCondo$ is a class act, eh, FTK?

By referring to McCain as "her guy" you are implying that he has the FtK Seal of Approval.  I have no recall of FtK ever stamping McCain, or any of the other Republican contenders, with her imprimatur.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,19:18   

Apparently Palin is pretty well clueless about American history too.  She thinks the founding fathers wrote the pledge of allegiance with the "under god" part in it. :O

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,19:20   

Quote (GCT @ Sep. 01 2008,19:18)
Apparently Palin is pretty well clueless about American history too.  She thinks the founding fathers wrote the pledge of allegiance with the "under god" part in it. :O

If true, that is too precious. Link?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,19:30   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 01 2008,20:20)
Quote (GCT @ Sep. 01 2008,19:18)
Apparently Palin is pretty well clueless about American history too.  She thinks the founding fathers wrote the pledge of allegiance with the "under god" part in it. :O

If true, that is too precious. Link?

Oh yeah, sorry.  Here it is.

It's question number 11.

ETA:  The other questions help to give an idea of some of her other positions.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,19:58   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 01 2008,17:47)
I still don't know for sure where I stand in this campaign, but I do feel like this Palin chick has more in common with the average joe than some of these folks on capital hill.

And that, as we have learned, is surely an excellent reason to vote for the average joe to be president...

As you may not know, former Nebraska senator Roman Hruska is also in this camp. He was most famous for his defense of mediocrity, a la FtK. When Nixon nominated average-joe G. Harold Carrswell to the Supreme Court, Hruska defended him thusly.    
Quote
'Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos.

A mediocracy is definitely my idea of good government (not).

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,20:37   

I wouldn't call Pallin Ftk. Although I disagree with most of her politics, it sounds like she is strong willed and stands by her convictions. Ftk, on the otherhand twists and turns when confronted by anything she *implies* she believes in.

You would think after all these years that Brown would be elevated from someone who's idea's are more than *interesting*.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,20:48   

Quote (GCT @ Sep. 01 2008,19:30)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 01 2008,20:20)
 
Quote (GCT @ Sep. 01 2008,19:18)
Apparently Palin is pretty well clueless about American history too.  She thinks the founding fathers wrote the pledge of allegiance with the "under god" part in it. :O

If true, that is too precious. Link?

Oh yeah, sorry.  Here it is.

It's question number 11.

ETA:  The other questions help to give an idea of some of her other positions.

Not so good to start with a gaff..

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=palin+founding+fathers

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,20:59   

Bonus:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,21:03   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 01 2008,18:44)
Quote (JAM @ Sep. 01 2008,18:04)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 01 2008,17:47)
Um, perhaps you can point out where I suggested that McCain is a class act?

Um, perhaps you can point out where I claimed that you did?

Well, you did say:
Quote
Your guy McCondo$ is a class act, eh, FTK?

By referring to McCain as "her guy" you are implying that he has the FtK Seal of Approval.  I have no recall of FtK ever stamping McCain, or any of the other Republican contenders, with her imprimatur.

Gee, maybe you should have a look at her blog. She's gushing about McCondo$'s choice of Palin:

Quote
So, I'm officially getting back into the race.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,21:13   

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 01 2008,21:03)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 01 2008,18:44)

By referring to McCain as "her guy" you are implying that he has the FtK Seal of Approval.  I have no recall of FtK ever stamping McCain, or any of the other Republican contenders, with her imprimatur.

Gee, maybe you should have a look at her blog. She's gushing about McCondo$'s choice of Palin:

I did and I see nothing to support your statement that McCain is "her guy."  It is typically FtK; as in noncommittal. There is nothing to indicate who she will vote for, only that the race is shaping up to be interesting to her.  The following statement of hers implies that she has yet to make up her mind yet.
Quote
For the first time in history, we'll have either an African American or a Female in the Presidential or VP position. Seriously cool.

Indeed, I do remember at least once in the past that FtK indicated that she might not vote GOP in this election. But, do carry on venting your spleen at her.  I am sure you are right about who FtK will vote for. It is just a shame the poor dear hasn't caught up with you yet.  ;)

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,21:14   

FtK is one of the four women in American Palin appeals to...

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2008,23:31   

Advice to Sarah Palin: Whatever they offer, don't accept that offer of a special guest appearance on "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?"

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 01 2008,23:31

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,00:06   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 01 2008,21:13)

I did and I see nothing to support your statement that McCain is "her guy."  It is typically FtK; as in noncommittal. There is nothing to indicate who she will vote for, only that the race is shaping up to be interesting to her.

Really? What do you make of this?
     
Quote
I've never been one to particularly support a women in those positions,but this gal impresses me a lot more than 'ol Hillary ever has.

     
Quote
 The following statement of hers implies that she has yet to make up her mind yet.

Statements don't imply, people do. What we're doing is called inference.
     
Quote
For the first time in history, we'll have either an African American or a Female in the Presidential or VP position. Seriously cool.

I don't see how you can infer that she hasn't made up her mind from that statement.
 
Quote
Indeed, I do remember at least once in the past that FtK indicated that she might not vote GOP in this election.

Indeed, I also remember her indicating many things, particularly about biology, that are clearly false, as well as a lot of us here calling her on them. Given her record, I infer that she probably was being deceptive. Given statements like this:
Quote
All this liberal BS is nausiating...

I doubt that she would vote for the most liberal Democrat to be nominated since McGovern.
Quote
I am sure you are right about who FtK will vote for. It is just a shame the poor dear hasn't caught up with you yet.

Given that we can predict her dishonest arguments before she advances them, it's not exactly an intellectual triumph.

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,00:09   


  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,00:53   

Palin captures critical evangelical swing vote:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.evangelicals/index.html

unlucky Obama, you Muslim.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,01:15   

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 02 2008,00:06)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 01 2008,21:13)

I am sure you are right about who FtK will vote for. It is just a shame the poor dear hasn't caught up with you yet.

Given that we can predict her dishonest arguments before she advances them, it's not exactly an intellectual triumph.

You know, JAM, call me when you can find FtK saying "I will vote for McCain" or you can calculate CSI on her political posts. Until then I hope you've been able to vent your spleen enough to take the edge off.

Editted to reduce snarkiness by 2-3%

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
dheddle



Posts: 540
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,05:47   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 02 2008,00:53)
Palin captures critical evangelical swing vote:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.evangelicals/index.html

As I mentioned on Ed's blog, I can confirm that anecdotally, even more so after talking to more friends last night. The evangelicals, so far, absolutely love her. (As do I.) It has nothing to do with what the evangelical leaders are saying, indeed in many cases such as mine it would have to be in spite of what they are saying--it is a powerful, visceral response, fair or not, that "she is really us, not a groomed, plastic, blow-dried Ralph Reed type pandering for our vote."

This could all change, and at any rate having the evangelicals rally behind her, especially if the so-called leaders make a big fuss, could end up a net minus instead of a net plus--such analyses are above my pay grade. But the fact, I suspect now beyond refute, is that the choice has indeed energized the sleeping evangelical base. Whether it was a sleeping bear or sleeping paper tiger I don't know.

I would also add my guess that no current (plausible) stories, even should they prove true, would dampen the excitement in that community. And I would also add, again, that these observations are purely anecdotal, based on talking to my friends who have talked to their friends, etc.

The one criticism of her that might have some legs among evangelicals is that given all her personal family problems, which is a big part of her appeal, is being VP in the best interest of her family? My guess is that she cannot come up with a slam dunk answer to this, but she'll come up with some answer, and that will be enough.

Bottom line: FTK is not the only one gushing, not by a long-shot.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,08:19   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 01 2008,13:02)
Of course, the rest of the world is jealous of our freedoms.

Wow.

*takes own advice and refrains from further comment*

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,08:42   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,05:47)
Bottom line: FTK is not the only one gushing, not by a long-shot.

Dheddle, don't you feel just a tad USED by this choice of a VP candidate? McCain made a cynical calculation, and you fell for it. This woman has no substantive experience, and even those who should be her fans have little to say about her governing abilities. I couldn't care less about her personal life, but  
Quote
John Harris, the (REPUBLICAN) speaker of the Alaska House, when asked about her qualifications for Veep, replied with this: "She's old enough. She's a U.S. citizen."

and  
Quote
"She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Lyda Green, the president of the State Senate, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"

Couple that with the investigation into abuse of power vis-a-vis her former brother in law, and the revelations that she wangled $27 million in federal pork for her village of less than 7000 people, and she looks like a typical venal politician, except with even less experience. She may not be Ralph Reed, but she might be Tom DeLay or Bob Ney or Newt Gingrich (without the resumes of any of those guys).

If evangelicals are over the moon about this pick, it really does highlight how they can overlook just about everything else and still support a co-religionist regardless of reality.

That's just sad.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,09:21   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 02 2008,14:19)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 01 2008,13:02)
Of course, the rest of the world is jealous of our freedoms.

Wow.

*takes own advice and refrains from further comment*

Wow also.

{Follows Alan's advice}

Louis

P.S. Although I choose to follow Alan's advice, it is very good advice, I want it on record that any comment I would have made before I took Alan's advice would have further confirmed Godwin's law.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,09:29   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 02 2008,14:42)
[SNIP]

If evangelicals are over the moon about this pick, it really does highlight how they can overlook just about everything else and still support a co-religionist regardless of reality.

That's just sad.

And the same is true even if the potential Rep. VP is an atheist.* Cheerleading because someone is on your team misses the point of democracy. Or at least it misses the point of democracy if you are one of the people and not one of the elected. The elected have a distinctly vested interest in distracting the people from the issues. It might be the least bad system we have, but that doesn't make it perfect!

Reading up about your potential POTUSes and VPOTUSes has scared the crap out of me. Maybe I'm just getting old and cynical, and maybe I am disturbed at the political trends here in the UK (current operating system = USA emulator version 1.2). I can't see that McCain/Palin is going to be a good choice for the USA based on the issues. And based on promises they might have to keep I'm not so sure about Obama/Biden. At least Obama seems science friendly and his stated desire (however honest) to keep the negative campaigning out of the process is pleasing.

Louis

*Not that atheism is a religion, yadda yadda yadda, blah, blah, blah etc.

--------------
Bye.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,09:37   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,05:47)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 02 2008,00:53)
Palin captures critical evangelical swing vote:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.evangelicals/index.html

As I mentioned on Ed's blog, I can confirm that anecdotally, even more so after talking to more friends last night. The evangelicals, so far, absolutely love her. (As do I.) It has nothing to do with what the evangelical leaders are saying, indeed in many cases such as mine it would have to be in spite of what they are saying--it is a powerful, visceral response, fair or not, that "she is really us, not a groomed, plastic, blow-dried Ralph Reed type pandering for our vote."

This could all change, and at any rate having the evangelicals rally behind her, especially if the so-called leaders make a big fuss, could end up a net minus instead of a net plus--such analyses are above my pay grade. But the fact, I suspect now beyond refute, is that the choice has indeed energized the sleeping evangelical base. Whether it was a sleeping bear or sleeping paper tiger I don't know.

I would also add my guess that no current (plausible) stories, even should they prove true, would dampen the excitement in that community. And I would also add, again, that these observations are purely anecdotal, based on talking to my friends who have talked to their friends, etc.

The one criticism of her that might have some legs among evangelicals is that given all her personal family problems, which is a big part of her appeal, is being VP in the best interest of her family? My guess is that she cannot come up with a slam dunk answer to this, but she'll come up with some answer, and that will be enough.

Bottom line: FTK is not the only one gushing, not by a long-shot.

Point taken, Dave.

I was trying to snarkily suggest that she's adding no new voters (evangelicals were only ever going republican anyway)..

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
dheddle



Posts: 540
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,09:46   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 02 2008,08:42)
     
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,05:47)
Bottom line: FTK is not the only one gushing, not by a long-shot.

Dheddle, don't you feel just a tad USED by this choice of a VP candidate? McCain made a cynical calculation, and you fell for it. This woman has no substantive experience, and even those who should be her fans have little to say about her governing abilities. I couldn't care less about her personal life, but        
Quote
John Harris, the (REPUBLICAN) speaker of the Alaska House, when asked about her qualifications for Veep, replied with this: "She's old enough. She's a U.S. citizen."

and        
Quote
"She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Lyda Green, the president of the State Senate, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"

Couple that with the investigation into abuse of power vis-a-vis her former brother in law, and the revelations that she wangled $27 million in federal pork for her village of less than 7000 people, and she looks like a typical venal politician, except with even less experience. She may not be Ralph Reed, but she might be Tom DeLay or Bob Ney or Newt Gingrich (without the resumes of any of those guys).

If evangelicals are over the moon about this pick, it really does highlight how they can overlook just about everything else and still support a co-religionist regardless of reality.

That's just sad.

No, I don't feel used. Every VP pick in the history of the Republic was made to shore up support. Every single VP pick in history is an example of pandering to somebody. Obama's choice was to comfort those who are inclined to vote for him but nervous about his lack of National Security creds. Should those people feel "used"? Did Texans feel "used" when JFK chose LBJ?

It may be that when more is revealed about Palin I'll change my mind back to Obama. But the quotes you provided sure won't do it--any more than quotes about Obama's lack of experience influenced me when I was ready to pull the lever for him. If experience was a huge factor, which for me it is not, then I would have been in the McCain camp long before he chose Palin.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
jupiter



Posts: 97
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,09:52   

dheddle, you're ignoring the corruption/abuse of power issues raised. Don't those give you pause? Or make you even slightly interested in looking into them on your own?

  
dheddle



Posts: 540
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,10:14   

Quote (jupiter @ Sep. 02 2008,09:52)
dheddle, you're ignoring the corruption/abuse of power issues raised. Don't those give you pause? Or make you even slightly interested in looking into them on your own?

