AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: simmi

form_srcid: simmi

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 23.20.20.195

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: simmi

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'simmi%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2007/08/27 07:08:44, Link
Author: simmi
A bit OT, but I was wondering why people ridiculing DaveScot liberally sprinkle exclamatory "HOMO"s in parodies of his writing.  Is there evidence that he is homophobic?  (Or is the point that he's juvenile?  Plenty of evidence for that...)

[Long time reader of TOA/PT/AE delurking for a bit - hats off to all you folks]

Edit: typo - aargh

Date: 2007/09/13 09:20:19, Link
Author: simmi
Quote
OMITSDDI: I bet the Hudson institute love the fact that IDiots like DS uncritically reproduce their "press releases". Without shills like DS their job reaching the credulous masses would be slightly harder.


No one reads UD.  Doesn't take away from your larger point, though.

Date: 2007/09/14 14:36:03, Link
Author: simmi
Quote
carlsonjok: Uncommon Descent into Madness shouldn't be a spectator sport.


Or at least should come with a warning sticker.

Date: 2007/12/10 03:03:44, Link
Author: simmi
Gil:

Quote
In the meantime, medical doctors should prescribe multiple antibiotics for all infections, since this will decrease the likelihood that infectious agents can develop resistance through stochastic processes. Had the nature of of the limits of Darwinian processes been understood at the outset, the medical community would not have replaced one antibiotic with another in a serial fashion, but would have prescribed them in parallel.


Irrespective of the pompous, smug exhortation, Gil has it exactly backwards.  I fixed it for him:

Quote
In the meantime, medical doctors should prescribe multiple antibiotics for aggressive infections, since this will decrease the likelihood that infectious agents can develop resistance through stochastic processes. Had the nature of of the power of Darwinian processes been understood at the outset, the medical community would not have replaced one antibiotic with another in a serial fashion, but would have prescribed them in parallel.


Unfortunately for Gil, it was not ID or ID theorists that caused this change in medical practice, but a better understanding of evolutionary mechanisms.

Date: 2008/02/04 21:03:07, Link
Author: simmi
scut?
huts?
cots?
cuts?
pots?
hunt?
punt?


stop

Date: 2008/02/26 08:04:58, Link
Author: simmi
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 26 2008,06:39)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 26 2008,02:58)
     
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 25 2008,14:02)
           
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 25 2008,13:52)
To sad. I had suggested to use May 25th instead because it's kind of another Lincoln day.

I thought it was a rather nice use of irony (look the date up, folks!).  I'm not sure any of the UDites understood it, though.

I'z tryin to figure it out.  But there are so many May 25s!  There's practically one every year!

I think 1805 may be year that you are searching for. Observe.

I misread the original suggestion as March 25 and looked that up on Wikipedia before I caught the mistake.  But I did see this entry that I thought was fitting for Expelled:

1811 - Percy Bysshe Shelley is expelled from the University of Oxford for his publication of the pamphlet The Necessity of Atheism.

Date: 2008/05/27 19:42:27, Link
Author: simmi
Quote (Hermagoras @ May 27 2008,19:32)
Quote (Doc Bill @ May 27 2008,18:36)
DT has always been Dembski's poodle.

All poodles need to be shaved from time to time.

Must . . . resist . . . image . . . . . . . . . . . . . WmAD  . . . . . . . . . . . . . shaving DaveScot . . .on the back  . . . . . . . . . . . . . porch . . . . . . . . . . . . .

aghghgh!

Better than an image of wMAD shaving DaveScot's back.  ... Or have I made things worse?

Date: 2008/06/05 06:36:02, Link
Author: simmi
Quote (Denyse @ blogfarm)
blah blah blah ... As a writer, I must subject myself to that risk [of offending someone] ... blah blah blah


Doesn't someone have to actually take you seriously in order to take offense?

Denyse was never at any real risk anyway

Date: 2008/06/29 09:02:29, Link
Author: simmi
Quote (Chayanov @ June 28 2008,21:46)
... Okay, so 13 episodes on the real arguments against design. As soon as they have a real argument for design, they can do the second season.


