republicans suck.

that is all.

mpmcgraw wrote:anyone whose vote is based on abortion one way or the other is an utter moron and should be deported asap

this is not a good post.

phdave wrote:

Laexile wrote:Democrats seem to think that being pro-life or believing in creationism somehow disqualifies a person from seeking office.

Does that include the Democrats who are pro-life?

They're the freaks that give the Democrat party the apparance of being middle of the road, no one actually respects them.

Laexile wrote:

phdave wrote:

Laexile wrote:Democrats seem to think that being pro-life or believing in creationism somehow disqualifies a person from seeking office.

Does that include the Democrats who are pro-life?

Of course not everyone in a Party thinks the same way, but pro-life Democrats aren't well liked in the Democratic Party. Any more than pro-choice Republicans are liked.

Four people, a Republican, a centerist Democrat, and two independents, have told me they couldn't vote for McCain because Palin is pro-life. Social issues are evergreen issues for both parties, not just the Republicans. When it comes to fiscal and foreign policy both parties can succeed or fail. If your party's philosophy provides failures in these areas you know that social issues never will. If a Democrat is a failure he can at least tell the electorate that his Republican opponent wants to control your body and eliminate the right of abortion. He'll get votes he might not get on fiscal and foreign policy issues.

I thought I was asking a "yes" or "no" question. Are you trying to Palin me?

VoxOrion wrote:

phdave wrote:

Laexile wrote:Democrats seem to think that being pro-life or believing in creationism somehow disqualifies a person from seeking office.

Does that include the Democrats who are pro-life?

They're the freaks that give the Democrat party the apparance of being middle of the road, no one actually respects them.

But the question was, if Democrats think being pro-life disqualifies a person from seeking office, does this include the pro-life Democrats? It was a simple follow-up clarification question to the earlier point made.

phdave wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

phdave wrote:

Laexile wrote:Democrats seem to think that being pro-life or believing in creationism somehow disqualifies a person from seeking office.

Does that include the Democrats who are pro-life?

They're the freaks that give the Democrat party the apparance of being middle of the road, no one actually respects them.

But the question was, if Democrats think being pro-life disqualifies a person from seeking office, does this include the pro-life Democrats? It was a simple follow-up clarification question to the earlier point made.

You're looking for serious debate phdave brother man. I'm not. Sorry.

jeff2sf wrote:Seriously, this is becoming like WIP for me. I can't turn away. What the hell am I doing reading this guy on a Friday night for?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... -reco.html

I guess I didn't realize he was still going on and on about that. That's crazy all right. Crazier than the time he was all hopped up on the idea that Iraq had WMDs and we had to go to war or something nutso like that.

VoxOrion wrote:

phdave wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

phdave wrote:

Laexile wrote:Democrats seem to think that being pro-life or believing in creationism somehow disqualifies a person from seeking office.

Does that include the Democrats who are pro-life?

They're the freaks that give the Democrat party the apparance of being middle of the road, no one actually respects them.

But the question was, if Democrats think being pro-life disqualifies a person from seeking office, does this include the pro-life Democrats? It was a simple follow-up clarification question to the earlier point made.

You're looking for serious debate phdave brother man. I'm not. Sorry.

Yes I want to seriously debate if the Democrats who think that being pro-life disqualifies you from office include the pro-life Democrats. Why won't someone seriously debate me on that very important issue to debate?

phdave wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

phdave wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

phdave wrote:

Laexile wrote:Democrats seem to think that being pro-life or believing in creationism somehow disqualifies a person from seeking office.

Does that include the Democrats who are pro-life?

They're the freaks that give the Democrat party the apparance of being middle of the road, no one actually respects them.

But the question was, if Democrats think being pro-life disqualifies a person from seeking office, does this include the pro-life Democrats? It was a simple follow-up clarification question to the earlier point made.

You're looking for serious debate phdave brother man. I'm not. Sorry.

Yes I want to seriously debate if the Democrats who think that being pro-life disqualifies you from office include the pro-life Democrats. Why won't someone seriously debate me on that very important issue to debate?

paging former gov casey...

gr wrote:paging former gov casey...

He's dead.

BUT THE ZOMBIE LIE WON'T DIE!!!!!!!

True story...
...and when they yelled, "SURPRISE" and turned the lights on, Gwen was standing there wearing nutti'n but a peanut butter bikini.

FlightRisk wrote:True story...
...and when they yelled, "SURPRISE" and turned the lights on, Gwen was standing there wearing nutti'n but a peanut butter bikini.

peanut butter does not wear bikinis.

Laexile wrote:[What amazes me is that no one cares about Sarah Palin's record. No, she isn't the most intellectual. Forget that LBJ and Harry Truman weren't either. No, she isn't experienced on the national stage, but then how experienced were Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton? Democrats seem to think that being pro-life or believing in creationism somehow disqualifies a person from seeking office.
.

I'm much more troubled by the evidence of abuse of power and her willingness to blow off an investigation, including ignoring subpoenas, and declare what amounts to executive privelege in order to avoid answering some very reasonable questions. Add in her obvious lack of intellectual curiosity (can't name one court case she thought was wrong, for example) about the subjects supporting a job in high political office and, well, she kinda reminds me of someone else we all know.