Yes I am more than interested. Excuse me for not taking as gospel the first wave of stories that followed the announcement. I also didn't believe the "Obama is a closet Moslem" stories. If they have legs, if they turn out to point to serious corruption, then it would certainly have an effect on my vote. As for what is mentioned, would $27 million in pork bother me? Hell no, every politician should have a goal of getting back to their state a reasonable fraction of the federal dollars their citizens sent to DC. I don't expect my governor to say--"Oh, let's just let Robert Byrd have all those dollars for WVa." Having her sister-in-law's husband fired without cause? If that turns out to be true that would be disturbing. But a report that it is being investigated is just that--I'll wait until the investigation is completed.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,10:29   

Just as a side point, if Obama WAS a muslim, would it really matter to you Dave?

The question I suppose I am asking is "Is the single issue of a candidate's specific religious/non-religious stance sufficiently important to you to vote/not vote for them?". Which immediately springs the follow-on question of "Would you excuse a member of your own sect for unpleasantness X and not excuse a member of another sect/non-religious candidate for unpleasantness X?".

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
dheddle



Posts: 540
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,10:39   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,10:29)
Just as a side point, if Obama WAS a muslim, would it really matter to you Dave?

The question I suppose I am asking is "Is the single issue of a candidate's specific religious/non-religious stance sufficiently important to you to vote/not vote for them?". Which immediately springs the follow-on question of "Would you excuse a member of your own sect for unpleasantness X and not excuse a member of another sect/non-religious candidate for unpleasantness X?".

Louis

It might, I don't know for sure, but it might. Maybe I'm alone in this, but I tend to vote for people in part because they are like me. Part of Obama's appeal to me includes that he is a Christian, part of the appeal is the history making aspect of an African-American president, and part of the appeal is that he is smart. I am so "not a Moslem" that I don't honestly know if I would vote for one. I think I could, but that is purely hypothetical.

So that answers the first question--somebody being "like me" in their biography is absolutely appealing. I have a lot in common with Palin: lower middle class upbringing, handicapped child, evangelical Christian. There is no doubt that I find that commonality appealing.

As for the second question, I would not excuse a member of my own "sect." If Palin is corrupt, I will not vote for her.  On the other hand, I don't expect her to be a saint, either.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,10:45   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,10:14)
Quote (jupiter @ Sep. 02 2008,09:52)
dheddle, you're ignoring the corruption/abuse of power issues raised. Don't those give you pause? Or make you even slightly interested in looking into them on your own?

Yes I am more than interested. Excuse me for not taking as gospel the first wave of stories that followed the announcement. I also didn't believe the "Obama is a closet Moslem" stories. If they have legs, if they turn out to point to serious corruption, then it would certainly have an effect on my vote. As for what is mentioned, would $27 million in pork bother me? Hell no, every politician should have a goal of getting back to their state a reasonable fraction of the federal dollars their citizens sent to DC. I don't expect my governor to say--"Oh, let's just let Robert Byrd have all those dollars for WVa." Having her sister-in-law's husband fired without cause? If that turns out to be true that would be disturbing. But a report that it is being investigated is just that--I'll wait until the investigation is completed.

Re your previous post, yes, politicians have always picked VP candidates who complemented their strengths. Biden's foreign policy creds, as you mentioned, are a good example. But this choice was identity politics at its worst. She fills no gap in McCain's policy portfolio, she merely makes evangelicals feel better about him. To me, at least, that is a different thing than picking someone for their policy experience, or even if they can deliver a key swing state. The Repubs have been railing at the Dems for decades about the evils of identity politics. What happened here?

Re this post, the issue is NOT to determine who is the biggest porker. The issue is the hypocrisy of running as an anti-porker when you have bellied up to that trough for many millions of dollars. Does hypocrisy bother you?

As for the report on the investigation, you probably won't get it until after the election. It was originally slated to come out in late October or early November. Her recent hiring of a lawyer in this investigation means that there will almost certainly be delays.

So good luck making up your mind.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
dheddle



Posts: 540
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,10:58   

Albatrossity2,

You see no possible gradations here? All porkers are equal, everyone is a Robert Byrd? I don't. I can easily see being an anti-porker and yet receiving some pork. Politics is messy. If everyone fed just a bit at the trough, the question of pork barrel politics would go away. It's those who are gluttons who worry me.

Your comment about the trooper-gate probe seems to be cynical--the results won't be out until after the election. If so, and if she wins, and if they results show illegal activity, then I'll have to hold that against her after the election. The world is not perfect, and the alternative is holding to an investigation as proof of a misdeed. I wouldn't take that approach with anyone.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,11:05   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,10:58)
You see no possible gradations here? All porkers are equal, everyone is a Robert Byrd? I don't. I can easily see being an anti-porker and yet receiving some pork. Politics is messy. If everyone fed just a bit at the trough, the question of pork barrel politics would go away. It's those who are gluttons who worry me.

Sure there are gradations. Don't put words in my mouth; read that I wrote instead. Gluttony and hypocrisy are both sins, as I recall. I notice you paid not a bit of attention to the main point of that argument.
 
Quote
Your comment about the trooper-gate probe seems to be cynical--the results won't be out until after the election. If so, and if she wins, and if they results show illegal activity, then I'll have to hold that against her after the election. The world is not perfect, and the alternative is holding to an investigation as proof of a misdeed. I wouldn't take that approach with anyone.

Yes, I am cynical. Furthermore I think that McCain's choice for VP is evidence of profound cynicism on his side.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,11:10   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,16:39)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,10:29)
Just as a side point, if Obama WAS a muslim, would it really matter to you Dave?

The question I suppose I am asking is "Is the single issue of a candidate's specific religious/non-religious stance sufficiently important to you to vote/not vote for them?". Which immediately springs the follow-on question of "Would you excuse a member of your own sect for unpleasantness X and not excuse a member of another sect/non-religious candidate for unpleasantness X?".

Louis

It might, I don't know for sure, but it might. Maybe I'm alone in this, but I tend to vote for people in part because they are like me. Part of Obama's appeal to me includes that he is a Christian, part of the appeal is the history making aspect of an African-American president, and part of the appeal is that he is smart. I am so "not a Moslem" that I don't honestly know if I would vote for one. I think I could, but that is purely hypothetical.

So that answers the first question--somebody being "like me" in their biography is absolutely appealing. I have a lot in common with Palin: lower middle class upbringing, handicapped child, evangelical Christian. There is no doubt that I find that commonality appealing.

As for the second question, I would not excuse a member of my own "sect." If Palin is corrupt, I will not vote for her.  On the other hand, I don't expect her to be a saint, either.

Thanks for being honest.

I have to say that for me, I practise what I preach (ha ha ha), I think religion is a private, personal matter, and that it shouldn't be involved in politics (as far as is practicable, I understand how individuals might be influenced etc), hence I don't care if the candidate is a christian, muslim, sikh, cargo cultist, whatever. And I think it's safe to say I am at least as "not a muslim" as you are! ;-) In fact I'd go further, I'm even more "not a muslim" than you, given how I am also "not a jew" and "not a christian"!

I tend to vote for people whose ideas I think are good (by which I mean based on the available evidence). It's all about the ideas/issues for me, and agreement doesn't always feature. I have voted for people I vehemently disagree with on (perhaps minor) issue A because I think they are going to do a good job on issue B (which I may or may not agree with them on). Oy, such a headfuck! I don't have to like them, in fact in many cases I can guarantee I DON'T like them, or that they have to be like me. I also really, really don't expect candidates to be saints.

So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
dheddle



Posts: 540
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,11:23   

Louis,

Could you rephrase this question:

 
Quote
So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)?


I think there is a word missing, and I don't want to assume that I know what it is.

Albatrossity2,

What main point did I miss? I thought I was pretty clear that I do not view her being anti-pork and her going after some pork as evidence of hypocrisy. I thought I was clear that it is every politician's fiduciary responsibility to go after some pork, to try to retrieve some of the tax dollars the state sends to DC.


Note: I have to get ready to teach my Astronomy class, so any reply will be delayed.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,11:31   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,11:23)
Albatrossity2,

What main point did I miss? I thought I was pretty clear that I do not view her being anti-pork and her going after some pork as evidence of hypocrisy. I thought I was clear that it is every politician's fiduciary responsibility to go after some pork, to try to retrieve some of the tax dollars the state sends to DC.

My definition - Hypocrisy = saying one thing (vehemently, in Palin's case) and doing another.

Dheddle's definition - "her being anti-pork and her going after some pork" = not evidence of hypocrisy

We seem to have different definitions of hypocrisy.

I'll stick with mine, thanks.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,11:42   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,17:23)
Louis,

Could you rephrase this question:

   
Quote
So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)?


I think there is a word missing, and I don't want to assume that I know what it is.

[SNIP]

Not a problem. TYPO the Gdo of clerical errors has smitten me once more 'twould seem.

Quote
So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any trouble choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)?


I don't think you would tbh, but I am trying to assess the borders of this "vote for people like me" idea you have.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,12:45   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,10:14)
 Hell no, every politician should have a goal of getting back to their state a reasonable fraction of the federal dollars their citizens sent to DC.

Is 1.8 a reasonable fraction, Heddle? That's for the state as a whole, and I suspect that the "fraction" for Wasilla after the lobbying was done was closer to 5.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,13:04   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,11:23)
Note: I have to get ready to teach my Astrology class, so any reply will be delayed.

fixed that for you!  :p

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
dheddle



Posts: 540
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,15:20   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,11:42)
So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any trouble choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)?

Well, the way it is worded I would have one problem, that of the hungry mule halfway between two equally delicious buckets, one of oats and one of corn. I'd starve from frozen indecision since there is no way to choose. But I think you are asking if I would take race into account, and the answer is no. There are more important factors beyond race that would permit me to identify with one over the other, such as demeanor--For example I am immediately drawn to down-to-earth types as opposed to scholarly-acting types.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
khan



Posts: 1525
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,16:13   

Has anyone asked the current Mrs. McCain what she thinks of the choice of Mrs. Palin to be traveling with Mr. McCain?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,16:19   

uh-oh:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/156679

Quote
Except for the national spotlight, Wasilla Bible Church resembles thousands of conservative evangelical churches across the country. Its statement of faith says its members believe that the Bible is the "inspired, inerrant word of God."


Quote
This past Sunday, worship at the Assembly of God fellowship in Wasilla was as euphoric as the Bible Church was staid. The congregation of about 100 was on its feet, shouting and clapping. Some members on another Sunday might murmur and keen in low voices, the sound of speaking in tongues.


Yay, church of gibberish. Perfect for Republicans!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,16:59   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,21:20)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,11:42)
So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any trouble choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)?

Well, the way it is worded I would have one problem, that of the hungry mule halfway between two equally delicious buckets, one of oats and one of corn. I'd starve from frozen indecision since there is no way to choose. But I think you are asking if I would take race into account, and the answer is no. There are more important factors beyond race that would permit me to identify with one over the other, such as demeanor--For example I am immediately drawn to down-to-earth types as opposed to scholarly-acting types.

And this has what to do with NASCAR?

Sooooooo, tell me about your mother....

;-)

You're right it's a race question, and like I said, I didn't expect you to have any issue other than the one you mentioned ("lucky donkey" problem). Also like I said, I'm trying to map the extent of this "vote for the candidate like me" idea. It strikes me as an awfully daft way to vote, but then no doubt there is some subtlety I'm missing.

Same question with one gay candidate and one straight candidate.

Same question again with one male candidate and one female candidate.

I'm guessing neither of these would present you with anything other than a "lucky donkey" problem like you describe above. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Are religion, class and demeanour the only "personal" factors that matter to you?

Leaving aside issues of competency/corruption etc.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,17:27   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,16:20)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,11:42)
So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any trouble choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)?

Well, the way it is worded I would have one problem, that of the hungry mule halfway between two equally delicious buckets, one of oats and one of corn. I'd starve from frozen indecision since there is no way to choose. But I think you are asking if I would take race into account, and the answer is no. There are more important factors beyond race that would permit me to identify with one over the other, such as demeanor--For example I am immediately drawn to down-to-earth types as opposed to scholarly-acting types.

Well, I'm glad that we have people like you who will look at the issues and vote...oh wait...

Y'know, it's attitudes like this that put shrub in the office.  How many people said they voted for him because Gore was too smart or not likeable enough, or that they felt they could have a beer with shrub?

Sad.

  
dheddle



Posts: 540
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,17:57   

Quote (GCT @ Sep. 02 2008,17:27)
   
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,16:20)
   
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,11:42)
So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any trouble choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)?

Well, the way it is worded I would have one problem, that of the hungry mule halfway between two equally delicious buckets, one of oats and one of corn. I'd starve from frozen indecision since there is no way to choose. But I think you are asking if I would take race into account, and the answer is no. There are more important factors beyond race that would permit me to identify with one over the other, such as demeanor--For example I am immediately drawn to down-to-earth types as opposed to scholarly-acting types.

Well, I'm glad that we have people like you who will look at the issues and vote...oh wait...

Y'know, it's attitudes like this that put shrub in the office.  How many people said they voted for him because Gore was too smart or not likeable enough, or that they felt they could have a beer with shrub?

Sad.

Democracy sucks. Maybe you could institute a "you must cogently explain the issues'' voting poll to weed out those unprofitable citizens like me who trust our gut (sometimes resulting in utter failure) more than those who trust the issues (because candidates always tell the truth about what policies they will pursue.)

Edit: typo

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,18:00   

Quote (GCT @ Sep. 02 2008,15:27)
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,16:20)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,11:42)
So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any trouble choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)?

Well, the way it is worded I would have one problem, that of the hungry mule halfway between two equally delicious buckets, one of oats and one of corn. I'd starve from frozen indecision since there is no way to choose. But I think you are asking if I would take race into account, and the answer is no. There are more important factors beyond race that would permit me to identify with one over the other, such as demeanor--For example I am immediately drawn to down-to-earth types as opposed to scholarly-acting types.

Well, I'm glad that we have people like you who will look at the issues and vote...oh wait...

Y'know, it's attitudes like this that put shrub in the office.  How many people said they voted for him because Gore was too smart or not likeable enough, or that they felt they could have a beer with shrub?

Sad.

In defence of dheddle, I think almost everyone does this on some level.  Not everyone is honest enough to admit it.  It's why so much effort and money is put into cultivating a candidate's image.  