"Intelligent Design: teh Best Arguments We Got", brought to you by the DI

Season One

Episode 1: Biology is complex. God did it!
Episode 2: These people got fired for incompetence: Boo hoo! (The REAL manufactroversy)
Episode 3: Astrophysics is complex.  God did it!
Episode 4: School boards should be free to teach the manufactroversy.  As long as it's the specific version of the manufactroversy WE peddle.
Episode 5: Here are some "gaps" in the fossil record. God did it!
Episode 6: ID is not a negative argument against evolution. ID is not an argument from ignorance. However, the way to test ID is to show evolution can do X.
Episode 7: Evolution can't explain love. What is love? God did it! (Baby don't hurt me...)

Interlude: The Bible Code. God did it?

Episode 8: Teh Biologic Institute. We haz scienz too!
Episode 9: Latest from Teh Biologic Institute: God did it!
Episode 10: Math is complex. God did it!
Episode 11: ID says religious positions like TE are untenable.
Episode 12: ID has nothing to do with religion.  Uh uh.  No way.  Move along.
Episode 13: Did we mention God did it?

Onto season two ... Sudden Emergence!

Ed did it a bit too.

Date: 2008/07/08 18:14:05, Link
Author: simmi
philosotard

 
Quote (Rude @ UD)
There is an atheist argument that could be made and that would be via a kind of Platonism. Just as physicists tend to be mathematical Platonists (e.g., numbers are real, they’re actually “out there” and not just the rustling of neurons in the head), so also moral principles are real. The argument seems to me to be very much like the argument for natural law. The problem is that atheists tend to hate this argument—maybe because they don’t really want there to be a universal ethics.


"They" don't want there to be a universal ethics, which is why they espouse Platonism.  WTF?? Just yesterday I was talking to my Platonic-moral-relativist buddy who told me about the nice chat he had with our common Kantian-utilitarian acquaintance.

(scare quotes around "they" because Rude means atheists but unconsciously or consciously means everyone/anyone who disagrees with him/her)

Date: 2008/07/09 07:49:04, Link
Author: simmi
Quote (WmAD @ UD)
... Question: If ideas are like stocks, would this be a good time to invest in ID?


Classic case of survivor bias.  Yes, they laughed at Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, Lemaitre, etc. They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

To all would-be UD investors: the skill comes in picking *valuable* stocks when their prices are low.  Some stocks are cheap for a reason.

Date: 2008/07/09 16:11:53, Link
Author: simmi
Quote (dvunkannon @ July 09 2008,16:00)
   
Quote (simmi @ July 09 2008,08:49)
     
Quote (WmAD @ UD)
... Question: If ideas are like stocks, would this be a good time to invest in ID?


Classic case of survivor bias.  Yes, they laughed at Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, Lemaitre, etc. They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

To all would-be UD investors: the skill comes in picking *valuable* stocks when their prices are low.  Some stocks are cheap for a reason.

Actually, as Michael Milken proved in junk bonds and as stock index funds show, just buy them all. No one can consistently value and time trades in individual stocks better than the market. (And if Templeton had $10,000 in 1934, it's just an example of the rich getting richer.)

Unfortunately, it's not a strategy you can apply to Pascal's Wager, too many jealous gods out there...

But in the marketplace of ideas, the investing man would put some money on Paley in 1802, and then done the same with Darwin in 1859 and then just let the investments grow! No need to reinvest in Paley now when the initial investment has yet to pay dividends.

Ah but investing in ID now is reinvesting in Paley.  Probably why the price is low.

disclaimer: I'm predicting future performance based on past results.

Date: 2008/07/09 20:00:06, Link
Author: simmi
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 09 2008,19:44)

 Given Sal's history I'd attribute that to malice not ignorance and naturally select him out of the pool.

Given his history with JanieBelle, I'd say he's already being pretty heavily selected against (sexually, not naturally).

[/nasty]

Date: 2008/07/16 18:50:11, Link
Author: simmi
Quote (Zachriel @ July 16 2008,18:31)
      
Quote
DaveScot: If I banned everyone who thinks Darwin’s theory of evolution was a necessary factor in the holocaust I’d have to ban about 50% of the ID supporters here. It seems to be a group psychosis closely associated with a refusal to believe the earth is more than 10,000 years old. So don’t worry it. If it was MY blog I would definitely throw that crowd overboard so the ship doesn’t sink under the weight of it, but it isn’t my blog so I don’t - I’m just following orders letting the young earth Nazi card players have a voice here.

Just following orders.

Funny how Dave invokes the Nuremberg defense in a comment that references Nazism - or was that what you were going for Zach?