Edit: Just saw that talking points memo kinda said the same thing tonight...

But this is an opportunity to refocus our attention on something that has been lost in the nonstop coverage of Palin's campaign trail lies and botched interviews: her record in Alaska strongly suggests she lacks the character to be trusted with high office. Though the troopergate scandal is tied narrowly to Palin's firing of Alaska's top cop, Walt Monegan, the heart of the story is about a private vendetta that Palin tried to settle using her new powers as the chief executive of the state of Alaska. Thwarted in doing so, all evidence suggests she fired the public official who refused to execute her plan.

Nor is it the only example. Both as mayor and governor, Palin has shown the tell-tale signs of a politician who hires cronies and fires or blackballs critics. This part of Palin's record gets deep in the weeds. So it's not as flashy as the boffo interviews or and irresistible as the straight-up lies she's been caught in. But we need no closer example than the Bush administration to know that people like this are dangerous and corrosive to our public institutions.

I'm a few pages too late but...

The funny thing about Intelligent Design is that nobody believes in it. Creationism states that God designed the human race. Intelligent Design states that something intelligent, that may or may not have been God, designed the human race. There may literally not be a single person in America who believes that something intelligent, that may not have been God, designed the human race.

Mountainphan wrote:

Woody wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Woody wrote:

Mountainphan wrote:
This column is also interesting because it points out the diiference between Intelligent Design and creationism.

dude wait what

There is an important difference between the people that believe that the universe is 6,000 years old, and those that believe that a divine being was watching over it all (big bang, evolution, etc).

So which is which in this case

From the same article...

Is Intelligent Design the same thing as Creationism?

No. Intelligent Design adherents believe only that the complexity of the natural world could not have occurred by chance. Some intelligent entity must have created the complexity, they reason, but that "designer" could in theory be anything or anyone. In 1802, William Paley used the "divine watchmaker" analogy to popularize the design argument*: If we assume that a watch must have been fashioned by a watchmaker, then we should assume that an ordered universe must have been fashioned by a divine Creator. Many traditional Creationists have embraced this argument over the years, and most, if not all, modern advocates for Intelligent Design are Christians who believe that God is the designer.

A federal court disagrees with you and this story. It was shown step by step that intelligent design is clearly just a euphemism for creationism. Including looking at previous drafts of the main intelligent design textbook "Of Pandas and People," which was almost exactly the same as the published version with one significant change: where the word creationism appeared it was replaced by intelligent design.

dajafi wrote:

Woody wrote:Didn't the PA supreme court rule that Intelligent Design was "creationism in disguise"? Didn't they find evidence that the ID folks basically took a creationism text and did and Edit>>Replace to make it replace creationism with "intelligent design"?

Yes and yes.

MP I think referred to the "God the watch-maker" theory: to me, if one wants to assert that The Great Winding happened pre-Big Bang, rock on. (The Founding Fathers, that bunch of Deists, allegedly were of this view.)

But my understanding of ID is that its adherents believe that God kept putting His hand in: a reversible thumb here, a complex optical nerve there... they just can't produce any credible science to back this up.

It was not the Pennsylvania Supreme Court but the federal district court for the middle district of pennsylvania.

The case actually involved the establishment clause with the court ruling that intelligent design was nothing more than creationism recast.

If you ever have a few spare hours: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller ... er_342.pdf

ashton wrote:I'm a few pages too late but...

The funny thing about Intelligent Design is that nobody believes in it. Creationism states that God designed the human race. Intelligent Design states that something intelligent, that may or may not have been God, designed the human race. There may literally not be a single person in America who believes that something intelligent, that may not have been God, designed the human race.

Right. At least a creationist is intellectually honest. IDers are not.

i like that barney frank apparently killed our economy when he's headed his committee for 20 months...it was in republican hands for the previous 12 years...if that matters. All the problems were caused by the past year and a half though, so i can see where people are coming from!

economics things are long-term unless we want to pin the blame

jerseyhoya wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Seriously, this is becoming like WIP for me. I can't turn away. What the hell am I doing reading this guy on a Friday night for?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... -reco.html

The next post is titled "Pure Bile"

dajafi, this is embarrassing, right? Like, really, really, really embarrassing.

Not sure I get what you're after here... am I embarrassed? Not particularly. Should Sullivan be embarrassed? Probably not for me to say.

But if you're implying that he's a drama queen (ahem), well, yeah. Very much so. Never have I seen anyone so quick to reverse himself... and not just back away slowly from a position, but race at top speed from one extreme to the other. As an example, when Palin was first announced, he was psyched because what he knew about her was, one, that she let stand the court ruling allowing equal benefits for same-sex couples, and two, that she'd smoked herb when it was legal up there. Then within a few days she was "the culmination of Rovian politics" or whatever. (To his credit, he usually acknowledges these almost-schizophrenic reversals.)

I find Sullivan an entertaining read, I think he's a smart guy, and--weird as this is going to sound given his current rooting interests--I appreciate that he seems to have a fairly good grasp on a certain kind of principled conservatism that I'd like to see make a comeback. But I'm definitely not blind to his nuttiness or tendencies toward sports radio-level hyperbole.

Yeah, I don't know what I was going for there.