Presenting a Yale-educated scion of one of Connecticut's wealthiest families as a horny-handed Texas brush-clearer wasn't done on a whim, and it wasn't done just to lure the mouth-breathing rednecks - there aren't that many of them, and most of them don't vote.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
dheddle



Posts: 540
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,18:00   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 01 2008,23:31)
Advice to Sarah Palin: Whatever they offer, don't accept that offer of a special guest appearance on "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?"

Advice to Joe Biden, if you are on "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?" it would be considered gauche to challenge one of the kids to an IQ face-off.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
dheddle



Posts: 540
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,18:09   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,16:59)
You're right it's a race question, and like I said, I didn't expect you to have any issue other than the one you mentioned ("lucky donkey" problem). Also like I said, I'm trying to map the extent of this "vote for the candidate like me" idea. It strikes me as an awfully daft way to vote, but then no doubt there is some subtlety I'm missing.

Are religion, class and demeanour the only "personal" factors that matter to you?

No subtlety. Maybe just an acknowledgement that the strategy has limitations. There are positions outrageous enough that no matter how much I identified with the candidate I wouldn't vote for him or her.

BTW, same answer for the other groups you mentioned.

No, I also like someone who looks like they can speak extemporaneously. Obama seems pretty good, McCain less so, and Biden most susceptible, at toxic concentrations, to foot-in-mouth. Palin seems quite good based on the few interviews I've seen--time will tell.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,18:37   

i'm with you as far as democracy sucks.  i would like a scale dependent caveat on that though.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,19:14   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,18:57)
Quote (GCT @ Sep. 02 2008,17:27)
   
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,16:20)
     
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,11:42)
So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any trouble choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)?

Well, the way it is worded I would have one problem, that of the hungry mule halfway between two equally delicious buckets, one of oats and one of corn. I'd starve from frozen indecision since there is no way to choose. But I think you are asking if I would take race into account, and the answer is no. There are more important factors beyond race that would permit me to identify with one over the other, such as demeanor--For example I am immediately drawn to down-to-earth types as opposed to scholarly-acting types.

Well, I'm glad that we have people like you who will look at the issues and vote...oh wait...

Y'know, it's attitudes like this that put shrub in the office.  How many people said they voted for him because Gore was too smart or not likeable enough, or that they felt they could have a beer with shrub?

Sad.

Democracy sucks. Maybe you could institute a "you must cogently explain the issues'' voting poll to weed out those unprofitable citizens like me who trust our gut (sometimes resulting in utter failure) more than those who trust the issues (because candidates always tell the truth about what policies they will pursue.)

Edit: typo

At least looking at their stances on the issues whether they are telling the absolute truth or not (and many times you can tell) is better than voting based on how they look or some other superficial trait.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,19:17   

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 02 2008,19:00)
Quote (GCT @ Sep. 02 2008,15:27)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,16:20)
 
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,11:42)
So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any trouble choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)?

Well, the way it is worded I would have one problem, that of the hungry mule halfway between two equally delicious buckets, one of oats and one of corn. I'd starve from frozen indecision since there is no way to choose. But I think you are asking if I would take race into account, and the answer is no. There are more important factors beyond race that would permit me to identify with one over the other, such as demeanor--For example I am immediately drawn to down-to-earth types as opposed to scholarly-acting types.

Well, I'm glad that we have people like you who will look at the issues and vote...oh wait...

Y'know, it's attitudes like this that put shrub in the office.  How many people said they voted for him because Gore was too smart or not likeable enough, or that they felt they could have a beer with shrub?

Sad.

In defence of dheddle, I think almost everyone does this on some level.  Not everyone is honest enough to admit it.  It's why so much effort and money is put into cultivating a candidate's image.  

Presenting a Yale-educated scion of one of Connecticut's wealthiest families as a horny-handed Texas brush-clearer wasn't done on a whim, and it wasn't done just to lure the mouth-breathing rednecks - there aren't that many of them, and most of them don't vote.

Of course they did, because image is everything in a world of too-lazy, sound-byte wanting public that would rather have an average joe in the most powerful office in the world than someone who is smart, level-headed, and all that.  I mean, c'mon.  If you are going to vote based on perception politics, at least go with the guy who you perceive is best for the office, not the one you think is the most mediocre.  People voted for shrub exactly because he was mediocre.  Now, people are going to vote for McCain because Palin goes to the right church?

ETA:  And, there's no reason to defend Heddle on this.  In fact, I hold him in lower regard than the uneducated, backwoods guy, simply because Heddle DOES have the education and should have the ability to make informed decisions.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,19:54   

GCT choosing between a runny turd and a lumpy turd ain't exactly free will.  How can you hold coerced people responsible for decisions that have no effect on any perceivable endpoint I find hard to understand.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,21:17   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 02 2008,20:54)
GCT choosing between a runny turd and a lumpy turd ain't exactly free will.  How can you hold coerced people responsible for decisions that have no effect on any perceivable endpoint I find hard to understand.

Yeah, we never have the best people running, but I hardly find that to be a legitimate excuse for voting for someone like shrub, especially when he was voted specifically because he wasn't as qualified for the job.

And, I fail to see what you mean by coerced people.  Heddle can look up the issues instead of voting for McCain simply because Palin goes to the right church.

And, yeah, the platforms are pretty well similar, but there are some differences, and some important ones.  Roe v. Wade?  War in Iran?  Continued presence in Iraq?  You don't have to agree with me, but at least have the decency to look up what's being debated.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,23:16   

no my friend it is not about decency or agreeing with you.  I'm sure we agree on a lot of things, but apparently the point where we disagree regards the importance of participating in the process.  I refuse to legitimize this miserable failure of a circus with my input, and I won't shoulder the blame (nor do i accept "can't complain if you don't vote" because that presupposes so much that is an affront to the senses and reason that I am astounded that it passes for argument, in some circles).

I don't know your politics but such a nonsensical dichotomous 'choice' (for what, even to the average fundie, only passes for leadership) is to me validation for the contention that one should expect the absolute worst form of self serving imperialist bipartisan hegemony when considering the possible constitution of the next electorate.  

the worst part is, the rest of the world is now trying to adopt this model.  at least the resource extraction industrial countries.  they turned the enlightenment around on it's head and ignored william blake.

Every harlot was a virgin once.

Now back on OT:  i know yosemite mcsame is paying lip service to intelligent design and i know he is a panderer just like all these other douchebags.  how organized is this new front of inserting creotard asshattery  state-by-state into school curriculum and textbooks?  How many other states are doing what LA is getting ready to do, if only the get the green light from a new Republican administration?  

to be honest i can't see democrats not doing the same thing if it would get them votes.  they are all unprincipled, after all.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,23:21   

To be fair, I don't think the system is conducive to idealists - and we may not want one to the extent that idealism is at odds with pragmatism.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
dheddle



Posts: 540
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,04:13   

Quote (GCT @ Sep. 02 2008,21:17)
     
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 02 2008,20:54)
GCT choosing between a runny turd and a lumpy turd ain't exactly free will.  How can you hold coerced people responsible for decisions that have no effect on any perceivable endpoint I find hard to understand.

Yeah, we never have the best people running, but I hardly find that to be a legitimate excuse for voting for someone like shrub, especially when he was voted specifically because he wasn't as qualified for the job.

And, I fail to see what you mean by coerced people.  Heddle can look up the issues instead of voting for McCain simply because Palin goes to the right church.

And, yeah, the platforms are pretty well similar, but there are some differences, and some important ones.  Roe v. Wade?  War in Iran?  Continued presence in Iraq?  You don't have to agree with me, but at least have the decency to look up what's being debated.

You have made a mistake. I don't need to look up the issues. I know about the issues. Why, I bet my issues IQ is higher than yours! I didn't say that I don't know the issues. No, the point is twofold: in a aggregate sense I don't see much difference--that is on some issues I tend to be Republican, some Democratic, and it more or less is a wash. (Other libertarian leaning voters will recognize the problem--we don't fit in either major party.) Then there is the fact that once elected candidates tend to give in to expediency anyway. How many Republicans have promised to reduce government, and how many have succeeded?

No my friend, it is not that I don't know the issues, it that I choose (to a limited extent) not to vote by them. Issue voting will break your heart everytime.

[Aside: Palin goes to the right church? She has switched to a Reformed Baptist Church?]

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,04:35   

Note: I'm a dirty jurropean, so I won't even pretend to understand US electoral politics.

There are however other metrics than issues or personality that you can vote by.

Who are their backers, financially and politically. With only two major parties, from which faction within the respective parties do the candidates come?

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,05:14   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 03 2008,10:13)
[SNIP]

No my friend, it is not that I don't know the issues, it that I choose (to a limited extent) not to vote by them. Issue voting will break your heart everytime.

[SNIP]

Ahhhh good. I knew I was being overly pessimistic about your voting strategy. Faith in Heddle restored, such as it was! ;-)

I don't agree with you as a matter of personal responsibility, issue voting might break my heart but it's my job to do it, but at least I understand where you are coming from. Personally, I think giving into the politics of despair is an abrogation of one's democratic duties. YMMV.

Oh and it ain't just libertarians, or USAians, who find the "two(ish) party" political model unsatisfactory on several levels. There is no party that represents me in pretty much any nation (and I've looked!). Hence why I advocate no small measure of political and social change.....

But that's another story.

Louis

ETA: Ok ok so I'm going to comment further dammit. I tried to avoid it, but meh, I'm a total bastard, might as well not break the habit of a lifetime.

This (perhaps limited) abandonment of your political and intellectual duties annoys me for its pathetic fatalism, Heddle.

Yes politicians make promises they don't keep. Yes politicians make claims about the issues they later on forget. Yes the systems of government we have are not perfect. So? Unless we as the electorate actually make the effort to change things (and let's be blunt, it ain't that big an effort) then we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past forever. We are going to get fucked over, we are going to get lied to and we are going to elect politicians that go back on their campaign promises.

The only way to make this happen less is to ENGAGE in the political process to an extent that it causes personal cost. Claiming you "know the issues and don't need to investigate them further" is an abrogation of your duty as a capable citizen. I'd go as far as to say it is an abrogation of your civic duty as a scientist and an academic. I seriously doubt, no matter how high you claim you "issues IQ" to be, that you are conversant with all the details of all the relevant issues, or even anything approaching 50% of them. I seriously doubt anyone is. Reducing any part of your decision on who to vote for to the popularity contest style you advocate above is worse than merely shrugging your shoulders, it's active participation in the very causes of your own fatalism.

I speak as someone who used to do this as a younger bloke out of a combination of apathy and identical fatalism. Comedy slogans abound "Don't vote, the government might get in", "Don't vote, it only encourages them" etc. I even stood in a mock election as the Monster Raving Loony candidate (an election I won by a landslide I might add) to mock the futility of the political process. My views on futility and "satirisability" have not changed, my acknowledgement that I have a very hard won duty has. The more I read about politics and history the stronger that duty weighs.

So it's my job to protest at policies I disagree with. It's my job to investigate the issues as thoroughly as I can and vote with the best available evidence. It's my duty to reach out where possible and inform others (if needs be). It's especially my job to do so honestly on scientific matters (as a professional scientist) especially those closely linked to my own area of research. It's even more especially my job to chase down any semblance of uncriticised dogma or belief on my part and justify it on a rational basis if possible, or abandon it. That's as true of politics as it is of science.

To abandon any of that with a fatalistic shrug of the shoulders to any degree is an abandonment of my responsibilities as a citizen. Worse, to realise this AND THEN to abandon it, is as gross a dereliction of my democratic duties as is imaginable.

--------------
Bye.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,07:48   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 03 2008,04:13)
Issue voting will break your heart everytime.

And values voting will break the country.

Good choice.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
dheddle



Posts: 540
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,07:54   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 03 2008,07:48)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 03 2008,04:13)
Issue voting will break your heart everytime.

And values voting will break the country.

Good choice.

Well, I do tend to be Calvinistic about these things.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,08:50   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 03 2008,13:54)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 03 2008,07:48)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 03 2008,04:13)
Issue voting will break your heart everytime.

And values voting will break the country.

Good choice.

Well, I do tend to be Calvinistic about these things.

In the sense of unconditional election or total depravity?

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,09:26   

heat death.

i'd rather go fishing.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,09:51   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 03 2008,15:26)
heat death.

i'd rather go fishing.

Meh, who wouldn't?*

The sad thing is: cunts abound, ergo we can't fish all the time.

That's the tragedy of reality.

Louis

*For those who don't fish, and I'm one of them, insert your favourite activity. I fished as a kid, dammit I AM from the coast after all. But nowadays.....not so much.

--------------
Bye.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,17:28   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 03 2008,00:16)
no my friend it is not about decency or agreeing with you.  I'm sure we agree on a lot of things, but apparently the point where we disagree regards the importance of participating in the process.  I refuse to legitimize this miserable failure of a circus with my input, and I won't shoulder the blame (nor do i accept "can't complain if you don't vote" because that presupposes so much that is an affront to the senses and reason that I am astounded that it passes for argument, in some circles).

Then why defend Heddle for "legitimiz[ing] this miserable failure of a circus with [his] input" especially when his input plays into the lowest of the lowest common denominator?  That's the point.  If you are taking a principled stand against voting because you refuse to vote just to vote against someone, then that's one thing.  I used to do that myself until I changed my mind and decided that having shrub in office was just too dangerous and that I could hold my nose long enough to vote for the other guy (based on the issues I might add).  Whatever.  But, that's certainly not what Heddle is doing.  He's doing his part to make this even more of a circus by doing exactly what they want him to do, and that is vote for their guy simply because he likes the cut of their guy's jib (or simply because their woman goes to the right church).  If you object to our electoral system because it has been made into a mockery, then you should surely object to Heddle's participation making it into even more of a mockery!
 