Date: 2008/07/17 10:01:57, Link
Author: simmi
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 17 2008,09:55)
 
Oh, and lose the "Darwinism" tag. It just shows that you haven't kept up with the evolutionary science of the 20th and 21st century.

Olivia Judson had a nice article a few days ago that seems apropos:

http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/lets-get-rid-of-darwinism/

Date: 2008/07/17 15:19:39, Link
Author: simmi
Quote (dogdidit @ July 17 2008,14:00)
 
If Ikonboard "resets" at 1,000, does the topic (UD) likewise reset, through some unknown quantum tunneling process that only born^again^77 can explain? And if so, would all the banninated posters and sockpuppets come flooding back? Where will they all sleep?


For some reason that reminded me of the scene from Ghostbusters where the EPA shuts them down (damn dirty liberal hippies) and all the ghosts escape into the air from the old firehouse.

Now I'm imagining the AtBC crew as the TardBusters...



Which character would YOU be? Dibs on Winston!

Date: 2008/07/17 18:55:57, Link
Author: simmi
Quote (stevestory @ July 17 2008,18:40)
We should go out the way we came in. With some pure, uncut dumbass ...

I thought Ftk took care of that for us - really bringing us the alpha and the omega - thanks Ftk!

Hey steve, are you going to get the new thread off to a running start, so that we can pass the baton seamlessly?

Or are we going to have a Viking funeral as mentioned up thread?

[there is some choice tardistry I'd like to point out - just wanted to know where to put it]

[Also, I want to know the winner of the name-the-new-UD-thread contest]

Date: 2008/07/18 13:58:50, Link
Author: simmi
Quote (lkeithlu @ July 18 2008,13:47)
   
Quote (Ftk @ July 18 2008,11:56)
Thanks, boys!!  Goodness knows you people are up on your birthdays!!!  And, Icky of all people points it out...who'd of thunk it.

;)  ;)

Tweren't Icky-was me, as I has the dubious honor of sharing it with him-same year, in fact.

Twins? Separated at birth?

Also, I can say something nice: it's pretty impressive he has two PhDs - I know how hard it is, and I'm just trying to get one

(MDs on the other hand ... pshhh ;) )

Date: 2008/07/18 14:43:52, Link
Author: simmi
For his birthday, I wish the good Dr a third PhD - in evolutionary biology.

Then he'll actually have contributed something to the biological and scientific community.

(past performance in maths and philosophy is not too encouraging though)

Date: 2008/07/18 14:48:28, Link
Author: simmi
Quote (lkeithlu @ July 18 2008,15:19)
   
Quote (simmi @ July 18 2008,13:58)
   
Quote (lkeithlu @ July 18 2008,13:47)
         
Quote (Ftk @ July 18 2008,11:56)
Thanks, boys!!  Goodness knows you people are up on your birthdays!!!  And, Icky of all people points it out...who'd of thunk it.

;)  ;)

Tweren't Icky-was me, as I has the dubious honor of sharing it with him-same year, in fact.

Twins? Separated at birth?

hmmmm.. that's possible, if he was born in L.A. I don't look much like him, tho. Very short, and female too, although fraternal would still be possible.

Hmmm... if you suspect your parents are pulling a 29 year con on you regarding the circumstances of your birth, maybe you should look up the good Dr Dr... (happy birthday, by the way!)

Also Ftk, I should mention (in the spirit of full disclosure) that I think Dembski completing two PhDs is an admirable achievement but doesn't add any credence or weight to his anti-evolution arguments.

Date: 2008/07/20 20:50:17, Link
Author: simmi
Quote (Louis @ July 20 2008,04:38)
... After all TO has it's POTMs and Chez Watts etc, I think AtBC is sufficiently established to have its own things, maybe even a POTM thread sticky. All these things will encourage better writing etc. I'm sure you'd get volunteers for the work element of it....

If we had a POTW sticky thread, it would be full (1000 pages*) by ... ummm ... [counts on fingers]

... Tuesday?


*=30,000 comments**
** = 1 post + 29,999 replies

Date: 2008/08/10 11:39:43, Link
Author: simmi
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 09 2008,11:31)
A short nucleotide polymer is conventionally called a peptide, not a protein. There are plenty of short nucleotide polymers in biology.

Oh God, I hate to quibble with Zach, especially on a POTW, but peptides are actually short polymers of amino acids.  Short nucleotide polymers are oligonucleotides or "oligos."  Everything else in the post is correct (and excellent).  