Quote
I don't know your politics but such a nonsensical dichotomous 'choice' (for what, even to the average fundie, only passes for leadership) is to me validation for the contention that one should expect the absolute worst form of self serving imperialist bipartisan hegemony when considering the possible constitution of the next electorate.  

the worst part is, the rest of the world is now trying to adopt this model.  at least the resource extraction industrial countries.  they turned the enlightenment around on it's head and ignored william blake.

I'm not even going to try and argue with this, because I happen to agree with pretty much all of it.  The only thing I disagree with is that there are some differences (however small) between the parties and these are important differences.  It might not be filet mignon, but there's a difference between eating some edible and eating rocks (or sh*t).

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,17:31   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 03 2008,05:13)
No my friend, it is not that I don't know the issues, it that I choose (to a limited extent) not to vote by them. Issue voting will break your heart everytime.

And this helps your argument how?

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,17:35   

Quote (dnmlthr @ Sep. 03 2008,05:35)
There are however other metrics than issues or personality that you can vote by.

Who are their backers, financially and politically. With only two major parties, from which faction within the respective parties do the candidates come?

I tend to lump that sort of analysis in with the issues.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,17:37   


  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,20:40   

i suppose my disagreements with those folks are on axes orthogonal to the 'issues'.  i am not defending heddle for voting for whoever whenever whatever, i am saying when voter participation is such a scam you might as well frikkin vote for whoever.  it doesn't matter what brand of lunatic is in there, i don't think.  they are all despicable and i wouldn't piss on their grandmothers if their feet were on fire.  any honest man or woman wouldn't want the job.  so i like the fact that it's all a nascar race to heddle, but i suppose there are less titties and no bocephus at his party.  i could be wrong and would be thrilled to be wrong about this as a matter of fact.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,21:23   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 03 2008,21:40)
it doesn't matter what brand of lunatic is in there, i don't think.

Really?  Do you think we'd be in Iraq right now had shrub not been elected?

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,21:43   

I hope she leads better than she names kids.
Trig and trix and boff and spug or whatever...

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,22:27   

if not iraq somewhere else.  it's good for business you know.  keep on yanking on that window, makes jobs.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,22:57   

I can't wait for the debates now. I wonder if they'll frame her as a dribbling fundie?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,04:32   

Let's get this thread back around to the topic. I'd like to see the focus get back on antievolution in the presidential race specifically.

Thanks.



Quote
Marvel Toilet by Dplanet::


Edited by Lou FCD on Sep. 04 2008,05:44

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,11:06   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 03 2008,20:57)
I can't wait for the debates now. I wonder if they'll frame her as a dribbling fundie?

I assume there will be a Palin-Biden debate, in which case I'd like to see him take on her support for the teaching of creationism in science classes.  If the usual pattern holds (the closer we get to the election, the more timid the Dems get), it won't happen, though.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,11:08   

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 04 2008,11:06)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 03 2008,20:57)
I can't wait for the debates now. I wonder if they'll frame her as a dribbling fundie?

I assume there will be a Palin-Biden debate, in which case I'd like to see him take on her support for the teaching of creationism in science classes.  If the usual pattern holds (the closer we get to the election, the more timid the Dems get), it won't happen, though.

The issue is that her stance, whilst wrong, is a popular one. For every you shaking your head there may be two people nodding.

I think the way to adress it may be to ask how she came to her opinions - being better informed is a good start.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,11:18   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 04 2008,11:08)
Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 04 2008,11:06)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 03 2008,20:57)
I can't wait for the debates now. I wonder if they'll frame her as a dribbling fundie?

I assume there will be a Palin-Biden debate, in which case I'd like to see him take on her support for the teaching of creationism in science classes.  If the usual pattern holds (the closer we get to the election, the more timid the Dems get), it won't happen, though.

The issue is that her stance, whilst wrong, is a popular one. For every you shaking your head there may be two people nodding.

I think the way to adress it may be to ask how she came to her opinions - being better informed is a good start.

Richard - I second your motion.  Now, if we can just get everyone else to go along with it...

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,18:43   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 03 2008,22:57)
I can't wait for the debates now. I wonder if they'll frame her as a dribbling fundie?

Just now getting a chance to check in here today, and I noticed Rich's snide comment.  I swear to God I burst out laughing.  After her outstanding speech last night, it may be Biden that is left dribbling and sputtering.  

That gal certainly doesn't come across as anything other than intelligent, extremely well spoken, and likeable.  She's fiesty as hell, and I'd bet money that neither Obama, Biden or even McCain himself could match wits with her.  

If her debate style is anything similiar to what we saw from her speech last night, it will probably end of being one of the most enjoyable debates I've even seen as far as political side shows go.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Lowell



Posts: 101
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,18:44   

DaveScot tells everybody what's what at Pharyngula. Sarah Palin is going to be "teh American Margaret Thatcher." Write that down!

Finally, someone is going to make you chance worshipers pay for your crimes.

--------------
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most well documented events of antiquity. Barry Arrington, Jan 17, 2012.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,19:28   

Full screed:

Quote
Posted by: DaveScot | September 4, 2008 5:49 PM

You finally got one right, PZ. This IS how you will lose.

Even totally united behind Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 you couldn't beat a dumbass draft dodging reborn alcoholic George "Shrub" Bush and his snake-oil sidekick Dick Cheney of all people. That's pretty pathetic. This round you've got an even worse candidate that half of your own party thinks stole the nomination by cheating and dirty politics. Your party is shattered up the middle and you have the worst candidate in all the decades I've been paying attention. I knew Jack Kennedy and your nominee, PZ, is no Jack Kennedy.

Now the culture war is still on, the players are all the same on both sides, except this time we have an honest-to-God centrist war hero, even if he is an elitist beltway insider, and a little unheard of cutie, obviously a political savant, who in 30 minutes won the hearts and minds of every heretofore apathetic God fearing blue collar flyover family all across the nation and made them start caring about who wins this election not to mention is stealing a lot of the Hillary voters who wanted nothing more than a woman in the Whitehouse. If McCain wins then Palin, sooner or later, is going to become the first woman president of the United States as by the time she's up for election to the top spot there won't be any question of lack of experience. You are basically looking at teh American Margaret Thatcher. Get used to her. She's going to be in your face for the next 16 years. It's all over except for the tears and anger from your side that you were fucked yet again. Write that down.


--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,19:36   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 04 2008,18:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 03 2008,22:57)
I can't wait for the debates now. I wonder if they'll frame her as a dribbling fundie?

Just now getting a chance to check in here today, and I noticed Rich's snide comment.  I swear to God I burst out laughing.  After her outstanding speech last night, it may be Biden that is left dribbling and sputtering.  

That gal certainly doesn't come across as anything other than intelligent, extremely well spoken, and likeable.  She's fiesty as hell, and I'd bet money that neither Obama, Biden or even McCain himself could match wits with her.  

If her debate style is anything similiar to what we saw from her speech last night, it will probably end of being one of the most enjoyable debates I've even seen as far as political side shows go.

Do you know what "frame" means, FtK?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
csadams



Posts: 124
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,19:43   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 04 2008,19:28)
Full screed:

Quote
Posted by: DaveScot | September 4, 2008 5:49 PM

You finally got one right, PZ. This IS how you will lose.

Even totally united behind Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 you couldn't beat a dumbass draft dodging reborn alcoholic George "Shrub" Bush and his snake-oil sidekick Dick Cheney of all people. That's pretty pathetic. This round you've got an even worse candidate that half of your own party thinks stole the nomination by cheating and dirty politics. Your party is shattered up the middle and you have the worst candidate in all the decades I've been paying attention. I knew Jack Kennedy and your nominee, PZ, is no Jack Kennedy.

Now the culture war is still on, the players are all the same on both sides, except this time we have an honest-to-God centrist war hero, even if he is an elitist beltway insider, and a little unheard of cutie, obviously a political savant, who in 30 minutes won the hearts and minds of every heretofore apathetic God fearing blue collar flyover family all across the nation and made them start caring about who wins this election not to mention is stealing a lot of the Hillary voters who wanted nothing more than a woman in the Whitehouse. If McCain wins then Palin, sooner or later, is going to become the first woman president of the United States as by the time she's up for election to the top spot there won't be any question of lack of experience. You are basically looking at teh American Margaret Thatcher. Get used to her. She's going to be in your face for the next 16 years. It's all over except for the tears and anger from your side that you were fucked yet again. Write that down.

Is this the same Dave from 2005 who predicted
Quote
Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.

 
???

--------------
Stand Up For REAL Science!

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,19:45   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 04 2008,18:43)

That gal certainly doesn't come across as anything other than intelligent, extremely well spoken, and likeable.  She's fiesty as hell, and I'd bet money that neither Obama, Biden or even McCain himself could match wits with her.

Her speech? I guess she had so many wits that other people had to retool the "outstanding" speech they had already written for a male VP candidate, eh, FtK?

Jesus was kind of a community organizer, and Pontius Pilate was a governor. Yeah, I can understand why fake Christians like you lap that shit up.

What about the blatant lie about the bridge to nowhere? Do you agree that we're doing "God's work" in Iraq?

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,21:21   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 04 2008,18:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 03 2008,22:57)
I can't wait for the debates now. I wonder if they'll frame her as a dribbling fundie?

Just now getting a chance to check in here today, and I noticed Rich's snide comment.  I swear to God I burst out laughing.  After her outstanding speech last night, it may be Biden that is left dribbling and sputtering.  

That gal certainly doesn't come across as anything other than intelligent, extremely well spoken, and likeable.  She's fiesty as hell, and I'd bet money that neither Obama, Biden or even McCain himself could match wits with her.  

If her debate style is anything similiar to what we saw from her speech last night, it will probably end of being one of the most enjoyable debates I've even seen as far as political side shows go.

FTK - WTF???!!!

Are you watching the same Sarah Palin as I am??!!

She comes accross as just another self-serving lying bag of horse dung - and a dumb one at that!

However, I must admit she is a good fit for the McCain-Bush ticket.

And BTW FTK - STAY OFF OF HIS LAWNS!!&^%$#!

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,22:14   

I do love "the daily show"..

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,22:35   

My gut reaction to Palin during her speech: Quite mixed.

Speech cadences and tonality worse than fingernails on chalkboard. On radio she comes across as a giggling hag.

But quite beautiful, with abundant Q-factor and watchability. TV works for her. Very confident and naturally sunny and, in a way, charismatic. She'll be liked by the Republican base.

Also, objectively, she must be a smart and capable woman. You don't get where she has without some of that.

But I also found her snide, sarcastic, abrasive, smug, and obnoxious. Simultaneously spunky and smug. Smunky.

Smunky isn't so good.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,22:53   

She the republican's best chance not to occupy the "80 year old man with his belt up by his nipples" mental  space...

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2008,05:13   

Quote (csadams @ Sep. 04 2008,20:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 04 2008,19:28)
Full screed:

 
Quote
Posted by: DaveScot | September 4, 2008 5:49 PM

You finally got one right, PZ. This IS how you will lose.

Even totally united behind Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 you couldn't beat a dumbass draft dodging reborn alcoholic George "Shrub" Bush and his snake-oil sidekick Dick Cheney of all people. That's pretty pathetic. This round you've got an even worse candidate that half of your own party thinks stole the nomination by cheating and dirty politics. Your party is shattered up the middle and you have the worst candidate in all the decades I've been paying attention. I knew Jack Kennedy and your nominee, PZ, is no Jack Kennedy.

Now the culture war is still on, the players are all the same on both sides, except this time we have an honest-to-God centrist war hero, even if he is an elitist beltway insider, and a little unheard of cutie, obviously a political savant, who in 30 minutes won the hearts and minds of every heretofore apathetic God fearing blue collar flyover family all across the nation and made them start caring about who wins this election not to mention is stealing a lot of the Hillary voters who wanted nothing more than a woman in the Whitehouse. If McCain wins then Palin, sooner or later, is going to become the first woman president of the United States as by the time she's up for election to the top spot there won't be any question of lack of experience. You are basically looking at teh American Margaret Thatcher. Get used to her. She's going to be in your face for the next 16 years. It's all over except for the tears and anger from your side that you were fucked yet again. Write that down.

Is this the same Dave from 2005 who predicted  
Quote
Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.

 
???

That is exactly what popped into my head, as soon as I read Davey's first sentence.

Meanwhile, I see that Ftk and reality are forging ahead with the divorce proceedings.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2008,05:22   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 05 2008,11:13)
[SNIP]

Meanwhile, I see that Ftk and reality are forging ahead with the divorce proceedings.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa WHOA!

FTK and reality knew each other? I wasn't aware they'd ever been in the same room.

That aside, the gloating drivel of FTK and Davey boy is the standard crapola. Pay it no mind. It's just yet another piece of data in the "team identity" psychosis they present.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2008,05:32   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 05 2008,06:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 03 2008,22:57)
I can't wait for the debates now. I wonder if they'll frame her as a dribbling fundie?

Just now getting a chance to check in here today, and I noticed Rich's snide comment.  I swear to God I burst out laughing.  After her outstanding speech last night, it may be Biden that is left dribbling and sputtering.  

That gal certainly doesn't come across as anything other than intelligent, extremely well spoken, and likeable.  She's fiesty as hell, and I'd bet money that neither Obama, Biden or even McCain himself could match wits with her.  

If her debate style is anything similiar to what we saw from her speech last night, it will probably end of being one of the most enjoyable debates I've even seen as far as political side shows go.

I heard bits of her speech and thought she was very well spoken but I knocked me over how many errors in fact she said in one speech. I also thought that people like FTK would lap it up liking spin over substance.

I thought it was quite scary and more like something you would hear on LGF rather than something that an informed future leader would say.

But I suppose there are a lot of people like Ftk who never let facts stand in the way of forming an opinion.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2008,06:41   

Ftk has weighed in on Palin at Risible Kansans:

"Inexperienced my ass."

The opposite of which is...

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
ck1



Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2008,10:54   

Quote (csadams @ Sep. 04 2008,19:43)
       
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 04 2008,19:28)
Full screed:

         
Quote
Posted by: DaveScot | September 4, 2008 5:49 PM

You finally got one right, PZ. This IS how you will lose.

Even totally united behind Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 you couldn't beat a dumbass draft dodging reborn alcoholic George "Shrub" Bush and his snake-oil sidekick Dick Cheney of all people. That's pretty pathetic. This round you've got an even worse candidate that half of your own party thinks stole the nomination by cheating and dirty politics. Your party is shattered up the middle and you have the worst candidate in all the decades I've been paying attention. I knew Jack Kennedy and your nominee, PZ, is no Jack Kennedy.

Now the culture war is still on, the players are all the same on both sides, except this time we have an honest-to-God centrist war hero, even if he is an elitist beltway insider, and a little unheard of cutie, obviously a political savant, who in 30 minutes won the hearts and minds of every heretofore apathetic God fearing blue collar flyover family all across the nation and made them start caring about who wins this election not to mention is stealing a lot of the Hillary voters who wanted nothing more than a woman in the Whitehouse. If McCain wins then Palin, sooner or later, is going to become the first woman president of the United States as by the time she's up for election to the top spot there won't be any question of lack of experience. You are basically looking at teh American Margaret Thatcher. Get used to her. She's going to be in your face for the next 16 years. It's all over except for the tears and anger from your side that you were fucked yet again. Write that down.

Is this the same Dave from 2005 who predicted          
Quote
Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.

 
???

There is an important difference in these two predictions.  On the one hand, the outcome depends on the decision of a single highly-educated jurist, on the other, on the choices made by ordinary voting Americans:

"And in all of this we should not leave out the role of the much heralded ordinary American. One reason the Republicans find such fertile ground for their shamelessness is that this is fundamentally a right-wing country. My liberal friends find it difficult to accept this, but to me it seems obviously true. Why do you suppose that Republicans trumpet their pro-life credentials, but Democrats try to change the subject when it comes to abortion? Why do Republicans run around bashing homosexuals, while Democrats quake in terror at the thought of having to say what they really think? Why do you suppose upwards of eighty percent of the country want to have some sort of creationism taught in science classes?

The answer is simple. It is that in each case the Republicans are defending the popular position."

http://scienceblogs.com/evoluti....ion.php

(sorry - don't remember how to add quote boxes here)

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2008,11:44   

Dheddle, FtK and others.

Here's a letter from a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I'm sure you will find it interesting.

It's beginning to look more and more like she is just another venal small-town politician, now thrust onto a national stage. If she becomes VP, she will make Spiro T. Agnew proud...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2008,11:48   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 04 2008,19:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 03 2008,22:57)
I can't wait for the debates now. I wonder if they'll frame her as a dribbling fundie?

Just now getting a chance to check in here today, and I noticed Rich's snide comment.  I swear to God I burst out laughing.  After her outstanding speech last night, it may be Biden that is left dribbling and sputtering.  

That gal certainly doesn't come across as anything other than intelligent, extremely well spoken, and likeable.  She's fiesty as hell, and I'd bet money that neither Obama, Biden or even McCain himself could match wits with her.  

If her debate style is anything similiar to what we saw from her speech last night, it will probably end of being one of the most enjoyable debates I've even seen as far as political side shows go.

How about those speech writers, eh?

What, you didn't think she wrote any of that, did you?

According to McCain's campaign, Palin will not be allowed to speak outside of scripted speeches and campaign appearances.

Apparently they don't think she is very intelligent, well spoken, or likable without someone to tell her what to say.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Amadan



Posts: 1332
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2008,11:54   

This seems like the right place to ask this question.

I'm trying to find a suitable moniker for the Republicans' Happy Couple. The need for this struck me as I was looking at PTET's excellent, sneering coverage of it all.

"Captain Geritol and Polar Barbie"?
"ditto and Igloo Barbie"?
"Fossil Man and Gospel Mama"?
"President POW and The Moose-Meat MILF"?

Your thoughts (FTK, it's in the dictionary)  and suggestions, please.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2008,11:57   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 04 2008,23:35)
But I also found her snide, sarcastic, abrasive, smug, and obnoxious. Simultaneously spunky and smug. Smunky.

Smunky isn't so good.

On the bright side, in 60 days you'll never have to think about her again.

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2008,12:22   

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 06 2008,11:54)
This seems like the right place to ask this question.

I'm trying to find a suitable moniker for the Republicans' Happy Couple. The need for this struck me as I was looking at PTET's excellent, sneering coverage of it all.

"Captain Geritol and Polar Barbie"?
"ditto and Igloo Barbie"?
"Fossil Man and Gospel Mama"?
"President POW and The Moose-Meat MILF"?

Your thoughts (FTK, it's in the dictionary)  and suggestions, please.

I've heard "the maverick and the milf", but that gives them both too much credit.

I'm partial to "the flyboy and the flake" meself.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2008,12:38   

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 06 2008,11:54)
This seems like the right place to ask this question.

I'm trying to find a suitable moniker for the Republicans' Happy Couple. The need for this struck me as I was looking at PTET's excellent, sneering coverage of it all.

"Captain Geritol and Polar Barbie"?
"ditto and Igloo Barbie"?
"Fossil Man and Gospel Mama"?
"President POW and The Moose-Meat MILF"?

Your thoughts (FTK, it's in the dictionary)  and suggestions, please.

Let's see. Who do we know that likes to give other politicians nicknames?

I know! Let's get Georgie!

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2008,13:46   

Evangelicals / Palin:

http://www.time.com/time....cnn=yes

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2008,13:50   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 04 2008,16:43)
She's fiesty as hell, and I'd bet money that neither Obama, Biden or even McCain himself could match wits with her.  

I agree that Palin is "fiesty (sic)." It is a perfect description since the word literally means "like a feist." We all know that feist is "a small snappish dog." The word feist itself derived from the Norman French name for a small fart. Totally appropriate, Palin is the very definition of feisty.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2008,16:35   

Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 06 2008,12:48)
Apparently they don't think she is very intelligent, well spoken, or likable without someone to tell her what to say.

How 'bout that?

I never thought I'd agree with that bunch of psychos on anything ever again...

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2008,16:38   

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 06 2008,09:54)
This seems like the right place to ask this question.

I'm trying to find a suitable moniker for the Republicans' Happy Couple. The need for this struck me as I was looking at PTET's excellent, sneering coverage of it all.

"Captain Geritol and Polar Barbie"?
"ditto and Igloo Barbie"?
"Fossil Man and Gospel Mama"?
"President POW and The Moose-Meat MILF"?

Your thoughts (FTK, it's in the dictionary)  and suggestions, please.

I've seen "Gidget and the Geezer".

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2008,16:43   

All this reminds me of the way Reagan was ridiculed. Politics doesn't seem to favor rational thinking.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2008,16:50   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 06 2008,17:43)
Politics doesn't seem to favor rational thinking.

If it did, Palin's name would have never come up.


...and there wouldn't even be a Republican party as we know it.

And we wouldn't be here on this board, and all across the blogosphere spending enormous numbers of man-hours working endlessly to beat back the repeal of the Enlightenment.

So no. I suppose politics doesn't seem to favor rational thinking at all.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2008,16:55   

Quote (csadams @ Sep. 04 2008,17:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 04 2008,19:28)
Full screed:

 
Quote
Posted by: DaveScot | September 4, 2008 5:49 PM

You finally got one right, PZ. This IS how you will lose.

Even totally united behind Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 you couldn't beat a dumbass draft dodging reborn alcoholic George "Shrub" Bush and his snake-oil sidekick Dick Cheney of all people. That's pretty pathetic. This round you've got an even worse candidate that half of your own party thinks stole the nomination by cheating and dirty politics. Your party is shattered up the middle and you have the worst candidate in all the decades I've been paying attention. I knew Jack Kennedy and your nominee, PZ, is no Jack Kennedy.

Now the culture war is still on, the players are all the same on both sides, except this time we have an honest-to-God centrist war hero, even if he is an elitist beltway insider, and a little unheard of cutie, obviously a political savant, who in 30 minutes won the hearts and minds of every heretofore apathetic God fearing blue collar flyover family all across the nation and made them start caring about who wins this election not to mention is stealing a lot of the Hillary voters who wanted nothing more than a woman in the Whitehouse. If McCain wins then Palin, sooner or later, is going to become the first woman president of the United States as by the time she's up for election to the top spot there won't be any question of lack of experience. You are basically looking at teh American Margaret Thatcher. Get used to her. She's going to be in your face for the next 16 years. It's all over except for the tears and anger from your side that you were fucked yet again. Write that down.

Is this the same Dave from 2005 who predicted  
Quote
Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.

 
???

Sounds like Bitter Old Dave's blogging while drunk. You'd think past experience would have taught him the folly of that.

Well, if Dave "we own that now, too" Springer is convinced that Mama Mooseburger is going to be in the White House for 16 years, I feel much better now.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2008,17:03   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 06 2008,12:22)
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 06 2008,11:54)
This seems like the right place to ask this question.

I'm trying to find a suitable moniker for the Republicans' Happy Couple. The need for this struck me as I was looking at PTET's excellent, sneering coverage of it all.

"Captain Geritol and Polar Barbie"?
"ditto and Igloo Barbie"?
"Fossil Man and Gospel Mama"?
"President POW and The Moose-Meat MILF"?

Your thoughts (FTK, it's in the dictionary)  and suggestions, please.

I've heard "the maverick and the milf", but that gives them both too much credit.

I'm partial to "the flyboy and the flake" meself.

I like Flyboy and The Flake.

AND STAY OFF OF THEIR LAWNS !!!&^%$

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2008,17:16   

i don't see much rational thought from either 'side' of this circus.  a pox on all their houses.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2008,17:44   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 06 2008,17:16)
i don't see much rational thought from either 'side' of this circus.  a pox on all their houses.

Indeed.  The 2000 spectacle of Democrats arguing for, and Republicans against, state's rights told me everything I needed to know about politics. Internal consistency is the first victim in the quest for power.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2008,19:19   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 06 2008,17:16)
i don't see much rational thought from either 'side' of this circus.  a pox on all their houses.

I never got the American polarised politics anyway. That 2-party system (well technically speaking, it's not) only seems to evoke loads of bile and pure hate and not a fruitfull discussion on how to make your country a better place to live.
When I watch American politics, it looks like almost like an educated "yo momma" battle instead of "My plans are better then yours, and here's why." All the attention goes to the next grand speech from Obama, or the next add from McCain. But where are the discussions about the issues? Where are the economists discussing with eachother instead of the same old chatter about crap that in the end won't matter anyway. I'm still waiting for the facts, thát's usefull.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2008,21:25   

assassinator do you have a better plan?  say the world was your oyster, how ought we live?

i've often wondered what the axioms are that people work from that results in the conclusion that 'democracy is the best form of government' etc etc.  how do you get from 'I eat when I am hungry and sleep when I am tired' to 'We need a stronger national defense system' or 'Everyone has equal rights' etc.  Methinks there is a scam afoot but I'm not sure where it originated.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,07:03   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 06 2008,18:16)
i don't see much rational thought from either 'side' of this circus.  a pox on all their houses.

I posted this on the UD2 thread, but it's appropriate here:

Fatalistic cynicism and secession of our responsibility to participate knowledgeably in both the educational system and the electoral system is what brought this country to its knees.

We stand eyeball to eyeball with theocracy precisely because of attitudes just like that.

Now we each have a choice. We can either take up the mantle of that responsibility once again and expend great effort to drag this country and the world back toward the ideals of the Enlightenment, or we can capitulate to the rip tide of religious fundamentalism and drown in an ocean of ignorance.

It's true that voting for the current Democratic candidate is not swimming directly to shore, 'Ras. But like a swimmer caught in a rip current, it's just not possible to reach the shore that way. Just like that swimmer, we need to escape the rip current by swimming almost parallel to shore first, until we are in less dangerous waters. It's only then that we can turn fully toward safety.

Your choice, to not participate, is tantamount to surrender to the rip current.

I choose to swim.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,07:49   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 06 2008,21:25)
assassinator do you have a better plan?  say the world was your oyster, how ought we live?

i've often wondered what the axioms are that people work from that results in the conclusion that 'democracy is the best form of government' etc etc.  how do you get from 'I eat when I am hungry and sleep when I am tired' to 'We need a stronger national defense system' or 'Everyone has equal rights' etc.  Methinks there is a scam afoot but I'm not sure where it originated.

I don't ;) But I assume presidential candidates have. Afterall, they're not running for president for nothing. The only thing I'm really asking for, is more focus on the product and less focus on the advertisements. I still find it odd why there is so much focus on advertisement in American politics.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,08:20   

Quote (Assassinator @ Sep. 07 2008,07:49)
I still find it odd why there is so much focus on advertisement in American politics.

It may be "odd", but they do it because it works...

Sadly.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,10:20   

Quote
Fatalistic cynicism and secession of our responsibility to participate knowledgeably in both the educational system and the electoral system is what brought this country to its knees.


I'm trying to find the empirical content in this claim but it seems to me to just be empty rhetoric.  Exactly how does a country have knees?  How could 'fatalistic cynicism and secession of responsibility to participate knowledgeably' bring a country 'to its knees'?

It can't.  That is word salad.  What you mean to say, I think, some elements have used the system to get their way at the expense of other the desires of other elements.  Well, loddy frikking dah.  That's what makes it run.  Now do you see why I say its a pile of shit?

Quote
We stand eyeball to eyeball with theocracy precisely because of attitudes just like that.


it's not because of attitudes like mine, pal, it's attitudes like YOURS.  In other words, those who say 'use the system to get what you want' are the same no matter who you are or what you want.  Of course the myopic take umbrage at this and are morally offended at this accusation instead of recognizing that it is a flaw with this system, you know the one that we are supposed to be participating in to keep Amurrika off her knees?

Quote
Now we each have a choice. We can either take up the mantle of that responsibility once again and expend great effort to drag this country and the world back toward the ideals of the Enlightenment, or we can capitulate to the rip tide of religious fundamentalism and drown in an ocean of ignorance.