Oligos are quite common (e.g. RNA primers for DNA replication), as are peptides - if I recall correctly, most peptide hormones are shorter than 70 a.a. in length.  There are even a few that share common subunits (e.g. the alpha subunit of FSH, LH, TSH, and hCG*, IIRC), pointing towards their common evolutionary history.  And, unfortunately for Behe, I can't think of anything that has to interact (specifically, natch) with other proteins more than a hormone.

(I think there was a paper highlighted on PT, last year maybe, about tracing the evolutionary history of hormones?)

ETA: actually, it was the evolutionary history of steroid hormone receptors, but still, an IC system was shown to have evolved: link

*ETA(2): This is why pregnancy tests check for beta-hCG.

Date: 2008/08/12 03:20:31, Link
Author: simmi
Quote (dnmlthr @ Aug. 12 2008,03:58)
How can you not love this quote from the end of the review?

   
Quote

These excursions into fancy allow me to end on a positive note: the lack of depth or insight in this book is more than compensated by the entertainment it provides, at least to a philosopher or historian of science. No one should begrudge us our simple pleasures. I'm happy to have read this book, and even more so not to have paid for it.

Wow, this truly sums up the AtBC spirit.

Date: 2008/09/12 18:51:29, Link
Author: simmi
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 12 2008,18:50)
I think this might be the most useful thread ever created at AtBC.

I agree wholeheartedly.  And to be honest, Lou, I totally didn't know that you didn't do any college biology.  Your posts fisking teh tard were so good I assumed you had advanced training in bio.  Please keep the updates coming! (without sacrificing your work, of course)

This thread also inspired me to join in with my own stories of new beginnings (I'm just starting my PhD), but then I remembered I have my own blog which I've been neglecting.  Off to write some posts...

Date: 2008/09/12 19:08:08, Link
Author: simmi
A rare DaveScot sighting outside his lair.  Will he stay to dig himself in deeper or bravely run away?

[where's my $$#&^# popcorn??]

Caveat: he posted yesterday, and hasn't yet replied to Mike's (excellent) rebuttal.

ETA: excellent

Date: 2008/09/27 06:46:02, Link
Author: simmi
Louisiana House Rep. John LaBruzzo (guess the party affiliation), a supporter of creationism is now proposing paying poor people on welfare to undergo sterilisation.  Ben Stein should interview him.

Date: 2008/09/29 19:03:27, Link
Author: simmi
Quote (dvunkannon @ Sep. 12 2008,13:52)


         
Quote

How do you know that a genome cannot make any other biochemical machine?


Because we know that the product of the ribosome is a linear string of amino acids, and we know that there are other biochemical objects that are not linear strings of amino acids.


Hate to be pedantic, but this is not strictly true.  The ribosome itself is a gene product, and it's not (only) a protein.  The catalytic part consists of RNA.  The genome doesn't only produce proteins - it also produces RNA, some of which is catalytic (ribozymes), others which play other roles (mRNA, tRNA).

Everything else you said was correct, and even what I said above fits into what you said - RNA polymerase can be thought of as an automaton, just like the ribosome.

Date: 2008/10/04 16:11:57, Link
Author: simmi
Quote (csadams @ Oct. 04 2008,15:50)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 04 2008,12:46)
Yeah, and that's another thing. In the free and open marketplace of ideas republicans can't compete, so they have to create special rules and come up with silly nonsense like how the big bad elitist media and elitist east coasters are preventing them from getting a hearing.

Yeah, and that's another thing. In the free and open marketplace of ideas evidence republicans ID/creationists can't compete, so they have to create special rules change the definition of science and come up with silly nonsense like how the big bad elitist media scientists and elitist east coasters are preventing them from getting a hearing getting their stuff taught as science to public school kids.

Is this what literature professors call parallel structure?  Or just SSDD?

Actually, one is a subset of the other:

Date: 2008/10/05 06:50:36, Link
Author: simmi
dheddle:

Quote
In the same way, if someone threatened Obama's family and then Obama beat the crap out of the bastard, I'd say: "nicely done."


I think a better analogy to the Palin situation would be if one of Obama's law students threatened his family and then Obama failed him/her (or tried to kick them out of law school).  How would you feel about that?