More histrionics.  I think the root question here is "How should we live" and I am pretty fucking sure that the answer is not in a global village, Enlightened or Not.  Your fundamental axioms here will greatly affect that realm of possible conclusions, but I am fairly sure that I can demonstrate that participation in the system involves some humongous internal contradictions that are unresolvable (and indeed as the hegel/marx thesis-antithesis-synthesis notion suggests, keep it working at all).

Quote
It's true that voting for the current Democratic candidate is not swimming directly to shore, 'Ras. But like a swimmer caught in a rip current, it's just not possible to reach the shore that way. Just like that swimmer, we need to escape the rip current by swimming almost parallel to shore first, until we are in less dangerous waters. It's only then that we can turn fully toward safety.


can't do that much with your analogy.  to clarify, what is the current and what makes it work?  how did we get in the water anyway?

my interests lie in an orthogonal plane to the false left-right dichotomy we see here.  when you disagree with both parties, at a fundamental level, there is no place for you in the discussion.  but heat death and the tragedy of the commons will eventually take care of this stubborn obstacle.

Quote
Your choice, to not participate, is tantamount to surrender to the rip current.

I choose to swim.


swim swim swim swim swim.  I'll be somewhere out there fishing, maybe i'll pick you up if you swim to my boat.  bring beer.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,10:53   

Ok real small words, 'Ras.

Religious nuts spreading ignorance in the country is bad, m'kay?

When people don't understand what this country was founded on, principles of liberty and reason, they give up that liberty to tyrants.

Are you with me so far?

Now the donkey dudes don't have it all right.

But the efalant boys are making it badder.

We need to get rid of the efalant boys, m'kay? They are the bad men who want to tell you that you can't think stuff.

Let me know when you want to help, instead of pouting in the corner because you don't like the donkey dudes.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Amadan



Posts: 1332
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,12:47   

Quote
Fatalistic cynicism and secession of our responsibility to participate knowledgeably in both the educational system and the electoral system is what brought this country to its knees.


Here in smugly superior Yurrp, we like to sneer at the Murkin system of popularity polls, but I sometimes wonder how things would work out for us if we had to organise continental-scale elections for a position that carried real power. It sure wouldn't be pretty.

It's worth remembering that the US system was designed so as to have the president elected by the Great and Good of the various states. The noisesome mob were to have their say in the bear-pit of the House of Reps, not in the olympian halls of the Senate, and certainly not in the matter of the President's election. To the minds of your revered founders, that gave sufficient balance between the popular and the propertied. Rational debate was, in their minds, assured among an elite whose position was not dependent on the popular will.

The emergence of coast-to-coast television companies as the main media of political persuasion has, unsurprisingly, reduced most political debate on TV to the lowest common denominator. Given the diversity of regions and interests, how could it be otherwise?

So to my mind, you have a system designed for a set of circumstances that haven't existed since the introduction of the steam train and the popular press. The American cult of ancestor worship ( "our Founding Fathers"! C'mon, get a grip, they weren't superhuman) makes it heretical to even suggest changing the rules. The need for intravenous television makes every elected official a whore for the purposes of fundraising.

The current incarnation of teh Intertoobs demands a bit more interaction than the almost perfectly passive consumption of TV. It will be interesting to see if the Net takes over from TV as the main medium of mass communication. If it does, and it continues to demand something more than drooling on a couch for your nightly news, you could see a revival of popular participation in political debate.

I wouldn't bet on it, but then I'm a sneering Yurrpean cynic.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,13:28   

Quote
So to my mind, you have a system designed for a set of circumstances that haven't existed since the introduction of the steam train and the popular press.


you know amadan, you sound like you hate freedom.

how's that lou?  am i getting it yet?

show me how voting helps and i'll consider your point.  

voting = praying.

period.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Amadan



Posts: 1332
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,14:13   

What the Hell is going through your head, Erasmus? Criticising a system = hating freedom? That's on a par with the sort of comments we got from Fox at the time of the UN Security Council debates on the Iraq resolutions.

My point, which you clearly missed, is that the US constitution is the product of 18th century men who had assumptions and objectives that reflected their times and backgrounds. Did you think I agreed with their view that a propertied elite should have a permanent advantage in political life? Perhaps I should avoid complimacated litturary stuff like irony.

If you take the view that voting just encourages the bastards, you are stuck with the problem of how you are going to assure yourself the freedom that you clearly value. Opting out is fine until you run up against the system. When that happens - say, if a cop doesn't like the colour of your skin or the town council votes to remove the Koran from the library - what are you going to do?

Perhaps your point is that there is nothing that you can do, and that the system will inevitably crush individual freedom. Personally, I don't take that view. If the system of government itself is a subject of debate and potential change, the individual has a far stronger chance of fighting back.

In the USA, that doesn't seem to be an option. The 1789 constitutional framework is sacrosanct and its drafters are presented as uniquely endowed with wisdom and foresight. Bollocks. Contributing to this problem is the biased, homogenised and sound-bite level of most political discourse on US national TV networks.

Of course, you can assert and protect your freedom in the USA, but you could do it a heck of a lot more effectively if you redesigned your constitution.

Does that make it clearer?

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,14:35   

As a contrarian, I note that I am not subject to arrest or confiscation of my property for selling bananas by the pound.

And my country, warts and all, does not publicly humiliate Germans and Italians by noting, as a matter of law, that their condoms are, for some unspecified reason, undersized.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,14:40   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 07 2008,13:28)
Quote
So to my mind, you have a system designed for a set of circumstances that haven't existed since the introduction of the steam train and the popular press.


you know amadan, you sound like you hate freedom.

how's that lou?  am i getting it yet?

show me how voting helps and i'll consider your point.  

voting = praying.

period.

It's true that the individual vote in a country the size of the US or even Holland does not really count. You only stand strong as a group, you're (mostly) worthless as an individual. And that only gets worse when the size of a society gets bigger. Voting only has an impact when you do it as a group.
But I wonder what you would want then? What would work for a society of USA-ish size. Or do you think we shouldn't live in USA sized groups anymore?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,14:43   

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 07 2008,12:13)
What the Hell is going through your head, Erasmus? Criticising a system = hating freedom? That's on a par with the sort of comments we got from Fox at the time of the UN Security Council debates on the Iraq resolutions.

I *think* he was being facetious with that one line.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,14:45   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 07 2008,12:35)
And my country, warts and all, does not publicly humiliate Germans and Italians by noting, as a matter of law, that their condoms are, for some unspecified reason, undersized.

The ones Louis buys are smaller still.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,14:57   

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 07 2008,14:13)
My point, which you clearly missed, is that the US constitution is the product of 18th century men who had assumptions and objectives that reflected their times and backgrounds. Did you think I agreed with their view that a propertied elite should have a permanent advantage in political life?

 
Quote

In the USA, that doesn't seem to be an option. The 1789 constitutional framework is sacrosanct and its drafters are presented as uniquely endowed with wisdom and foresight. Bollocks. Contributing to this problem is the biased, homogenised and sound-bite level of most political discourse on US national TV networks.


Both of these comments are gross overgeneralizations that come from, IMO, an incomplete understanding of American history, the rather unique nature of the American Founders, and the singular nature of what they were able to achieve.  That isn't intended as a personal criticism.  I suspect that your exposure to the American political history probably is (at least) on par to what is taught in American high schools. But, I don't consider that an adequate level of study for such a deep history with such complex personalities.  Such a study would include, at a bare minimum, study of "The Federalist" and wouldn't be hurt by biographies of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Jefferson.  That the Founders crafted such a constitution, under assault from the git-go (and very nearly stillborn) by the demagogues of the day speaks to it's unique nature.
 
Quote

Of course, you can assert and protect your freedom in the USA, but you could do it a heck of a lot more effectively if you redesigned your constitution.

Does that make it clearer?

No, for two reasons. First, the Constitution was constructed with dual goals: to establish the relationship of the government to the governed (with particular attention to the ennumeration, and preservation, of individual rights), as well as the construction of the government that was structured to provide interlocking balances of power intended to forestall excesses of any one particular branch (in particular, the House of Representatives).  As an American, I see plenty of problems in execution of our political system, but that is not due to any defect I see in it's particular construction.

Second, our constitutional system already provides means by which it can be amended.  It is an onerous process, to be sure, but that is deliberate.  As the checks and balances of our government's structure provide a buffer against excesses driven by popular passions, so does the amendment process.  The beauty of the Constitution is it's narrow focus to the construction, and limitations, of government, coupled with it's relative permanence. It isn't intended to specify the detailed nature of political life, but rather provide a framework within which to operate.

So, I see no need to redesign The Constitution, only to ensure it's faithful execution (which has been all to poor of late).

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,15:07   

Quote

Of course, you can assert and protect your freedom in the USA, but you could do it a heck of a lot more effectively if you redesigned your constitution.


I'm very opposed to a redesigning of the Constitution (except for abolishing the Electoral College). This isn't 1789. Extremist loonies and special interests would hijack the whole process. People as smart and secular as Adams and Jefferson wouldn't be allowed anywhere near the committees. Ironically, Jefferson would never be elected president now, since he'd be called 'too liberal', 'elitist' and 'not Christian'. Fox would do dozens of shows about his disdain for flag pins and how people wouldn't want to have a beer with him.

Plus he probably smells kind of bad by now.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ra-Úl



Posts: 93
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,15:32   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 07 2008,15:07)
   
Quote

Of course, you can assert and protect your freedom in the USA, but you could do it a heck of a lot more effectively if you redesigned your constitution.


I'm very opposed to a redesigning of the Constitution (except for abolishing the Electoral College). This isn't 1789. Extremist loonies and special interests would hijack the whole process. People as smart and secular as Adams and Jefferson wouldn't be allowed anywhere near the committees. Ironically, Jefferson would never be elected president now, since he'd be called 'too liberal', 'elitist' and 'not Christian'. Fox would do dozens of shows about his disdain for flag pins and how people wouldn't want to have a beer with him.

Plus he probably smells kind of bad by now.

Sometime in the '60s or 70's, a political announcement aired in the US, in which former Supreme Court Justice, later UN Ambassador, Arthur Goldberg, and Phyllis Schalfly (it's hard not to spell it Shoo-fly as some of my parent's friends at the time did) campaigned against a Constitutional convention, citing as an argument that a Convention would have carte blanche to do anything, even doing away with the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus and the reserve clause. I reasoned then as I do now that if a Convention scared both Goldberg (an American liberal, for those of you in Europe and elsewhere) and Schlafly (I shudder as I type that name), then it is a Bad Thing.

Edited 'cause I'm a furriner, can't spell, and my typing, especially in the dark, is atrocious.
Re-edited to add an 'f' somewhere.
R-e'd to ditto a 'd'. Damn.

--------------
Beauty is that which makes us desperate. - P Valery

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,15:47   

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 07 2008,15:13)
What the Hell is going through your head, Erasmus?

In fairness to 'Ras, he wasn't really advancing a claim, he was building a strawman by deliberate mischaracterization of my words.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Amadan



Posts: 1332
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,17:51   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 07 2008,14:35)

And my country, warts and all, does not publicly humiliate Germans and Italians by noting, as a matter of law, that their condoms are, for some unspecified reason, undersized.

Hmm. Perhaps they export the undersized ones to the UK for a reason.

</800-year grudge>

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Amadan



Posts: 1332
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,17:53   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 07 2008,14:43)
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 07 2008,12:13)
What the Hell is going through your head, Erasmus? Criticising a system = hating freedom? That's on a par with the sort of comments we got from Fox at the time of the UN Security Council debates on the Iraq resolutions.

I *think* he was being facetious with that one line.

Oops.

Scorn withdrorn.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,18:48   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 07 2008,14:57)
Second, our constitutional system already provides means by which it can be amended.  It is an onerous process, to be sure, but that is deliberate.  As the checks and balances of our government's structure provide a buffer against excesses driven by popular passions, so does the amendment process.  The beauty of the Constitution is it's narrow focus to the construction, and limitations, of government, coupled with it's relative permanence. It isn't intended to specify the detailed nature of political life, but rather provide a framework within which to operate.

The amendment process is onerous, yes, but a reasonably complete civics course also tells students of the other way to change the US constitution: constitutional convention.

We did a simulated constitutional convention in high school. If you hear that our leaders decide to hold one, it wouldn't be a bad thing to get your passport in order. It might come in handy.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Amadan



Posts: 1332
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,18:52   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 07 2008,14:57)
That the Founders crafted such a constitution, under assault from the git-go (and very nearly stillborn) by the demagogues of the day speaks to it's unique nature.


Being unique doesn't make it perfect. Is it uniquely effective in the way it protects, say, the rights it proclaims? I'd say that it has, by and large, done a decent job, especially in establishing the power of judicial review. The USA and the the world are all the better for it. But consider also how Shrub has arrogated the right to ignore laws he doesn't like. (That such a power-grab is probably unconstitutional is not the point: the point is that he can get away with it because Realpolitik prevents anyone doing anything about it) Could he do that if the rights of the Commander-in-Chief were expressly limited in time or scope? Room for improvement there, I'd say.

   
Quote
As an American, I see plenty of problems in execution of our political system, but that is not due to any defect I see in it's particular construction.


If the system permits that type of execution, you have to ask if its construction is still appropriate. It's undeniable that it was designed (where have I seen that phrase before?) for social and technological conditions very different from today's. Perhaps Americans consider the abuses and corruption within it an acceptable cost of the freedom the system permits. Or perhaps they reason that the problems can be fixed without change to the constitution. But if I was an American, I'd take quite a bit of convincing.

   
Quote
The beauty of the Constitution is it's narrow focus to the construction, and limitations, of government, coupled with it's relative permanence. It isn't intended to specify the detailed nature of political life, but rather provide a framework within which to operate.

So, I see no need to redesign The Constitution, only to ensure it's faithful execution (which has been all to poor of late).