I think you're allowing someone to take political/professional retribution against someone who has personally wronged them (or at least giving them a pass).  In my opinion, it is the mixing of the personal with the political that should carry greater weight, especially when the person under examination is seeking political power.

I don't know how far you would go with this, but it sounds like you're willing to give a pass to "eye for an eye" morality.  What about "turn the other cheek"?  (Or at least "render unto Caesar"?)

Date: 2008/10/05 13:38:19, Link
Author: simmi
Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 05 2008,13:00)
Quote (simmi @ Oct. 05 2008,06:50)
dheddle:

   
Quote
In the same way, if someone threatened Obama's family and then Obama beat the crap out of the bastard, I'd say: "nicely done."


I think a better analogy to the Palin situation would be if one of Obama's law students threatened his family and then Obama failed him/her (or tried to kick them out of law school).  How would you feel about that?

I think you're allowing someone to take political/professional retribution against someone who has personally wronged them (or at least giving them a pass).  In my opinion, it is the mixing of the personal with the political that should carry greater weight, especially when the person under examination is seeking political power.

I don't know how far you would go with this, but it sounds like you're willing to give a pass to "eye for an eye" morality.  What about "turn the other cheek"?  (Or at least "render unto Caesar"?)

Again, we are talking about me. I give her a pass under those circumstances. Whether or not God does is up to Him.

And if Obama got a student who threatened his family kicked out of school, I'd say "rock on."

Fair enough.  My take on this, however, is that you would condone using a position of power to prosecute personal vendettas.

Date: 2008/10/13 06:30:38, Link
Author: simmi
Mine says National Examiner.  All your examiner are belong to me.

Date: 2008/10/20 03:43:38, Link
Author: simmi
re: racism

Colin Powell on our generation's new xenophobia:

 
Quote
I'm also troubled by, not what Sen. McCain says, but what members of the party say, and it is permitted to be said such things as:  "Well,  you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim."  Well, the correct answer is:   he is not a Muslim.  He's a Christian.   He's always been a Christian.

But the really right answer is:  What if he is?  Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?  The answer is:  No, that's not America.  Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim-American kid believing he or she can be President?

Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion:  he's a Muslim, and he might be associated with terrorists.  This is not the way we should be doing it in America.


I was actually inspired when I saw Powell's clip on "Meet the Press:"

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008....?em

What's happened to the party of Eisenhower, of Nelson Rockefeller, of Colin Powell?

(short answer: Richard Nixon & identity politics [/my2c])

Date: 2008/11/10 07:30:41, Link
Author: simmi
Quote (BeheKilledDarwinism @ Nov. 10 2008,06:02)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 10 2008,03:53)
Quote (BeheKilledDarwinism @ Nov. 10 2008,03:51)
So how long do you guys think it'll be before the majority of science is ready to move out of the Dark Ages of 19th century pseudoscience (Darwinism) and into the Intelligent Ages - modern molecular science and genetic engineering aka Intelligent Design?

I'd say just after Behe publishes a peer reviewed paper on Intelligent Design in a respected journal.

About 10 minutes after that.

It's a well known fact that any positive mentioning of Intelligent Design has been banned from peer review. The Darwinists suppression of I.D. is a clear indicator that they've lost the intellectual battle.

I think Lawrence Krauss's rejoinder is apropos here:

"I challenge anyone making the claim of censorship to produce evidence they have had more scientific papers rejected than I have."

(ok, you can have your Loki points now)

Date: 2008/11/11 03:11:42, Link
Author: simmi
This is my simple (hopefully not simple-minded) foray regarding fine-tuning.  

My intuition is that the strongest claim that a fine-tuning argument can make is that if the constants and laws were different, the universe that we see may not be possible.

Adapting Hume's rebuttal of Paley, the conclusions of fine-tuning and CID are based on observations of the constants and laws that we can see; since this is basically induction, we can't rule out that there may be other, as-yet undiscovered laws (with their own constants that are negligible or beyond the scope of measure within our own regime) that may become relevant in a different constant-law regime, that also may make some form of life or intelligence possible.

However (and this is the point that I haven't heard mentioned much), I think the greater hole in our knowledge is of the set of all possible life or all possible intelligences.  We can only go on our own observations and don't know if some form of life is possible with different chemistries, properties, etc.  If we define "life" as forms or structures that evolve, are susceptible to the mechanisms of variation, natural selection, etc., then we are not constrained to beings like us, even in our own universe (this might also mean alien life in our own universe may well be unrecognizable to us).  And also re: intelligence - if a computer can have the property of intelligence, then intelligence is not limited to carbon-based chemistries, and therefore could be embodied in many different kinds of structures; we don't know all possible kinds of intelligences.