I agree, constitutions shouldn't be tinkered with on a whim. My point however is that many Americans seem to subscribe to the notion of American Exceptionalism, that their Constitution is the definitive and unimpeachable wellspring of democracy. But remember that Eisenhower's first draft of his farewell speech referred to the concentration of power in "a military-industrial-congressional complex". Allegedly for fear of instigating a political crisis, he removed the reference to Congress, and toned down his remarks to the 'potential' for such a concentration, not to its actuality. But that it exists is a fact.That it does so within your constitutional system suggests that the ability to concentrate that much power in that way is a defect in the system that those who drafted the constitution did not and could not have forseen. But any political commentator, let alone politician, who dared to say so would at best be written off as a flake, or be denounced for treason for daring to suggest that the Founding Fathers (Forgive me, I have to laugh whenever I see that term) might have got even part of it wrong.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
csadams



Posts: 124
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,19:09   

Quote (ck1 @ Sep. 06 2008,10:54)
There is an important difference in these two predictions.  On the one hand, the outcome depends on the decision of a single highly-educated jurist, on the other, on the choices made by ordinary voting Americans:

"And in all of this we should not leave out the role of the much heralded ordinary American. One reason the Republicans find such fertile ground for their shamelessness is that this is fundamentally a right-wing country. My liberal friends find it difficult to accept this, but to me it seems obviously true. Why do you suppose that Republicans trumpet their pro-life credentials, but Democrats try to change the subject when it comes to abortion? Why do Republicans run around bashing homosexuals, while Democrats quake in terror at the thought of having to say what they really think? Why do you suppose upwards of eighty percent of the country want to have some sort of creationism taught in science classes?

The answer is simple. It is that in each case the Republicans are defending the popular position."

http://scienceblogs.com/evoluti....ion.php

(sorry - don't remember how to add quote boxes here)

. . . but aren't the Republicans - the radical branch of them, anyway - the ones who rail against relative morality?  "If it's popular, therefore it's right" seems to be an idea they accuse liberals/atheists/bogeyman-du-jour of holding.  Maybe we need to make public a few popular ideas held by the American public:

50% of Americans aren't aware that the earth orbits the sun and takes one year to do so.  Teach the controversy!

30% of Americans believe that alien spacecraft visit the earth on a regular basis. Teach the controversy!

44% of Americans believe that astrology is "very" or "somewhat" scientific? Teach the controversy! (Oops, Michael Behe already tried that one.)

Half of our citizens believe that magnet therapy is "sort of" or "very scientific." Teach the controversy, and make sure to show that ridiculous opening warehouse sequence from the latest Indiana Jones movie!

73% of Americans believe in at least one of the following: Extrasensory perception (ESP), haunted houses, ghosts, mental telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, witches, reincarnation, or channeling. Should our next administration endorse teaching these ideas as well?

Fifty years ago, a substantial portion of Americans believed that blacks were intellectually inferior to whites. So it was okay to teach that in public schools, right?

Just because an idea is popular does not mean it is correct. Let's make sure we keep the focus on teaching REAL science in our classrooms.*

I understand your point about the predictions, ck1, that one involved an individual, and the other a group of people.  And no, I'm far from complacent about the upcoming elections whether at the local or national level.  On the other hand, I'm not going to waste my time combing through UD posts to find "Dave's" other predictions and outcomes.

*blatantly cribbed

--------------
Stand Up For REAL Science!

  
jeffox



Posts: 667
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,20:43   

A couple of minor points to bring up:

1)  This election will hinge on $4.00/gallon gasoline.  The people know which party is responsible for that and will vote accordingly.

2)  Shrub, et. al., have, for the last 8 years, been driving the (majority) moderates out of the Republican party.  They're NOT voting for Bush II.  Hence the idiotic "maverick" label of the right-wing press, a feeble attempt to bring them back.

3)  This election was decided over 3 years ago.  Any non-Republican in a landslide.

My 45c.  :)

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,21:26   

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 07 2008,17:53)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 07 2008,14:43)
 
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 07 2008,12:13)
What the Hell is going through your head, Erasmus? Criticising a system = hating freedom? That's on a par with the sort of comments we got from Fox at the time of the UN Security Council debates on the Iraq resolutions.

I *think* he was being facetious with that one line.

Oops.

Scorn withdrorn.

Sorry Amadan I was poking Lou's "knee jerk love it or leave it syndrome" there at your expense.  I thought after 9-11 the whole world knew about "you don't love freedom" sorta stuff and you would get it.

and he has absolutely failed to understand my point.  sigh.

anyway there is much good stuff in the rest of what amadan says.

 
Quote
If you take the view that voting just encourages the bastards, you are stuck with the problem of how you are going to assure yourself the freedom that you clearly value. Opting out is fine until you run up against the system. When that happens - say, if a cop doesn't like the colour of your skin or the town council votes to remove the Koran from the library - what are you going to do?


This is true.  How does on assure oneself of freedom when voting clearly encourages the bastards?  If we question those assumptions you are saying are worth questioning, then perhaps we may understand the timeless truth held by most religious-philosophical systems:  freedom is a mental condition, a state of mind.

Easy answer, right?  Yet it is true in many respects.  The central issue becomes the definition of "freedom".

 
Quote
Perhaps your point is that there is nothing that you can do, and that the system will inevitably crush individual freedom. Personally, I don't take that view. If the system of government itself is a subject of debate and potential change, the individual has a far stronger chance of fighting back.


Of course this is true.  Any governmental system gleans its power by limiting the freedom of individuals.  Individuals have varying amounts of resources available to them, which results in varying treatment of those same individuals by any system.  I suggest, as assassinator has suggested, that the fundamental issue of interest is "What scale of government best maximizes the freedom of individuals?"  The answer to this question has complex interactions with the relations of those individuals to the ecology of their means of sustenance.  The form of government taken by both yurrpeens and amurrikkkans, indeed all of the 'civilized' world, is one that must grow or die, just like a cancer.  

A vote for anyone in a US election is a vote for continuing the system of natural resource exploitation that has dammed nearly every mile of the tennessee river, resulted in the obliteration over 700 miles of streams in Appalachia by mountaintop removal, extinction of north american indigenous cultures, etc etc etc etc.  A vote for anyone gives your sanction to this history, your consent.  The blood is on your hands.

Assassinator says

 
Quote
But I wonder what you would want then? What would work for a society of USA-ish size. Or do you think we shouldn't live in USA sized groups anymore?


We should not.  I believe this to be an empirical truth, even given the ethical claim embedded in the proposition.  To unpack a bit, if we value connection with our landscape, if we value growing or procuring our own food, if we value sustainable human communities, then this claim is true.  I suggest that most folks hold these values, but for other reasons they are led to compromise them in the hopes (as Lou has suggested above) that participation may allay the inevitable demise of the system for just a little bit longer.

anarchy?  not what i am advocating.  however i don't think this ship can run forever, and in the meantime it's important to remember the Old Ways.  the division of labor and mechanization of daily human tasks have caused a Great Forgetting, politics now is a dance of amnesiacs who are merely chanting magic words they do not understand in hopes of stirring primeval passions that are beyond the grasp of reason.

ETA and voting just encourages the bastards.  You might as well pray.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,21:40   

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 07 2008,18:52)
     
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 07 2008,14:57)
As an American, I see plenty of problems in execution of our political system, but that is not due to any defect I see in it's particular construction.


If the system permits that type of execution, you have to ask if its construction is still appropriate. It's undeniable that it was designed (where have I seen that phrase before?) for social and technological conditions very different from today's. Perhaps Americans consider the abuses and corruption within it an acceptable cost of the freedom the system permits. Or perhaps they reason that the problems can be fixed without change to the constitution. But if I was an American, I'd take quite a bit of convincing.

I think there are two faulty premises in what you are saying here.  First, I would suggest that you are engaging in a reverse Exceptionalism inasmuch as you seem to the think that abuses and corruption are particularly egregious in the American system.  Second, you are seem to be assuming that there is no means of addressing such problems except by changed constitutional construction.  I think both premises are wrong.

I think the first premise is prima facie false and requires little comment except to say that corruption and abuses of power are present in any system and I don't think the American system is any worse, and probably much better*, than most other systems. That said, I do understand power is a force multiplier and a minor abuse of power here may have a more significant impact that a major abuse elsewhere.  But I don't see that as a fault in construction, but as a problem in execution.

The second premise is false in that there are means of dealing with abuses of power and corruption. The American Constitution provides means for dealing with violations of a constitutional nature. Indeed, I would note that several times, when suits related to the constitutionality of the "enemy combatant" and military tribunal policy have rose above the district court level, the Bush administration has backed down in what I would describe as a strategic retreat to avoid constitutional reviews that are unlikely to break there way (I am thinking particularly of the Hamdan and Padilla cases). The unitary executive concept and the signing statements, along with the warrantless wiretapping, are still concerns and it should be interesting to see how that plays out.  

The second premise is also flawed in that I question that is necessary that a constitution deal with anything more than defining the role and structure of government and the nature of it's relationship to the governed.  Abuses and corruption that falls outside the (current) US constitution are not unaddressable. Rather, they are addressed through existing, and voluminous, criminal and civil codes.
   
Quote

I agree, constitutions shouldn't be tinkered with on a whim. My point however is that many Americans seem to subscribe to the notion of American Exceptionalism, that their Constitution is the definitive and unimpeachable wellspring of democracy. But remember that Eisenhower's first draft of his farewell speech referred to the concentration of power in "a military-industrial-congressional complex". Allegedly for fear of instigating a political crisis, he removed the reference to Congress, and toned down his remarks to the 'potential' for such a concentration, not to its actuality. But that it exists is a fact.That it does so within your constitutional system suggests that the ability to concentrate that much power in that way is a defect in the system that those who drafted the constitution did not and could not have forseen.

Spare me.  In this regard, America is completely unexceptional.  Business and governmental interests are inexorably intertwined in all systems everywhere.  I will try not to engage in armchair psychology, but I would ask you to consider whether your unease with the American military-industrial complex** is less due to our constitutional construction and more that our (currently) pre-eminent position militarily in the world tends to exaggerate the impact of abuses that would be merely annoying elsewhere.
   
Quote
But any political commentator, let alone politician, who dared to say so would at best be written off as a flake, or be denounced for treason for daring to suggest that the Founding Fathers (Forgive me, I have to laugh whenever I see that term) might have got even part of it wrong.

I make no bones about it, I think the American Constitution is an exceptional document, witnessed by the fact that other nations have modeled their constitution after ours, sometimes even lifting language wholesale. I think you are put-off by the extent of American power (a point I will not begrudge you) and are confusing the execution of a fundamentally flawed system with the execution of a fundamentally good system by flawed actors. But rather than dealing with this in the abstract, I think it would be easier (for me, at least) if you would elucidate what you would change about the American Constitution.

* I come to this perspective as a businessman, employed by a European company, who deals frequently with associates all across the world, and passing familiarity with anti-corruption laws. Business laws and practices around the world (including Europe) are far more laissez faire than those here in the States.

** Strangely enough, the last 8 years, and the verdict from the Hamdan tribunal last month, have lead me to the conclusion that we have far less to fear from our military than the civilians elected and appointed to direct them.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Amadan



Posts: 1332
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2008,03:55   

Quote
...you seem to the think that abuses and corruption are particularly egregious in the American system.


I don't say that the USA is rotten to the core. I'm referring to the multiplier effect you identify. Otherwise legitimate aspects of government like lobbying and fund-raising are, to use a nice phrase from the old Catechism, Occasions of Sin. The potential risk of (and rewards from, bless them!) their abuse increase (disproportionately, it seems to me) as accountability diminishes and power increases. And that is where I see a problem in the US system. Your Federal govt has accumulated quite astonishing powers at the expense of states that are allegedly sovereign. I understand and sympathise with many of the historical reasons for that, but it sure ain't what anyone was thinking of in 1789.

What would your constitution look like if those august gentlemen had been asked to draft it on the assumptions that
  • secession should be impossible
  • corporations should have the economic and political power that they currently have
  • the Federal military establishment should be funded to the extent it is, (regardless of their distaste for standing armies)
  • universal suffrage and corporate-controlled TV should be allowed


I'd hazard a guess that you would see much more power reserved to the states and more stringent control of Federal offices. That, or they'd send some nice flowers to London and ask if they could give it one more try. No more jokes about your mother's weight. Honest.

I've banged on about this too long, so I'll shut up soon. It's just that, as one of your fond relatives abroad, I find it disconcerting that the de facto emperor of the world should be selected by means of a process that looks like the bastard love-child of a beauty pageant and an arm-wrestling tournament.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2008,05:45   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 07 2008,22:26)
Sorry Amadan I was poking Lou's "knee jerk love it or leave it syndrome" there at your expense.  I thought after 9-11 the whole world knew about "you don't love freedom" sorta stuff and you would get it.

I never said any such thing, and your characterization is dishonest.

What I said was your attitude is juvenile and irresponsible.

...as is your continuing to be deliberately obtuse in order to make your point seem valid.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2008,06:42   

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 08 2008,03:55)
Otherwise legitimate aspects of government like lobbying and fund-raising are, to use a nice phrase from the old Catechism, Occasions of Sin. The potential risk of (and rewards from, bless them!) their abuse increase (disproportionately, it seems to me) as accountability diminishes and power increases. And that is where I see a problem in the US system.

Well, the problem is that lobbying is one particular means by which groups of citizens influence government policy and practice and, therefore, falls under the title "petitioning the government for the redress of grievances."  That there is abuse in the system is not denied, but I think that our system allowing for access to political leaders and policy makers is, overall, one of it's strengths.  I always find it curious when people (not necessarily you, as you have yet to made sufficient distinction in your objection to lobbying) decry access to governmental leaders by corporations, but have no problem with labor unions and other advocacy groups have such access.  In the end, I suppose, it all depends on who's ox is being gored.      
Quote
Your Federal govt has accumulated quite astonishing powers at the expense of states that are allegedly sovereign. I understand and sympathise with many of the historical reasons for that, but it sure ain't what anyone was thinking of in 1789.