Basically, I'm saying since we don't know (and maybe cannot know) all the properties of all possible other universes, saying they are not amenable to all possible life or intelligence is not warranted.  (Also, I think this is different than the multiverse, since it could very well be that there is a single universe, our own, but as strong an extrapolation as fine-tuning or CID would still be unwarranted).  By the way, I hope this is not a straw-man version of the fine-tuning argument; if it is, please let me know.

I'm not trying to say that fine-tuning is hogwash, I'm just trying to say that the conclusions it can draw are limited.  Finally, this is just an argument based on my own intuitions; experts (oleg, heddle?) if you could point me to some resources (accessible to a humble biophysicist) so I can refine my view, I would be grateful.

Date: 2008/11/24 15:49:39, Link
Author: simmi
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 24 2008,16:08)
If you see a neatly stacked, perfectly square pile of bricks, do you not immediately know that it is beyond the capabilities of nature to stack them in such a way?

Table salt:

Date: 2008/12/22 07:42:05, Link
Author: simmi
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 21 2008,14:17)
Clive's pure soul becomes corrupted by the power of bannination:
 
Quote
54

Clive Hayden

12/21/2008

1:17 pm

rib said,

“I didn’t ask for an apology. I asked for a single standard to be applied to ID supporters and critics alike at UD.”

I am applying that standard, and we may need to get something straight first, the standard is not whether one asks for an apology, it is whether someone is decent enough to give it. You aren’t. I am. That’s a double standard, even by your estimation, and I won’t allow it.

<facepalm>  Seriously.

And speaking of Berlinski, anyone else catch this delicious piece of hearsay (the venue was a debate in Texas)?

 
Quote

A fellow NTCOF member was seated near me, and ventured over to speak with Drs. Krauss and Berlinski during the break (they had wandered off to a corner of the auditorium, and were engaged in a private discussion). Upon drawing close, he heard Krauss ask Berlinski why he wasted his intellect advocating for intelligent design. To which Berlinski replied that he doesn't believe a word of it, but is happy to cash the checks the Discovery Institute writes him.


Good to know he's a bald-faced charlatan to the snake-oil purveyors as well.  (Although the blogger did say he doubted the DI got their money's worth)

Date: 2009/01/05 09:03:59, Link
Author: simmi
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 05 2009,09:45)
   
Quote (KCdgw @ Jan. 05 2009,14:37)
[SNIP]

Some have begun to question the nutritional content of recent tard lately.

[SNIP]

Nostardgia: The inexplicable and whimsical feeling, often had by more established tard-wranglers, that tard is not as good as it used to be.

Nostardatu: Tard that, no matter how many stakes driven through its heart, rises repeatedly. Can be revived by a single drop of dumb.

Louis

Nostardamus: DaveScot.

 
Quote
This is all about Judge Jones. If it were about the merits of the case we know we’d win. It’s about politics. Look at the Cobb county case. A sticker that did no more than mention a plain fact, that evolution is theory not a fact, was ruled a violation of the establishment clause. Incredible! A local school board saying evolution is a theory is, in some twisted logic that just makes me shudder, a law regarding an establishment of religion. Har har hardy har har. Right. In a pig’s ass (pardon my french). Clinton appointed Judge Clarence Cooper made a ridiculous ruling that was faithful to the left wing overlords that he serves.

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.

Politically biased decisions from ostensibly apolitical courts are a double edged sword that cuts both ways. The liberals had their turn at bat. This is our time now. We won back congress in 1996. We won back the White House in 2000. We won back the courts in 2005. Now we can start undoing all the damage that was done by the flower children. The courts have been the last bastion of liberal power for 5 years. It was just a matter of time. The adults are firmly back in charge. The few wilted flower children that refused to grow up will have to satisfy themselves by following the likes of Cindy Sheehan around ineffectually whining about this, that, and the other thing. They’ve been marginalized.


ETA:

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.


Both quotes poached from carlson, who did all the hard work.

Date: 2009/02/22 03:46:47, Link
Author: simmi
You never know, Casey might be into:



(thought I should add some balance to this thread)

 

 

 

=====