What would your constitution look like if those august gentlemen had been asked to draft it on the assumptions that
  • secession should be impossible
  • corporations should have the economic and political power that they currently have
  • the Federal military establishment should be funded to the extent it is, (regardless of their distaste for standing armies)
  • universal suffrage and corporate-controlled TV should be allowed

You list of assumptions betrays a particular point of view and, with the sole exception of universal suffrage, I can make the argument that the assumptions are unwarranted and that, to some extent, the underlying issues were known, in one form or another, to the Founders and were part of their deliberations.  Alexander Hamilton, for one, understood the coming industrialization at some level and it influenced his thinking greatly, particularly on the matter of a need for a central bank.
     
Quote

I'd hazard a guess that you would see much more power reserved to the states and more stringent control of Federal offices.

As answers go, that is non-responsive and, I think, historically inaccurate. There were great powers invested in the states (indeed , all powers not specifically ennumerated to the federal government). Many of the problems in our system are not, IMO, because insufficient powers were given to the states, but rather there was scope creep relative to the powers accumulated by the federal government in the subsequent years. But, in the absence of knowing what specific powers you think should have been given to the states, I can't really respond.
     
Quote

It's just that, as one of your fond relatives abroad, I find it disconcerting that the de facto emperor of the world should be selected by means of a process that looks like the bastard love-child of a beauty pageant and an arm-wrestling tournament.

Fair enough, but I don't see that as a constitutional flaw so much as the result of an insular public with an unfortunately broad anti-intellectual streak down their backs.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2008,08:07   

Quote
What I said was your attitude is juvenile and irresponsible.


yeah ok red dress.  please tell me sir what the alternative is.  

if it is all hogwarsh, as i say it is (as opposed to your position paraphrased here as "it's all hogwarsh, but you have to get in there with the hogs"), then why bother?

because you are reduced to slippery slope arguments predicated upon personal idiosyncratic likes and dislikes.  Just like they intended voting to work.

Those who see such drastic differences between sides are looking through a pinhole.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2008,14:42   

Well if you're not willing to do the smallest amount of homework about the red dress, then I shouldn't be surprised you wouldn't be bothered to plug "Republican Party Platform" and "Democratic Party Platform" into Google for purposes of comparison, let alone pay attention to who votes for which piece of legislation.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2008,14:48   

whooooosh

Lou of course i am pulling your chain re the red dress.  i read it and greatly enjoyed it many moons ago.

but you still continue to miss the point.  left/right, republican/democrat, liberal/conservative.  as far as i can see, all wrong.

i note that you do not contest my characterization of your position:  It's all hogwarsh, but you have to get in there with the hogs to complain.

voting for the lesser of two evils = voting for evil.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2008,14:51   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 08 2008,15:48)
whooooosh

Lou of course i am pulling your chain re the red dress.  i read it and greatly enjoyed it many moons ago.

but you still continue to miss the point.  left/right, republican/democrat, liberal/conservative.  as far as i can see, all wrong.

i note that you do not contest my characterization of your position:  It's all hogwarsh, but you have to get in there with the hogs to complain.

voting for the lesser of two evils = voting for evil.

No 'ras, I didn't miss your point, but you're right: I didn't contest it.

That had less to do with the validity of your assertions than my desire to lower the volume of this discussion.

Edited to hide a horrid grammar error.

Edited by Lou FCD on Sep. 08 2008,21:06

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2008,18:39   

i've enjoyed the "discussion".  please continue.  
screw the volume.
turn it UP.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2008,18:53   

Lou's was the red dress of grievances. That's constitutional depth.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2008,19:16   

Quote (rhmc @ Sep. 08 2008,18:39)
i've enjoyed the "discussion".  please continue.  
screw the volume.
turn it UP.



--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2008,19:18   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 08 2008,16:53)
Lou's was the red dress of grievances. That's constitutional depth.

But what's this I've heard about some stain on the dress?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2008,08:16   

fine have it your way.

it's ok to play kick the believing christians but we can't play kick the believing voters.  i smell inconsistency here, perhaps it is that BR^OWN stain on your red dress.

belief in progress through politics = belief in orthogenesis

belief in justice through politics = belief in justice from bearded sky thunderer

I'm not a nihilist, you're just full of shit.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2008,09:03   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 09 2008,09:16)

I'm not a nihilist, you're just full of shit.

That isn' really necessary, Ras.

I think positions are neither being adequately explained nor understood, a sin I was guilty of some months back, in a back and forth I had with Wes.

I think Clausewitz is more important than anyone else mentioned so far.  All life is a power struggle.  The struggle can be violent or rhetorical.  Politics is where the rhetorical struggle takes place.  Voting is how we settle the rhetorical struggle.  It is indeed a terrible evil setup (as the old saw goes, it is still better than the alternatives) but not playing is not an option.  Not playing = dying.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2008,09:30   

since dying happens anyway, paul, i don't see how that is an alternative.  

I'd suggest instead that politics is indeed a violent struggle, as evidenced by the consequences of political decisions.  all you decide with a vote is who should die.  pardon me if i don't play along, it's like a schoolyard game of selling out strangers to the bully.

'not necessary', perhaps..., but i disagree.  if we viewed the political arena with the same amount of skepticism we rightfully view the religious arena then this conversation would be moot.  I can't see the difference between humanists and other fundies.

regarding your insight that positions are not being explained, let me reiterate my view.  If the question is "How Ought We Live", I am saying that this ain't it.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Spottedwind



Posts: 83
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2008,13:47   

Disclaimer: Within my group of friends, one of us is a non-voter; with the reason that both parties are to blame.  On the rare occasions when the group talks politics, he trots out the old "neither is good so I don't vote but I'll criticize without providing a better option".  I've been thinking about what to say or how to...so if this seems directed at Erasmus, it's not, per se.  Some of the ideas apply, but it is more directed towards my group and, to be honest, is raw and unrefined.  Nonetheless, I think has some relevance to this discussion.


Both parties suck.  I won't argue that.  They both have corrupt, selfish members that care only for themselves and their family, and play up their supposed credentials to get elected.  They know what people want to hear and how to play the victim/crusader/outraged everyman as needed.  Both parties also have well-meaning, honest people that want to do well for the country and the people they represent.  They want to work with others and base their decisions on evidence and what will be best for the population, not what will be best for their next campaign.  The frustrating thing is that those people often seem to be powerless and/or outnumbered, if they can even get elected at all.  Without a doubt, our system polarizes just about any issue and throws balance of power to the winds.  It either does not work as intended or is not capable of handling the situation in the US as it exists today.

So what now?  Two main options that lead to a cascade of others: participate in the current but flawed system or abstain.  If you abstain you can a) offer no suggestions and simply complain that all politicians are a waste or b) you can push for change.  Change such as more viable parties, removal or empowerment of the electoral college, even a new type of government or any number of other ideas about whatever it is that you think is wrong.  Let's say that we despise the system, refuse to participate in it, and want it changed.  Short of armed revolution, how else will you change the system?  Despite the poor phrasing, this is not rhetorical but an honest question.  The only thing I can think of is a 'change the culture' mentality, which I do support.  But a change in the culture does not mean that the system is changed by default.  To me, once the culture is changed you are still left with changing the system from within (by participating) or removing the offending system.

Now what about participating?  Is voting in the current system something of a tacit approval of the broken politics?  Unfortunately yes, but no less than not voting is tacit approval of the status quo.  Once you participate in the system, does that mean that you can't push for change?  Should we just give up trying and submit to a broken system?  Unequivocally, no.  You can work with a broken system by putting into power people that are willing to make changes to fix it.  A legitimate concern is that once any party is in power, nothing more would be done; no party would give up power willingly.  However such a fatalistic attitude assumes that you could not being to lay the groundwork that would make changing the system possible.  Without a doubt, it would be resisted every step of the way but such changes would need to be incremental, and some politicians would be more accommodating than others.  It would not be quick and it would frustrating and full of set-backs, but at least it would be movement towards a better system.  Sometimes, you do have to work within the system to get the system to improve.  I know it is trite and whatnot, but that alone doesn't make it untrue.  In my opinion, if you avoid the system because of disgust, what is important to you may be sacrificed because the system moves on, with or without you.  And the thing is, it drags you along whether you like it or not.

The teaching of evolution is a perfect example.  While no president will be able to settle the issue once and for all, their decisions affect the Department of Education and their veto power can decide laws and funding.  Obama has stated his support for evolution pretty clearly (although it would be nice to see if he could match comments by Clinton*).  Biden has called Intelligent Design 'malarkey', although I can't find specific support of evolution.  McCain seems to have hedged his bet, saying he believes in evolution and that creationism should not be taught in classrooms, but that '...Americans should be exposed to every point of view' and specifically delivered the 2007 keynote address for the Discovery Institute.  Palin also seems to skirt the line as much as she can and supports teaching both and the "don't be afraid of debate" type-scam.

So, here's the play: I think we can all agree, for better or worse, that one of the two major parties will win this election.  It's not a matter of should they, are they the best, etc. but that there is no practical chance that anyone other than a Republican or a Democrat will win this election.  So the option comes down to the pro-evolution/anti-intelligent design ticket and the teach the controversy/teach both ticket.  By not voting, you are letting someone else make the decision on this topic which may have significant impact on the status of teaching evolution.  Your vote is a chance to at least register your opinion, discussions of the electoral college not withstanding.

Voting doesn't mean you have to commit heart and soul to that least offensive party or that you can't ever move beyond them.  But if you do want to have meaningful change, IMO, start by getting the most helpful of two options in and slowly work to get other options in.  It won't be fast and it won't be easy, but small chance is better than no chance.




* http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/us/politics/05clinton.html  Clinton's words were nice, but she is a politician and words mean little without action.  This alone wouldn't be enough to believe someone, but it at least lets me see what they are willing to say and what they are afraid of saying.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2008,14:09   

Quote
It either does not work as intended or is not capable of handling the situation in the US as it exists today.


I think that could be said in any period of history.

It does, however, work as well or better than evolution. I'm not aware of many instances where complex systems worked exactly as planned, or were capable of adjusting for and compensating for unexpected contingencies.

People wring their hands because politics is not rational, but the fact is that life does not hand us problems with tidy, deterministic solutions.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
clamboy



Posts: 188
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2008,14:15   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 09 2008,09:30)
...let me reiterate my view.  If the question is "How Ought We Live", I am saying that this ain't it.

So your view is that the American political system is not optimal. Well, you've certainly gone out on a limb there - next you'll be suggesting that ursine mammals void their bowels in sylvan environments!

  
Spottedwind



Posts: 83
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2008,14:41   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 09 2008,15:09)
 
Quote
It either does not work as intended or is not capable of handling the situation in the US as it exists today.


I think that could be said in any period of history.

It does, however, work as well or better than evolution. I'm not aware of many instances where complex systems worked exactly as planned, or were capable of adjusting for and compensating for unexpected contingencies.

People wring their hands because politics is not rational, but the fact is that life does not hand us problems with tidy, deterministic solutions.

Midwifetoad, don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that if it isn't perfect, it's crap.  I don't expect a perfect system.  My rambling comments were more directed at those that complain about the system and avoid being a part of it.  They often don't see that they enforce the very status quo that they hate by not pushing the system one way or the other.

I think the US election system has some serious flaws (balance of the electoral college vs popular vote, redistricting, two-party pigeonholing, etc) that could be fixed, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't work at all.  I'm just not sure our electoral system is optimal for the situation as it is today.  Perhaps it was when it was created, but I don't think it is now.  Yeah, it works but that doesn't mean it could be better.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2008,17:31   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 09 2008,09:16)
fine have it your way.

it's ok to play kick the believing christians but we can't play kick the believing voters.  i smell inconsistency here, perhaps it is that BR^OWN stain on your red dress.

belief in progress through politics = belief in orthogenesis

belief in justice through politics = belief in justice from bearded sky thunderer

I'm not a nihilist, you're just full of shit.

So sitting in the corner and sniveling about the unfairness of it all is the answer. Gotcha.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2008,17:38   

Two things:

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 09 2008,10:30)
If the question is "How Ought We Live",...

1. No, that's not the question.

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 09 2008,10:30)
...I am saying that this ain't it.

2. That's not even a useful answer to the question anyway.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2008,17:44   

Quote (clamboy @ Sep. 09 2008,20:15)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 09 2008,09:30)
...let me reiterate my view.  If the question is "How Ought We Live", I am saying that this ain't it.

So your view is that the American political system is not optimal. Well, you've certainly gone out on a limb there - next you'll be suggesting that ursine mammals void their bowels in sylvan environments!

I thought that was the Pope.

Damn, wrong again!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2008,17:50   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 09 2008,23:31)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 09 2008,09:16)
fine have it your way.

it's ok to play kick the believing christians but we can't play kick the believing voters.  i smell inconsistency here, perhaps it is that BR^OWN stain on your red dress.

belief in progress through politics = belief in orthogenesis

belief in justice through politics = belief in justice from bearded sky thunderer

I'm not a nihilist, you're just full of shit.

So sitting in the corner and sniveling about the unfairness of it all is the answer. Gotcha.

Snivelling is ALWAYS the answer for many people.

Options:

1) Work with the system for change.

2) Smash the system.

3) Refuse to participate and disenfranchise yourself.

4) Remove yourself from the system and set your own one up.

I prefer a combination of 1, 2 and 4 as and when appropriate.

Since 'twas only mere months ago that dear 'Ras was telling me that my dislike of bigotry was equivalent to bigotry (despite reasoned disagreement being at the core of said dislike), I'm guessing that this latest "voting = praying" is yet another false equivalence in a long line of wind ups.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2008,17:55   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 09 2008,15:50)
'Ras was telling me that my dislike of bigotry was equivalent to bigotry

Link?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2008,17:56   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 09 2008,23:55)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 09 2008,15:50)
'Ras was telling me that my dislike of bigotry was equivalent to bigotry

Link?

LOL Find it yourself! I can't be bothered. My point is that (IMO) 'Ras is on the wind up*. This lark ain't serious.

I could be wrong of course.

Louis

*Does this translate into foreign?

--------------
Bye.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2008,18:06   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 09 2008,15:56)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 09 2008,23:55)
 
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 09 2008,15:50)
'Ras was telling me that my dislike of bigotry was equivalent to bigotry

Link?

LOL Find it yourself! I can't be bothered.



--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus