PeterDavid.net

As a Canadian, I can say that Mr. Sevush certainly isn't the only person to ponder that "wall" idea.

I also agree with not adding fuel to the political fire on this site for a while. Bush and Kerry agreed on one thing yesterday, and that was that your nation needs to heal. We can doubt the sincerity of either one of them all we like, but that doesn't make the initial sentiment any less correct.

I sincerely hope that all of our neighbours to the south can find at least some common ground, and that the "two Americas" can become one again.

That would make it easier to figure out who to carry on our Canadian love/hate relationship with.

The last thing that gave the vast majority of us common ground was September 11th. If that's the price, I'll stick with contention and devisiveness, thank you.

Heh.

The author wishes to move to canada in the name of tolerance, then refers to those who merely vote differently than he does as
"...the belligerent,
imperialistic, crypto-Fascist military theocracy that continues to grip
the US government, as it presides over a small-minded citizenry steeped
in religious zealotry who love only their god, themselves, their first
cousins and their sheep, and whose leading export to the world is death."

And it's the red states they call ignorant, bigoted and intolerant. Go figure.

"The last thing that gave the vast majority of us common ground was September 11th. If that's the price, I'll stick with contention and devisiveness, thank you."

Agreed.

I am truly shocked by how much distain the Blue stater's have for the Reds. And how simplistic their arguments are. As someone who was enraged that I was expected to vote for one of these below-average politicians (talk about damning with a faint insult) I feel free to make this observation - Y'all, blues and reds alike, are intolerant and moralistic. Reasonable and intellgent people can have diametrically opposed views on Iraq, taxes, health care, abortion, supreme court justices, and so forth. If these issues were simple, we wouldn't be split 50/50 on them. And, although I usally lean left on those issues, in my experience the Reds are a hell of a lot more sympathetic to the Blue view, than vice versa. Red intolerance of gays certainly drove a lot of Red votes, but Blue intolerance of Reds drove a lot more.

BTW, to the 'succession' dream. Here's a nice map showing the Red/Purple/Blue continuum by county. The USA is a lot more complicated than the Blues like to admit.

Hmmm...the link didn't work.

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/purple_america_2004.gif

Well, that's an amazingly ignorant little piece. Mr. David, I'm surprised that someone as intelligent as yourself finds this amusing. Definately the most ignorant thing I've read since the election. On par with the Mirror headline.
Keepers of tolerance. Feh.

People keep pointing to these exit polls about "values". Did it occur to anyone that these same exit polls also point to a double-digit Kerry win? There's a lot more going on here than gay-bashing. Most of the states Bush won didn't have a gay marriage item on the ballot. Bush increased his percentage of vote in virtually every state in the Union, not just the red states.

The Left is trying to paint the 51% of Bush voters as either rich or stupid and Bible-thumping. Guess what, there's others in that 51% who are middle-class who don't worry so much about the DMA, but much more about terrorism - and Bush appeared much more willing to face it head-on then Kerry. Maybe when the Left gets through their grief and rage they'll start to get it.

I'd say more than 51% of the Bush voters are either rich and/or stupid. Bible-thumping, I'm not so ure about...

My hope is that the Republicans get drunk on their own power, try to pass to much radical legislation to fast, and the party self destructs. Bush only won by 2% of the popular vote. If they truly think that they have a mandate then they will screw them selves over. The Republicans have become the party of big government and fiscal irresponsibility. That’s not conservative. With the failure of the Democrats and the Republicans new base being religious to the extreme, the stage is set for a new centrist third party that could take the presidency and a swing vote in congress.

Reasonable and intellgent people can have diametrically opposed views on Iraq, taxes, health care, abortion, supreme court justices, and so forth. If these issues were simple, we wouldn't be split 50/50 on them.

OK, the above was a quote, I'm not sure how to tag it since I can't get the preview button to work properly and I seldom post here.

SOME of those issues are complex like Iraq and the economy, etc. Everyone would be able to agree to a decent compromise if one were proposed. ONE side of the issue won the election, and therefore it feels no need to compromise with the losers. The same would've happened had the election gone the other way.

The only issues that most are completely unwilling to compromise on are their morals. Neither side is willing to give. These are not complex issues. One either believes one side or the other. The only real compromise would be tolerance of everyone, and that's not really a compromise since that's basically what the liberals want. No one wants/expects conservatives to suddenly say "you know what maybe being gay isn't a choice." They could say "Aw...do whatever you want, we don't care anymore." This would be amazing as most liberals would be more than happy with a live and let live type society. It's ok for you to disagree with me, but don't make laws restricting my rights. One side wants freedom and choice for all (even for the conservatives that they don't agree with). The other side wants to restrict those freedoms because they are completely sure that they are right, and no one should disagree with them. This line of thinking is much more dangerous because lots of people disagree with them.

I am truly shocked by how much distain the Blue stater's have for the Reds.

I prefer Green myself, but what the hell.

But hey, if you want Georgia, you can have it. Just be prepared to uproot Atlanta and move it somewhere else, cause based on the votes, that city doesn't want to be part of a Red state.

"I am truly shocked by how much distain the Blue stater's have for the Reds."

We learned it from watching you!!!
In the Clinton years that is. :)

There are just a lot of Jim's here i know, but i'm just adding to the bunch...

About gay marriage.

If we allow a very small minority, the gay community, to dictate how their deviant behavior is treated, whats to stop other groups from trying the same behavior?

Now i have nothing against gays, and really, nothing against civil unions, but gay relationships shouldn't be treated as equal to marriage if thats not what the majority wants. Society dictates what is right and wrong in our culture, and right now, the majority of society says that gay marriage is not right, and shouldn't be. If gays can get gay marriage legitimized, what is to stop another fringe group, like NAMBLA or polygamists, from rising in popularity and influence and fighting for marriage rights?
Now right now, most of you are probably opposed to men sleeping with little boys, or marrying 10 women, our culture is against it. But with time, and continued moral decline, and the passage of things like gay marriage, eventually it'll be fine to sleep with little boys, animals, or marry as many as you want at once.
America, and other countries, legislate morality all the time, like the polygamy example and NAMBLA example, as well as drugs and alcohol, and mebbe you disagree with the government stepping in at all, then you are a liberatarian, and i doubt most of you here are. But if you believe that the government can restrict drug use, and stop sex with little children, and animals, and stop polygamy, then you should also accept that it is not innappropriate for the government to legislate against allowing gays to marry.

You may disagree, but currently, you seem to be in the minority, like polygamists were and drug users are, and the government, and the majority of the public and society can legislate against your position.

Society dictates what is right and wrong in our culture,

oh, like how society dictated that slavery was okay, that women were second-class citizens with no rights, or that interracial marriage was a Very Bad Thing?

Kathy Maddux Pearlman wrote I'd say more than 51% of the Bush voters are either rich and/or stupid. Bible-thumping, I'm not so ure about...

Wait, I thought the Republicans are supposed to be the party of irrational intolerance and pathetic stereotypes? We need to work hard to catch up with her. On the bright side we have four years to refine our art.

But if you believe that the government can restrict drug use, and stop sex with little children, and animals, and stop polygamy, then you should also accept that it is not innappropriate for the government to legislate against allowing gays to marry.

Actually, I don't.

But go on ahead, trying to tell me how to think. That totalitarian impulse you and the rest of your cronies like Stalin and Mao is going to get you in trouble one of these days.

>

Here's a tip. When you call it "deviant behavior" a lot of us on the left tend to tune you out. I've yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that doesn't basically come down to "My God says it's wrong!" (which is simplistic and inaccurate) or "It'll destroy the institution of marriage!) (which I also highly doubt). Nobody's been able to say "It's the right thing to do, because it doesn't discriminate against anyone" which is what those of us in the pro-gay marriage camp can say about our position.

Btw, I am dismayed to count myself as one of the left. Before this election, I considered myself a moderate. But it's been clearly shown by the votes this year that you're on one side or another of this little culture war, and I guess I'll pick the side that doesn't give to the rich with one hand, pick away at the division between church and state with the other (something that makes us atheists nervous, understand?) and in between, spends its time discriminating against people who just want to live their lives and love who they want.

But really, I'm just venting here. You guys on the right have won. You control every facet of the government, no checks, no balances. I'm not entirely sure why you're still arguing with the rest of us, when it's clear that our opinions don't count for squat.

"This would be amazing as most liberals would be more than happy with a live and let live type society."

Not all of the ones at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, judging from the number of cars with Bush/Cheney bumper stickers that got keyed. (But of course, both sides have crazies).

As I've said before, conservatives should be willing to cut Kerry supporters some slack, though I hope to God if the shoes had been on the other foot I would not have been as bitter as so many of the posters here have been (And given how low that bar has been set, it would not have been difficult). Moving to Canada? Splitting from the country? Grow up, folks. You will see many many elections in your lifetime. You'll win some, you'll lose some. Try to show some class and dignity in either circumstance.

As a counterpoint to all around good guy Ralph, heres an interesting take: http://backseatphilosopher.blogspot.com/2004/11/to-my-fellow-democrats.html

excerpt:

Many Democrats think that our patience and understanding are our weakness. "We don't know how to fight like the Republicans," we all told ourselves after Florida 2000. "We have to be more like them: tougher, meaner." "We have to energize our base more."

Actually, no. Our error is that we Democrats actually are far less understanding than we think we are. Our version of understanding the other side is to look at them from a psychological point of view while being completely unwilling to take their arguments seriously. "Well, he can't help himself, he's a right-wing religious zealot, so of course he's going to think like that." "Republicans who never served in war are hypocrites to send young men to die. " "Republicans are homophobes, probably because they can't deal with their secret desires." Anything but actually listening and responding to the arguments being made.

And when I say 'responding,' I don't just mean 'coming up with the best counterargument and pushing it.' Sometimes responding to an argument means finding the merit in it and possibly changing one's position. That is part of growth, right?

The Boston Globe today printed up an electoral map based on how the different counties in the country voted. It basically showed the division actually isn't really between red states and blue states, but between urban and rural. This morning I was watching C-Span in a lead-up to the President's press conference and I heard disdain on both sides. I don't think either side can really claim a moral high ground there. I'm guilty of it myself - I don't UNDERSTAND how these culturual issues could be a factor in this election. And apparently, from watching C-Span, those folks don't understand how I can't feel that gay people getting married has ZERO affect on the "sanctity" of my marriage. I've been told I should be more tolerance of all this, um, intolerance but that's hard to wrap my head around, too.
If America becomes a giant version of that town from "Footloose" as a result of all of this I will be genuinely distraught. Kevin Bacon did not give up when the Reverend John Lithgows of the world told him he COULD NOT DANCE and neither will we!!! We'll take to the streets in our skinny ties and we'll blast our Quiet Riot tapes and if John Lithgow tries to stop us we'll do an angry gymnastic dance in an abandoned warehouse and then we'll START ALL OVER AGAIN. My fellow Americans, let's hear it for the boy.

Peter,

I find it odd that you would like a piece that basically condescendingly and simplisitically steroetypes huge numbers of people. But let's have fun with it!

I grew up in Illinois. That is a blue state. I must be enlightened. Lucky me.

And then I went to school in Indiana. Oh no. a red state! Now I am a buffoonish hick.

But I got a Ph.D. in English, moved to New York and taught at an Ivy League university. Oooh. An Ivy League faculty member in a blue state. Definitely enlightened.

But now I'm back in Indiana. So, I've become a Bush-loving, bible-thumping hick again.

And I'm an adult who reads comic books, and I'm sure there is a steroetype there, too, and not a nice one. (I'm probably in danger of having my Ph.D. revoked).

What will be interesting is seeing which party is smart enough to figure out the way to ensure victory--don't run a red or a blue candidate...run a purple. John McCain or Rudy Guliani would have beaten Kerry in a landslide. The Democrats have fewer "purples" to work with, though Obama has terrific potential (I hope they don't make the mistake they did with Edwards and push him too soon--2 terms as Senator and the guy is gold.)

If the democrats think that Kerry just wasn't liberal or mean or tough enough, they will lose by a bigger margin next time. If the republicans take this election as an invitation to go ever further to the right they will risk losing it all (after 8 years of Bush it would be a mistake to just offer more of the same--voter fatigue sets in). 2008 will be the first opportunity for a whole new set of faces.

... that we could learn a lesson from Israel and build a massive wall along our southern border that would separate us from the belligerent, imperialistic, crypto-Fascist military theocracy that continues to grip the US government, as it presides over a small-minded citizenry steeped in religious zealotry who love only their god, themselves, their first cousins and their sheep, and whose leading export to the world is death;

I am constantly amazed by the Jefferson Davis clones who want to whine, stamp their little feet, and take their marbles and go home just because they lost an election. I always assumed it was hyperbole, that "I'm going to leave the country if X wins" was the functional equivalent of "If you eat the pumpkin pie before the rest of the family gets here for dinner, you're dead, young man," but I've seen it enough in the last few days I'm starting to wonder. It is appalling to think that so many people find that the Republic is far less important than disassociating themselves from those nasty Republicans.

To all of you who feel that way: You're cowards. As John Edwards put it yesterday, "You can be disappointed but you cannot walk away." If you don't feel strongly enough about this country to stand and fight, if you don't care enough to suffer through the bad times that you expect (and that I don't), then you deserve to lose elections. This nation deserves leaders who are committed to its survival and prosperity, leaders who recognize how unique and amazing it is, and most importantly, leaders who won't cut and run the instant they find themselves standing out in the cold. So go start your FONAS. I reluctantly have to remind you, however, that the territory of the United States extends from Maine to Florida, over to California, north to Washington, and back east to Maine again, in addition to Alaska and Hawaii. We didn't let the slave owners and the feudalists wander off with our territory, and we won't let you do it either. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

Bill:

>As I've said before, conservatives should be willing to cut Kerry supporters some slack, though I hope to God if the shoes had been on the other foot I would not have been as bitter as so many of the posters here have been (And given how low that bar has been set, it would not have been difficult). Moving to Canada? Splitting from the country? Grow up, folks. You will see many many elections in your lifetime. You'll win some, you'll lose some. Try to show some class and dignity in either circumstance.

As bitter as "So many"? Weren't there only one or two posts about splitting or moving?

Fred

I've always been a Democrat and just this past election I have noticed how far to the left they have gone. Democrats had certain Liberal views and principles , but now they are the same exact thing and I think that is what's hurting us. Me, personally, I am pro stem cell research, pro choice , and pro civil union but against gay marriage. Mainly because seeing how agressive the activists at parades have been. I have heard numerous interviews with various people who are angered when parents make their kids leave the parade because they didn't want to see people with each others hands down their pants..regardless of which sex it is no parents want their children exposed to something so graphic at a young age. It just feels wrong to me to influence children...to possibly make them become somebody they might not have become otherwise. That's just me..

PAD,

Aside from the extreme liberal slant of the comment, I don't know anyone who would want Canada's socialized medicine. My friends from Canada, some of whom live here now, all prefer American health care for the much better quality and for the availability without having to wait months and months for routine procedures.

Dennis

Society dictates what is right and wrong in our culture,

"oh, like how society dictated that slavery was okay, that women were second-class citizens with no rights, or that interracial marriage was a Very Bad Thing?"

(i don't know how to quote here, sorry)

Yes, at the time, that was acceptable at the time, and it was "right" according to those people. But as time went by, the ideas changed, and eventually, a large enough group decided that slavery was wrong and it was abolished. When a large enough group decides that gay marriage is correct and fine, it'll happen. Now by your understanding, and my understanding, and almost all now today believe that slavery is wrong, but AT THE TIME it was judged fine by A MAJORITY of society.

In other societies, cannibalism was practiced, and fine, and also eating the hearts of your enemy and other stuff we find atrocious. But in the CONTEXT OF THE TIME AND THE SOCIETY it was fine and good.

Now, since those darker ages, we have progressed, and we have gotten rid of terrible things and injustices, as we've evolved to see them as such. But putting slavery and gay marriage next to each other is wrong. Slaves were oppressed and beaten and treated terribly. Not granting gays marriage isn't oppressing them, its just not treating the word and institution of marriage as joke. I agree that gays can love each other as much as men and women do, and i'm fine with civil unions, no one should be separated from their loved one in a hospital as they die. But it is not marriage, marriage is between a man and a woman. And the tax breaks given to married couples are largely because of the fact that married couples make better parents and can bring up children better, according to conventional wisdom, and some psychologists. And mebbe you disagree with this, but the fact remains that nature, or God if thats your thing, made men and women procreate together, and that is what should be taught to children, not that every and any lifechoice can be the right one. There is evidence that children of gays are more likely to turn out gay themselves, or to experiment more, and if that doesn't demonstrate that upbringing has some effect over sexual orientation, i don't know what would.

Sorry i rambled some, and i'm sorry if i offend, but you have to think outside the box a bit. We, as a society, define and redefine evil, and wrong, and right, all the time. If the majority tries to put this in writing, thats not much more of a step, and its not one that hasn't been done before.

And again, every one who is for gay marriage, why not drop all statuatory rape laws, and allow marriage at 12 or 10 or 5, for those NAMBLA members out there. Its really not much different, you just gotta think about it, and i know most don't want to.

***"I am truly shocked by how much distain the Blue stater's have for the Reds."

We learned it from watching you!!!
In the Clinton years that is. :)****

Nail on the head. The righties spent the Clinton years listening to Flush Limbaugh demonize liberals, and now they wonder why the other side does the same to them.

***Actually, no. Our error is that we Democrats actually are far less understanding than we think we are***

I guess the catch-22 of being a liberal is being intolarant of the intolerant.

Jim wrote:

"Definately the most ignorant thing I've read since the election. On par with the Mirror headline."

The Daily Mirror in Merry Olde England. Ah, yes, I remember it well. Now THERE is a bastion of journalistic integrity if I ever saw one. You're sure to get all the facts in that rag -- not! The only things it's known for besides its screaming headlines is its famous "Page 3 Girl" pin-up photos.

Fred,

Sorry, my post wasn't at all clear--the part about splitting from the country and all was referring to the Ralph Sevush column.

And anyway, the more I think about it, I can respect those who would actually be willing to go through the incredible trouble of emigrating--it's not just talking the talk, it's walking the walk. It think it is unnecessary and a mistake, but I can respect it. I hope that anyone seriously contemplating it will reconsider.

The ones who just want to moan about how everyone who disagrees with them is just too stupid to see the truth that they, the enlightened ones, offer...well, "grow up" still stands.

Actually, if we are going to have any secession, Hawaii should go first, as there is already a significant secessionist sentiment there, as I understand it, among the natives. If you ever want a story of underhanded, deceptive, scandalous political manipulations, read the story of Hawaii's annexation into the United States. If we left the Union, I expect Hawaii would go its own way, and rightfully so.

Of course, this is completely an Otherworlds story we're making up, so it really makes no difference.

This nation deserves leaders who are committed to its survival and prosperity, leaders who recognize how unique and amazing it is, and most importantly, leaders who won't cut and run the instant they find themselves standing out in the cold.

Well, maybe the Republicans need to own up to the fact that they offered up as crappy a leader as the Democrats have.

And that's part of the issue: many people voted against Bush knowing that Kerry was crappy, but Bush was wearing a toilet seat on his face, waiting for you to sit down.

Going back to the urban vs rual thing. On another forum, somebody posted comparison maps of the counties across the US for 2000 and 2004 (those counted so far).
And the results are amazingly similar - we're talking probably better than 80% of the counties in the country went to the same party as in 2000.
But those counties for the Dems - alot of it is the urban areas. The opposite for Bush.

Either way, I think religion still has alot to do with it.

OK--I didn't really want to argue specific topics or anything. I just wanted to state my opinion and try to gain some sense of closure after the election so that y'know "the healing process can begin." But, several posters in this thread have mentioned that they are against gay marriage. Why? What possible threat is this to you? That is the fundamental difference. If a libereal is opposed to homosexuality, he doesn't marry a man. If a conservative disapproves, he changes the constitution. In Ohio, (say what you may, but at least we made it interesting) we passed by an overwhelming majority an amendment to our constitution prohibiting gay marriage. Just a few months ago in March, we passed a law against gay marriage. Isn't this a little bit much considering it was never legal in the first place? This was only an issue because the president could rally up a few extra votes from those Americans that are scared of change. Hopefully, one issue voters are few and far between, but I can't really fault a person for voting the way that their church tells them to. If I were religious and didn't follow politics, I would be willing to blindly follow my religion to either side. That's what religion is all about, right? Having faith reguardless of the facts or in spite of them? So my question for everyone opposed to gay marriage is simply why? Explain to me the threat this holds for the country without using religion as a justification for anything. Remember this isn't a theocracy (although if we let the American people vote on it, it probably would be.)

Dennis Donohoe wrote...
I don't know anyone who would want Canada's socialized medicine. My friends from Canada, some of whom live here now, all prefer American health care for the much better quality and for the availability without having to wait months and months for routine procedures.

Your friends are in the minority. Our health care system is one of the nation's most cherished institutions. Granted it's far from perfect, but in our own national election earlier this year the mere suggestion that one of the parties might work towards privatizing health care contributed a lot to that party underperforming significantly in the election.

I just thought I'd toss this out for people to answer as they see fit.

Do you think that issues such as the ones you're currently facing in America could be avoided by the implementation of a true multi-party system?

It seems to me that there is a great split in your country, and it's mostly between the far-right and far-left. What are the people in the middle to do?

To Jim Farrand:

Gay marriage is not the same thing as sex with a minor. One involves consent, the other doesn't. And before you make the argument that adjusting the definition of marriage and adjusting the age of consent are similar notions, please keep in mind: everybody eventually turns 18, but gay people do not eventually turn straight.

Jeff Lawson posted:
"Your friends are in the minority. Our health care system is one of the nation's most cherished institutions. Granted it's far from perfect, but in our own national election earlier this year the mere suggestion that one of the parties might work towards privatizing health care contributed a lot to that party underperforming significantly in the election."

My comment: I certainly can understand people balking at having to pay for something (privatizing) that was once free. I'd have the same reaction. However, that doesn't really address my comment that US (non-socialized) health care, despite its cost, is much better. But I have no firsthand experience, since I'm not Canadian, so I'll defer on this.

Dennis

"Reverend John Lithgows of the world told him he COULD NOT DANCE and neither will we!!!"

It's been a while since I've seen that movie, but didn't Kevin Bacon's character solve the problem by holding a dance beyond the town's borders?

So basically the muttonheads in the town said, "No dancing in the town!" and, at the end of the film, bsaically, they got their way. Ignorance prevailed, and the young dancing guys had to go elsewhere.

PAD

Dennis Donohoe said...
However, that doesn't really address my comment that US (non-socialized) health care, despite its cost, is much better. But I have no firsthand experience, since I'm not Canadian, so I'll defer on this.

And I'm not American, and have never had to use your health-care system, so I suppose that makes us even =)

It all comes down to opinion, I suppose. In my opinion, and that of (I believe) the vast majority of Canadians, it is better to have a universal system where people have equal access to health care no matter their age, race, or social class, than to have a system where the highest-quality treatment is reserved for the wealthy.

Now, health care is always one of the top Canadian concerns, and there is no shortage of problems with our current systems. Waiting lists can sometimes be massive, and there tend to be shortages of doctors, due in no small part to the fact that they can be making far more money in America. Canada is still trying to get a handle on these problems, and I'm sure they'll be big issues here for years to come.

But the bottom line is, most Canadians would rather struggle with these problems than with the problems presented by American-style health care.

Dennis,

I'm a Canadian currently living in the States and I have experienced no increase in the quality of health care down here. The waits are just as long in emergency rooms. The difference is down here you pay an arm and a leg for it. The doctors aren't particularly better trained. If I'm going to be made to wait anyway... I'd prefer it was free.

I really miss feeling a little under the weather and stopping in to a clinic for a check-up just to find out whats going on.

Someone said "America doesn't have healthcare. We have sick-care" and I think that's a fairly accurate depiction.

So count this as one Canadian who has sampled both and misses socialized medicine.

Mike.

Jeff said:
"It all comes down to opinion, I suppose. In my opinion, and that of (I believe) the vast majority of Canadians, it is better to have a universal system where people have equal access to health care no matter their age, race, or social class, than to have a system where the highest-quality treatment is reserved for the wealthy"

I have no argument with Jeff or with the subsequent posting by Mike, except that I am nowhere near wealthy and I have received high quality health care for some serious problems. But hey, this posting was supposed to be about politics, and frankly I am no expert on health care outside of my own situation.

Regards,

Dennis

Dennis Donohoe wrote...

I have no argument with Jeff or with the subsequent posting by Mike

Me neither, just presenting the other side of the coin. Isn't civilized discussion fun? =D

Re: Canadian healthcare "waiting months for routine procedures"...just try getiing any medical procedure done, of any kind, even just a check-up if you don't have health insurance. If you're lucky and can find a clinic somewhere to treat you, you'll be seeing Frank Burns from M*A*S*H and Dr Nick Riviera from The Simpsons- "Hi Everybody"

I have no problem with colored people. I don't care what they do in their own place, as long as they leave me and my friends alone and understand that they had better stay away from me and mine.

Oh.

Wait.

You were talking about *Gay* people.

Okay. Just change the word 'colored' to 'gay'. Same argument, just a different word.

So many people in this country try to use words to cover up the fact that they are bigots.

Jim, the fact that you compare Homosexuality to Nambla is a situation I find disturbing, because you seem to link homesexuality with pedophilia. Which is an unfair view. Are there those in the homosexual community who have a prediliction for young partners? sure. But I doubt it it disproportionate to the heterosexual world. The prevalence of magazines like barely legal. The imagery of early Britney Spears. The whole count down to the Olsen twins 18th birthday. You think if the legal age was 16 instead of 18 the magazines and such wouldn't be photographing as many girls as close to their 16th birthday as they can as opposed 18 or when they might be fully developed? Of course not. So does that mean any guy who buys one of these magazines wants to have sex with a 6 year old? No of course not. The links you imply suggest that gay men see no difference between a 25 year old adult, and a 13 year old boy. Which is ignorant. Please tell me how there is no real difference between Gay marriage and dropping statuory rape laws.

Is Gay marriage the Marijuana of 'deviant sexual behaviour'? A gateway perversion?

Anything governing sexual morality is fairly simple. Does any party in the act have the choice, ability and opportunity to refuse? If they do refuse is that choice respected? Does one party hold a position of power that would signifgantly affect the ability to say no?

Do all paries have the intellectual and emotional maturity to understand the situation? This is a tough one. There are those at 16 who can handle adult relationships there are those at 25 who can't. It's like driving a car. not all 16 year olds are ready to drive, but you can't do it case by case.

Pick an age where you hope mental maturity matches phsyical.

I'm digressing

but the fact remains that nature, or God if thats your thing, made men and women procreate together,. That is a fact yes. and that is what should be taught to children, as part of basic biology sure. not that every and any lifechoice can be the right one Now you lost me. I do think there are some "lifechoices" such as say mass muderer or serial rapist that are in no way shape or form valid. But to say that ony one is? You're not really saying not every and any can the right one you're saying there is one right choice, and all others are wrong. I freely admit I do not understand where you are coming from. If the queer eye guys aren't having sex with you, does it really matter if they have sex with each other?

you say nature or God made it so men and women procreate, well judging by most statements Nature or God mad a certain amout of the population gay. Or as I believe god or nature made everyone bisexual to some degree. (Zero is a degree) As per your evidence that children in a house with to gay parents are more likely to be gay..(even if i were to buy that which i don't) That can probably be attributed to the fact thy are more open to possibiliies of any inherant bisexuality.

But putting slavery and gay marriage next to each other is wrong. Slaves were oppressed and beaten and treated terribly. Slaves were oppressed and beaten and treated terribly. Matthew sheppard.

In other societies, cannibalism was practiced, and fine, and also eating the hearts of your enemy and other stuff we find atrocious. But in the CONTEXT OF THE TIME AND THE SOCIETY it was fine and good.

That still doesn't make it right. You can look at where they're coming from, the reasons for why they believe what they believe, and accept for them it makes perfect sense. It doesn't mean they were right, or they should have believed. It was wrong for people to believe it was okay to enslave blacks. It was wrong for men to treat women like they were second class citizens. It is wrong to believe that the differences between someone else and you makes them less of a human being than you. it is wrong to believe that the love between two men or two women is less than the love between a man and a woman..

Sorry Pad I think I'm getting carried away, so I'll sttop here/

I meant to hit preview insted of post. I do apologise for all the grammatical and spelling errors.

Secession is impossible because, aside from 2 or 3 states near Maine, most states are "red".

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

USA Today yesterday or the day before yesterday (hmm, possible movie title there) broke down the votes to a county by county election map and it's surprising and illuminating. When you break down the votes by county instead of state, you see the overwhelming majority of counties voted for Bush--even in "blue" states.

Put another way, many of the "blues" were asking on September 12, 2001:

WHY DO THEY HATE US?

About terrorists or people from other countries yet refuse to seek similar understanding about people from the same country, the "reds".

-- Ken from Chicago

> The Daily Mirror in Merry Olde England. Ah, yes, I remember it well. Now THERE is a bastion of journalistic integrity if I ever saw one. You're sure to get all the facts in that rag -- not! The only things it's known for besides its screaming headlines is its famous "Page 3 Girl" pin-up photos.

"Page 3"'s from Rupert Murdoch's The Sun, actually.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5055695-111675,00.html

Onward Christian soldiers

The hopefuls in the Democrat camp really believed victory in the US election was within their grasp. How did they get it so wrong? They failed to appreciate, says Simon Schama, that their country is now in fact two nations that loathe and fear each other - Godly and Worldly America
Simon Schama
Friday November 5, 2004

The Guardian
In the wee small hours of November 3 2004, a new country appeared on the map of the modern world: the DSA, the Divided States of America. Oh yes, I know, the obligatory pieties about "healing" have begun; not least from the lips of the noble Loser. This is music to the ears of the Victor of course, who wants nothing better than for us all to Come Together, a position otherwise known as unconditional surrender. Please, fellow curmudgeons and last ditchers, can someone on the losing side just for once not roll over and fall into a warm bath of patriotic platitudes at such moments, but toot the flute of battle instead; yell and holler and snarl just a wee bit? I don't want to heal the wound, I want to scratch the damned thing until it hurts and bleeds - and then maybe we'll have what it takes to get up from the mat. Do we think the far-right Republican candidate Barry Goldwater, in the ashy dawn of his annihilation in 1964, wanted to share? Don't think so. He wanted to win; sometime. And now, by God, he has.

"We are one nation," the newborn star of Democrats, Senator-elect Barack Obama, exclaimed, even as every salient fact of political life belied him. Well might he invoke Lincoln, for not since the Civil war has the fault line between its two halves been so glaringly clear, nor the chasm between its two cultures so starkly unbridgeable. Even territorially (with the exception of Florida, its peninsular finger pointing expectantly at tottering Cuba), the two Americas are topographically coherent and almost contiguous. One of those Americas is a perimeter, lying on the oceans or athwart the fuzzy boundary with the Canadian lakes, and is necessarily porous and outward-looking. The other America, whether montagnard or prairie, is solidly continental and landlocked, its tap roots of obstinate self-belief buried deep beneath the bluegrass and the high corn. It is time we called those two Americas something other than Republican and Democrat, for their mutual alienation and unforgiving contempt is closer to Sunni and Shia, or (in Indian terms) Muslim and Hindu. How about, then, Godly America and Worldly America?

Worldly America, which of course John Kerry won by a massive landslide, faces, well, the world on its Pacific and Atlantic coasts and freely engages, commercially and culturally, with Asia and Europe in the easy understanding that those continents are a dynamic synthesis of ancient cultures and modern social and economic practices. This truism is unthreatening to Worldly America, not least because so many of its people, in the crowded cities, are themselves products of the old-new ways of Korea, Japan, Ireland or Italy. In Worldly America - in San Francisco, Chicago, San Diego, New York - the foreigner is not an anxiety, but rather a necessity. Its America is polycultural, not Pollyanna.

Godly America, on the other hand, rock-ribbed in Dick Cheney's Wyoming, stretched out just as far as it pleases in Dubya's deeply drilled Texas, turns its back on that dangerous, promiscuous, impure world and proclaims to high heaven the indestructible endurance of the American Difference. If Worldly America is, beyond anything else, a city, a street, and a port, Godly America is, at its heart (the organ whose bidding invariably determines its votes over the cooler instructions of the head), a church, a farm and a barracks; places that are walled, fenced and consecrated. Worldly America is about finding civil ways to share crowded space, from a metro-bus to the planet; Godly America is about making over space in its image. One America makes room, the other America muscles in.

Worldly America is pragmatic, practical, rational and sceptical. In California it passed Proposition 71, funding embryonic stem cell research beyond the restrictions imposed by Bush's federal policy. Godly America is mythic, messianic, conversionary, given to acts of public witness, hence the need - in Utah and Montana and a handful of other states - to poll the voters on amendments to their state constitution defining marriage as a union between the opposite sexes. But then Worldly America is said to feed the carnal vanities; Godly America banishes and punishes them. From time to time Godly America will descend on the fleshpots of Worldly America, from Gotham (it had its citadel-like Convention there after all) to Californication, will shop for T-shirts, take a sniff at the local pagans and then return to base-camp more convinced than ever that a time of Redemption and Repentance must be at hand. But if the stiff-necked transgressors cannot be persuaded, they can be cowed and conquered.

No wonder so many of us got the election so fabulously wrong even into the early hours of Tuesday evening, when the exit polls were apparently giving John Kerry a two- or three-point lead in both Florida and Ohio. For most of us purblind writers spend our days in Worldly America and think that Godly America is some sort of quaint anachronism, doomed to atrophy and disappear as the hypermodernity of the cyber age overtakes it, in whatever fastness of Kentucky or Montana it might still circle its wagons. The shock for the Worldlies is to discover that Godly America is its modernity; that so far from it withering before the advance of the blog and the zipdrive, it is actually empowered by them. The tenacity with which Godly America insists the theory of evolution is just that - a theory - with no more validity than Creationism, or that Iraqis did, in fact, bring down the twin towers, is not in any way challenged by the digital pathways of the information age. In fact, such articles of faith are expedited and reinforced by them. Holy bloggers bloviate, Pentecostalists ornament their website with a nimbus of trembling electronic radiance and, for all I know, you can download Pastor John Ashcroft singing the Praises of the Lord right to your Godpod.

Nor, it transpires, is the exercise of the franchise a sure-fire way for the Democrats to prevail. The received wisdom in these Worldly parts (subscribed to by yours truly; mea culpa) was that a massively higher turn out would necessarily favour Kerry. P Diddy's "Vote or Die" campaign was credited with getting out young voters en masse who ignored the polls in 2000. We saw a lot of Springsteen and Bon Jovi and ecstatic upturned faces. Who could possibly match their mobilisation, we thought? Answer: Jehovah and his Faithful Servant St Karl the Rove. The biggest story of all in 2004 is the astounding success of the Republicans in shipping millions of white evangelicals to the polls who had also stayed at home four years earlier. We thought we were fired up with righteous indignation - against the deceits of the propaganda campaign for the Iraq war, against the gross inequities of the tax cuts - but our fire was just hot air compared to the jihad launched by the Godlies against the infamy of a tax rollback, of merely presuming to diss the Dear Leader in a time of war. And the battalions of Christian soldiers made the telling difference in the few critical places where Godly and Worldly America do actually rub shoulders (or at least share a state), Ohio above all.

By the lights of the psephology manuals, Ohio ought to have been a natural for the Democrats: ageing industrial cities such as Akron and Dayton, with big concentrations of minorities, suffering prolonged economic pain from out sourced industries. Cleveland and Cincinnati are classic cities of the Worldly plain: half-decayed, incompletely revived; great art museums, a rock'n'roll hall of fame, a terrific symphony orchestra. But drive a bit and you're in deep Zion, where the Holsteins graze by billboards urging the sinful to return to the bosom of the Almighty, the church of Friday night high school football shouts its hosannas at the touchdowns, and Support Our Troops signs grow as thick as the rutabaga. At first sight there's not much distance between this world and western Pennsylvania, but were the state line to be marked in 20ft-high electrified fences the frontier between the two Americas couldn't be sharper. The voters of the "Buckeye State" cities did care about their jobs; they did listen when Kerry told them the rich had done disproportionately nicely from Bush's tax cut. But they were also listening when their preachers (both black and white) fulminated against the uncleanliness of Sodom and the murder of the unborn. In the end, those whose most serious anxieties were the state of the economy and the Mess-o-potamia were outvoted by those who told exit pollers their greatest concern in 2004 was "moral values".

Faith-driven politics may even have had a hand in delivering Florida to Bush by a surprising margin, since it seems possible that Jewish voters there who voted for "my son the vice-president" Joe Lieberman (not to mention Hadassah, oy what nachas) in 2000, actually switched sides as a result of the president's support for Ariel Sharon. It wasn't that the Kerry campaign didn't notice the confessional effect. It was just that they didn't know what to do about it. Making the candidate over as some sort of altar boy (notwithstanding directives from Rome instructing the faithful on the abhorrence of his position on abortion) would have been about as persuasive as kitting him out with gun, camouflage and dead Canada geese; a laboriously transparent exercise in damning insincerity.

In Godly America the politics of impassioned conviction inevitably trumped the politics of logical argument. On CNN a fuming James Carville wondered out loud how a candidate declared by the voting public to have decisively won at least two of the three televised debates could have still been defeated. But the "victory" in those debates was one of body language rather than reasoned discourse. It registered more deeply with the public that the president looked hunched and peevish than that he had been called by Kerry on the irrelevance of the war in Iraq to the threat of terror. And since the insight was one of appearance not essence, it could just as easily be replaced by countless photo-ops of the president restored to soundbite affability. The charge that Bush and his second war had actually made America less, not more safe, and had created, not flushed out, nests of terror, simply failed to register with the majority of those who put that issue at the top of their concerns.

Why? Because, the president had "acted", meaning he had killed at least some Middle Eastern bad dudes in response to 9/11. That they might be the wrong ones, in the wrong place - as Kerry said over and over - was simply too complicated a truth to master. Forget the quiz in political geography, the electorate was saying (for the popular commitment to altruistic democratic reconstruction on the Tigris is, whatever the White House orthodoxy, less than Wolfowitzian), it's all sand and towelheads anyway, right? Just smash "them" (as one ardent Bush supporter put it on talk radio the other morning) "like a ripe cantaloupe". Who them? Who gives a shit? Just make the testosterone tingle all the way to the polls. Thus it was that the war veteran found himself demonised as vacillating compromiser, the Osama Candidate, while a pair of draft-dodgers who had sacrificed more than eleven hundred young men and women to a quixotic levantine makeover, and one which I prophesy will be ignominiously wound up by next summer (the isolationists in the administration having routed the neocons), got off scot free, lionised as the Fathers of Our Troops.

Well, the autumn leaves have, just this week, fallen from the trees up here in the Hudson Valley and the scales from the eyes of us deluded worldlies. If there is to be any sort of serious political future for the Democrats, they have to do far more than merely trade on the shortcomings of the incumbents - and there will be opportunities galore in the witching years ahead (a military mire, a fiscal China syndrome and, hullo, right before inauguration, a visit from al-Qaida). The real challenge is to voice an alternative social gospel to the political liturgy of the Godlies; one that redefines patriotism as an American community, not just a collection of wealth-seeking individuals; one that refuses to play a zero-sum game between freedom and justice; one in which, as the last populist president put it just a week ago, thought and hope are not mutually exclusive. You want moral values? So do we, but let them come from the street, not the pulpit. And if a fresh beginning must be made - and it must - let it not begin with a healing, but with a fight.

" 51% who are middle-class who don't worry so much about the DMA, but much more about terrorism"

If they do, why did they vote for the man who dangerously upped the ante by invading a country which didn't have much to do with the problem (as opposed to Bush's friends the Saudis) and managed to piss off many of the U.S.' now former allies, thus making it a hell of a lot more difficult to get help when the time comes. And, make no mistake, the U.S. is NOT all-powerful and it WILL need help in the long run, be it from the foreign intelligence community, or in support of its overstretched military. But Bush's ill-advised actions have pretty much put paid to that on a lot of fronts.
"Society dictates what is right and wrong in our culture, and right now, the majority of society says that gay marriage is not right, and shouldn't be."

And society used to say blacks were subhumans who didn't merit any of the rights and priviledges of the rest of us. Does it make it right? News flash: there are an awful lot of ill-informed, or just flat-out ignorant or stupid people out there. Just because Democracy has us putting equivalent weight on their vote as on everyone else's doesn't mean they're going to make the correct choice.
"My friends from Canada, some of whom live here now, all prefer American health care ..."

That's because you only know people who can afford the steep rates in the U.S.. You forget, the U.S. spends MORE per capita than Canada on health care, but still has millions who are not covered. What's wrong with this picture?

"There is evidence that children of gays are more likely to turn out gay themselves, or to experiment more, and if that doesn't demonstrate that upbringing has some effect over sexual orientation, i don't know what would."

Does the word "genetics" exist in your dictionary? If it did, the fact that they are "children of gays" just might be a hint as to how wrong you are as to 'cause-and-effect'.

Mark L posted up there a ways that Bush was the guy who looked more willing to take terrorism "head on."

And darn it, the Starwolf beat me to a response...

But, yeah, if Bush is so willing and able to take terrorism (and I'm guessing that means terrorists, as well) then why did he get our military bogged down in an occupation/rebuilding of a state that, hey, it turns out really DIDN'T have any proven connection to those terrorists we WERE chasing over in Afghanistan. And while Hussein sure was a terror to people in his own country, I don't think he really fit the classic picture of a terrorist.

So, while Bush continues to allow a good portion of our military to be bogged down in Iraq because he won't take the time to re-forge good relations with those allies who could help us, and by the way continue to place our trained, experienced military in harm's way as militant Iraqis continue to resist our efforts to help them help themselves, actual terrorists are more free than ever, because the US war machine that would normally be hunting them down is stuck in Iraq.

So, sure, I can see how voting for Bush on the idea that he's going to make us safer from terrorism makes perfect sense.

Oh, wait, no, actually, I don't.

But I sure do see a GOP, for all their safety and "no terror" stance, legislating morality. Not everyone who aligns with the GOP fits that bill, of course, just as not everyone who voted for Kerry believes in the unfettered right to an abortion. But don't deceive yourself into thinking that supporting the GOP is anything other than supporting a religiously and culturally intolerant group of bigots.

If gay marraige bans become the norm, it's only a matter of time before public hand-holding becomes taboo, and then outlaw. And heavan (literally) help you if you actually KISS in public....

**I've always been a Democrat and just this past election I have noticed how far to the left they have gone. Democrats had certain Liberal views and principles , but now they are the same exact thing and I think that is what's hurting us. **

The Democrats? Liberal?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA..
Oh, wait.
You were serious.

When they turn liberal, let me know.

Travis (who is registered Democrat, but secretly a liberal)

A while back, I attended a meeting of the League of Pissed-Off voters.Being a severely annoyed voter, I was wondering if this was a group for me.

I answered that with a question. "We're talking about how to deal with idiot conservatives. Has anyone thought about how to deal with conservatives who aren't idiots?"

The response I got was that "idiot conservative" was a redundancy.

Pfui on that sort of thinking. I run left of center, but McCain was the only guy I liked heading to 2000. I feel more secure with an intelligent leader I disagree with than with someone who runs based on pleasing the larger crowd.

From The Guardian:
"Faith-driven politics may even have had a hand in delivering Florida to Bush by a surprising margin, since it seems possible that Jewish voters there who voted for "my son the vice-president" Joe Lieberman (not to mention Hadassah, oy what nachas) in 2000, actually switched sides as a result of the president's support for Ariel Sharon."

Wow, thinly veiled anti-semitism from Europe. Knock me over with a feather.

The fact that Jewish support of Bush only went up by 5% or so (depending, of course, on whether or not you can trust ANYTHING the exit polls say) is ignored. Why waste time with facts if it means you can't get in another gratuitous slap at them Jewfolks?

Not everyone who aligns with the GOP fits that bill, of course, just as not everyone who voted for Kerry believes in the unfettered right to an abortion. But don't deceive yourself into thinking that supporting the GOP is anything other than supporting a religiously and culturally intolerant group of bigots.

Not all Democrats are arrogant elitists who want to force political correctness down everyone's throat, nor are they all supportive of abortion-on-demand. However, that's what the national party supports. Almost no one gets a political party that has 100% of their personal views. You pick what's more important and hold your nose at the rest.

The Democrats should adopt the Republican Policies and force their beliefs on others rather than just wishing everyone could live in peace as they wish.

1. Propose a "Sanctity of Marriage" amendment to the constitution. Making Marriage illegal. If you want to marry your first girlfriend at 18 and have 9 kids, good luck with that. You're never getting divorced.

2. "An end to subsidies." End Welfare and Farm Subsidies. The Republicans believe in the "Pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality lets hold them too it. No more welfare for the Midwest or south, no more corporate welfare, no more farm subsidies.

3. "Creationism in School." This is a great idea. Teach Evolution, Creationism, Teach from Ymir's flesh, Odin and his brothers made the earth, and from his shattered bones and teeth, they made the rocks and stones. From Ymir's blood, they made the rivers and lakes, and they circled the earth with an ocean of blood. Teach that the Earth consists of flat disc (complete with edge-of-the-world drop-off and consequent waterfall) resting on the backs of four huge elephants (Great T'phon, Tubul, Berilia, and Jerakeen) which are in turn standing on the back of an enormous turtle (Great A'Tuin) as it slowly swims through space.

Teach it all. Because really, how can one be more valid than the other?

4) "Prayer in School" Lets make this issue our own. Every day from 10-10:30 every school has forced prayer. Pray to God, Face east and pray to wards the Mecca. Pray to Odin. Pray to Satan if you wish, just make sure to PRAY PRAY PRAY! Hallelujah!

5. "Make War Not Love!" Support your president and back him on every war. Hell, push him to invade more countries. With no divorce and no welfare the red states kids won't have anywhere to go but to the Middle East. Send your young to die for an unjust war and still vote for the President. Hallelujah!

Democrats need to start finding some Terrorist Ties in Iran. We MUST win the war on Terror by attacking other countries.

"And it's the red states they call ignorant, bigoted and intolerant. Go figure."

You might want to add "Unable to appreciate irony" to the list.

PAD

Somebody wrote:

""Page 3"'s from Rupert Murdoch's The Sun, actually."

The Mirror had Page 3 pin-up girls as well, at least they did in the early 1980s.

From Andrew Sullivan:
Say this about Clinton: he always understood how to triangulate. The president who doubled the number of gay discharges form the military, signed the ban on HIV-positive immigrants, and jumped energetically on the Defense of Marriage Act, told Kerry to back marriage and civil union bans for gays in the campaign. Kerry, to his enormous credit, didn't go there. But then Kerry never presided over the execution of a retarded man for his own political purposes either.

Since most people believe that Kerry, in his heart, is FOR gay marriage, he should have come out and said so. Would have gotten credit for having some guts. (Although once he was on record as being opposed it was too late--he would have looked like a flip-flopper. That reputation was a masterstroke of the Bush campaign, effectively hamstringing him from allowing the polls to drive his convictions, as I suspect is his preference).

PAD,

Re: Unable to appriciate irony

I live in Mass, I'm, as stated before, a supporter of neither party, and yet I've heard at least a dozen people over the last few days make comments on some variation of the succession piece. It is a very popular meme, and it is both intolerant and ignorant.

One stat just to illustrate how stupid the simplistic red/blue state view is.

Kerry voters in ME, VT, NH, MA = 2.56 Million

Kerry voters in TX = 2.82 Million

"I have no problem with colored people. I don't care what they do in their own place, as long as they leave me and my friends alone and understand that they had better stay away from me and mine.

Oh.

Wait.

You were talking about *Gay* people.

Okay. Just change the word 'colored' to 'gay'. Same argument, just a different word.

So many people in this country try to use words to cover up the fact that they are bigots."

Many say the same thing with changing the word 'colored' to 'Christian' or 'religious'.

"Same argument, just a different word."

Sometimes I think people staunchly Dem were listening too long to the people who were demonizing the right in order to get the vote.

There are too many 'conservatives' who will not allow Bush to establish a “Church State” or a “Theocracy”.

Believe it or not Many "Christians" are pacifists and don't believe in war. ( I know of at least 3 significant ( or influencing ) voices on the "religious right" who said to invade Iraq was not the right thing to do.)

Many Christian's believe you should "Hurt not the earth" instead of raping it.

Many DO NOT want our beliefs thrust upon you.

Yes they may let you know why they feel or believe the way they do, but they won't burn at the stake you if you do not.

Thay are not gonna want you arrested for or for not wearing a veil or some other article of clothing.

Get it? They are not like the 'Islamic extremist'. And many are getting tired of being to made feel like they are. (Demonizing again!)

Obviously the Democratic Party is out of touch with some ( if not most ) of the US. Too many of them are in their own little bubble not realizing there are alot of people out there who don't feel the same way the they do, at least on the platforms the Democratic Party is now running on.

"Too many Democrats are not fighting for the seperation of church and State, they are fighting for the seperation of church and society" ~ (quote by someone on CSPAN whose name alludes me)

This 'divide' showing up at the elctions was not the Christians vs. 'the Godless', it was more about character and leadership.

THAT's why many on "the right" went to the polls.

> From The Guardian:
"Faith-driven politics may even have had a hand in delivering Florida to Bush by a surprising margin, since it seems possible that Jewish voters there who voted for "my son the vice-president" Joe Lieberman (not to mention Hadassah, oy what nachas) in 2000, actually switched sides as a result of the president's support for Ariel Sharon."

Bill Mulligan: Wow, thinly veiled anti-semitism from Europe. Knock me over with a feather.

Ummm... you realise that the guy who wrote that piece IS JEWISH don't you?!

>"And it's the red states they call ignorant, bigoted and intolerant. Go figure."

>You might want to add "Unable to appreciate irony" to the list.
>PAD

Thanks, Peter.

You'd think a collection of comicbook fans would recognize satire and irony. But i guess, as Steve Martin observed in ROXANNE about his small town, "Irony? Oh, we don't get that here."

To the uncomprehending amongst you, i was NOT actually calling for secession. i was NOT saying everybody in a "blue state" felt this way, and everybody in a "red state" felt that way.

I was NOT suggesting national health care was good or bad, or that tolerance is the private preserve of liberals (the intolerance suggested by the whole piece should have tipped somebody off).

I'm not even suggesting that religion in the public sphere is necessarily bad per se, as Americans of faith have a long history of fighting FOR civil rights and social justice (not merely opposing them), and AGAINST wars (not merely supporting them).

What i DID do was send out a private e-mail to a few friends about my post-election blues (and then mistakenly allow PAD to post here). I was simply reacting to the fact that the overwhelming majority of Bush supporters said "moral values" was the biggest factor in their vote... as if Kerry is somehow deficient in moral values. But, of course, they weren't really talking about "moral values". They were talking about THEIR values.

What my essay reflects is my own personal sense of alienation from my own country... that I'm apparently a barely tolerated visitor here, despite the accident of my birth in NYC. And that my brand of secular humanism and libertarianism is wholly unwelcome by a vast majority of this nation, despite the fact that those values are the bedrock of our republic as articulated in its founding documents.

In 2000, i could blame the election process. But this time? I can only see it as a fundamental shift in nature of the electorate.

With Bush having to bear the burdens of an unpopular war into which we were led by lies and which is managed with incompetence, with a record loss of jobs, a sluggish economy, dreadful relationships with the rest of the world, out-of-control oil prices, with low "job approval" and "right track/wrong track" polling numbers, with having had the worst attack on American soil in history occur on his watch, and having done everything possible since then to increase terrorist recruitment... well, in any rational world, the incumbent would've been washed out of office in a tidal wave, regardless of the mediocrity of his opponent.

But when people show up at the polls, in light of all of these circumstances, and start talking about "moral values" as the issue of greatest importance... we are no longer dealing with a rational world.

And that makes me afraid.

Your mileage, of course, may vary.

Believe it or not Many "Christians" are pacifists and don't believe in war.

Yet, how is it that then that this campaign was won by "moral values", up to an including approval of the war in Iraq?

You talk about demonizing, yet all the Bush campaign did was demonize everybody else.

Deh. I'm tired.

I'm heading over to Amazon to pre-order "NF:After the Fall".

Take care All.

If we allow a very small minority, the gay community, to dictate how their deviant behavior is treated, whats to stop other groups from trying the same behavior?

This amounts to a nicer version of "so how long till someone wants to marry their dog?" and the answer is, as always, not till it comes out that somewhere between 1 and 7% of people have been in loving, peaceful, romantic relationships with their dogs since the beginning of time.

Not, mind you, that anyone has explained to me exactly what the harm would be to me if my neighbor started telling people he'd married his dog. If you don't want a dog marraige, don't have one.

Uh, I got the irony. I doubt anyone thought you actually were serious.

When I was teaching at a university in 1992, and Clinton won, I remmeber my students all walking around like they had been shot. They commented that the world was going to end. The country collapse. Many said they would move to Canada (I was never sure why, if they found Clinton too liberal, they thought Canada would be an improvement).

I knew they were simply expressing their alienation and commiserating. But after a bit it got tiresome and seemed silly and overdone.

I remembered all that as I read your message.

I'm sorry you are so down and all, but it got grating.

Here is the situation as I see it.

Bush is not a good president. Bush is not a popular president. Bush is not a smart president.

And the Democratic party, full of bright, morally superior people, pretty much can't figure out how to beat a stupid, unpopular, ineffective president. (Note, there is some real life irony).

Once the Democratic party period of mourning is over, could the party please figure out why they couldn't sell their message to the majority of voters so something like this doesn't happen again? I wanted Bush out of office, and I watched Kerry's campaign with great frustration.

The response I got was that "idiot conservative" was a redundancy. Pfui on that sort of thinking. I run left of center, but McCain was the only guy I liked heading to 2000

Amen, Mitch. I registered as an independent in 88 despite my parents' observation that I'd never get to vote in a primary and I haven't regretted it once. I've screamed at both parties on the television but fall on average left of center only because I decided I'd rather pay my government toll financially to be left alone personally rather than the other way around.

I think there's a market for a party for a lot of us who feel like we'd like to keep government out of our affairs (as many pubs claim they want to do right before they squabble over gender preference rights) and make social decisions based on economic utility (like offering civil unions rather than get in protracted legal fights over hospital visitation rights, locking people up forever rather than spending 3x as much to execute them, etc).

And the Democratic party, full of bright, morally superior people, pretty much can't figure out how to beat a stupid, unpopular, ineffective president. (Note, there is some real life irony).

Once the Democratic party period of mourning is over, could the party please figure out why they couldn't sell their message to the majority of voters so something like this doesn't happen again? I wanted Bush out of office, and I watched Kerry's campaign with great frustration.

I never figured out why they didn't make competency a more core issue. Would have made a great place to come back from when the "Kerry had the same intelligence about Iraq" statement was going around: the intelligence agencies answer to the President and brief him a lot more often than they do Congress.

In the business world the question to a CEO would be "why are your direct reports not doing the job right?" When Bush said "my generals told me they had enough people" where was the follow-up "then why are people who lack competency working for you at that level?"

Ok, I'll come right out and say it, " I'm old enough to vote and I didn't." And I hang my head in shame. Really. *sigh*

You see, I would have had to renew all my forms of I.D. Nothing is current (I'm not a driver, so don't worry). So basically, I didn't vote cause I was lazy. lol.

And I'll also say that I'm one of the people who wanted Bush to lose.

Yes, I wanted to vote. I was thinking of voting for KERRY. Not because I like him alot, but because he wasn't Bush. I could have vote for an independent, but let's be honest: the only guys that had a chance of winning were Bush and Kerry. And really, I guess Kerry didn't have much of a chance...(and I also should say that I was pretty disappointed in how Kerry gave up so easy. A day after the electon and he gives up. Guess he wouldn't have been that good a President..)

I knew though, like PAD knew, that Bush was going to win. Hoping against Hope I was. I knew Bush was going to win...but...I just hoped...and wished..that I'd be suprised. That people would realize what was going on and vote for the other guy. Even if the other guy wasn't great, at least it would be a change from Bush. Maybe Kerry could have done something..maybe not. Giving Bush four more years, though, is like saying to Bush, " Hey! Your doing great man! Keep doing what your doing! " *sigh*

Anyway, I'm stupid. I should have got out there and voted. Mark my words, I'm going to vote next time (gotta get all those I.Ds up to date!) !!! Four more years of Bush though..*sigh*

You know, imo, what America really needs is a President who is not in a party, who is not a conservative or a liberal. We need a guy who thinks about the people of America first (poor, rich, middle class. everyone considered). And a guy who would focus on getting America's problems fixed first, before we run off to play police men of the world....

Ya..I know. That person doesn't exist.

And if he did, its doubtful anybody would vote for him...

DF2506
*hangs head in shame and walks away*

> SCOTT J: "Uh, I got the irony. I doubt anyone thought you actually were serious."

If you got the irony, then i wasn't talking about you. but you might want to re-read some of the other responses to my note posted above, wherein the political and logistical difficulties of secession were discussed, where running away was deemed cowardly, and my lack of tolerance was discussed seriously.

> SCOTT J: "I knew they were simply expressing their alienation and commiserating. But after a bit it got tiresome and seemed silly and overdone. I remembered all that as I read your message. I'm sorry you are so down and all, but it got grating."

sorry you found it tiresome and grating. I was trying to be funny, to avoid that problem. but i guess i failed, in your estimation.

>SCOTT J: ..."And the Democratic party, full of bright, morally superior people, pretty much can't figure out how to beat a stupid, unpopular, ineffective president. (Note, there is some real life irony). Once the Democratic party period of mourning is over, could the party please figure out why they couldn't sell their message to the majority of voters so something like this doesn't happen again? I wanted Bush out of office, and I watched Kerry's campaign with great frustration."

Except for your satirical(?) reference to the Dems as being "morally superior", i couldn't agree more.

> From The Guardian:
"Faith-driven politics may even have had a hand in delivering Florida to Bush by a surprising margin, since it seems possible that Jewish voters there who voted for "my son the vice-president" Joe Lieberman (not to mention Hadassah, oy what nachas) in 2000, actually switched sides as a result of the president's support for Ariel Sharon."
Bill Mulligan: Wow, thinly veiled anti-semitism from Europe. Knock me over with a feather.

Ummm... you realise that the guy who wrote that piece IS JEWISH don't you?!

No but that doesn't surprise me overly much. I'm sure that anti-Israeli Jews are much loved in Europe. At any rate, playing to the tendency among Europeans to believe that some Jewish Cabal pulls the strings of American politicians, getting them to do only what Israel wants simply feeds the hate. I'm sure it helps him keep his job though.

"out-of-control oil prices"

Really? I've read that, adjusted for inflation, oil is still cheap. Which is surprising considering that we are dealing with a finite, limited resource. Sure, I'd love to have 75 cent a gallon gas again, along with 10 cent comics and being able to get change for a dollar after buying a Happy Meal. Then again, back in those days my salary would have been a good deal less as well.

And what, pray tell, is the solution to high oil prices? Drilling in Alaska? Invading Iran? Bombing Israel in return for a guarantee of $20 a barrel for the next 50 years? We could all switch to hybrid cars and keep our thermostat at temperatures that will freeze babies in their cribs but it won't matter--China is becoming industrialized. Millions now riding bikes will soon be driving cars, sucking down oil like nothing we've seen.

$2 for gas? Enjoy it. Savor it. Clone FDR and re-elect him. It won't matter.

Scott J. wrote...
Once the Democratic party period of mourning is over, could the party please figure out why they couldn't sell their message to the majority of voters so something like this doesn't happen again?

That's the key, isn't it? It's going to be difficult for a while after the pain everyone went through with this election, but both sides are going to have to do some soul-searching and reaching out now.

Democrats: Why weren't you able to make your voices clear? How is it that you weren't able to win this election, despite the coveted voter turnout that was supposed to clinch it for you? What can be done in the future to appeal to a wider voter base?

Republicans: Yes, I know, you won this one and can pretty much have your way with the country for the next four years. But isn't it worthwhile to examine just what it is about the administration's policies that make some people so angry? Shouldn't you be looking to extend an olive branch to those you've alienated, just as they should be doing the same to you? After a campaign in which foreign policy played such a pivotal role, is it not worth asking why the majority of foreign countries think that America is headed in the wrong direction?

The effect of the past four years has been to polarize your country to an extreme degree. The two parties have found themselves taking extreme opposite positions, and neither is willing to budge. And even though you never hear about them, I have to believe that the majority of your population is caught in the middle, not wishing to play too close to either extreme.

Things aren't going to improve down there until each side is willing to understand the other.

I've gotta say that I'm fairly conservative, not rich, attend church regularly and still try to be open minded enough to look at an issue from all sides (hard to do that, but I try). I voted for Bush, because he and the Republican party represented more of what I believe than what the Dems were showing. And no, I voted a mixed ticket, not straight, sense the local and state level candidates don't follow some of the hogwash that is on a national level.

The main problem I saw with Kerry, other than my disagreeing with most of his apparent stances on issues (apparent because we all know that the political machine makes some things look different than they are in privacy), was the fact that he never gave air to his "plans."

We heard "I have a plan..." in all of his stump speeches, from Iraq to welfare to space to the budget, but never got any specifics. If he had given some specifics, or at least a plausable outline, it may have done some good. His "plans" were the same as the Repubs turning off Bob Dole's humor for his campain, the lack of them didn't make sense why they weren't there.

Anyway, just remember that you do live in a country that allows forums like this, that allows differing views to be aired and discussed in public. Keep that in mind.

jeff

Considering that we were speaking of Nazi Germany on another thread, I thought you folks might be interested in the words of Herman Goring at the Nuremberg Trials:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a facist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. The is easy. All you havea to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

Always remember, kids--there's no present and no future. Just a past being endlessly repeated.

Hmmmmm, all I know, everything that's been said, to even consider wanting to stop being a proud American enjoying our country's unique freedoms 'cause an election didn't go "the right way".......... welp, that means you didn't see yourself as a proud American living in freedoms our ancestors shed rivers of blood for and the country would be better off without you. Funny thing though, I loved seeing a report saying that countries were not going to just take Americans carte blanche, they had to have a *reason* for immigration. Too damned funny. If my side could suffer 8 humilating years with that assclown Clinton and the Chinese Ho Algore, then you can stand 4 more of GWB, suck it up you whiney li'l bitches. Apologies for the language but man, I would been pissed if Kerry had won but I sure wouldn't be running away like a toddler with a full Pamper, I would be starting the champaign for 2008 and sure as hell not fielding one of the most loathed women in America as the "great white hope". Welp, guess that's enough for now, now, can we get back to comics? Oh yeah, I bought more Excaliber books and Madrox #2 last week, haven't read them yet. Cuss me, curse me, call me a basteche, but I will never give up PAD's works. Thank you and be well...

If my side could suffer 8 humilating years with that assclown Clinton and the Chinese Ho Algore, then you can stand 4 more of GWB,

You know, that latter comment was pretty damn insulting. Can you guess why?

Talk about humiliating....

Democrats: Why weren't you able to make your voices clear?

Maybe the problem is that they were clear, but that we live in a moderate-to-conservative nation that didn't like what it heard?

I don't think Carl really gets it. People are talking about leaving the country because of people like him. The dreaded feeling of these potential expatriates is that all of the Bush voters are like Carl and if that is so, then this country is not worth fighting for any longer.

David Bjorlin wrote...
Maybe the problem is that they were clear, but that we live in a moderate-to-conservative nation that didn't like what it heard?

Of course that's a possibility. But I'm thinking about basic factual errors, such as the polls showing upwards of 70% of Americans believing that Iraq was involved in Sept. 11. And if the majority of the population really didn't like what it heard, then the Democrats need to figure out what needs to be done to re-brand themselves without betraying what they stand for. I fine line for any group to walk, but it has to be done.

> > > Bill Mulligan: Wow, thinly veiled anti-semitism from Europe. Knock me over with a feather.

> > Ummm... you realise that the guy who wrote that piece IS JEWISH don't you?!

> No but that doesn't surprise me overly much. I'm sure that anti-Israeli Jews are much loved in Europe.

So basically, the whole of Europe is anti-semitic, and all jews have to play along. Okay...

> At any rate, playing to the tendency among Europeans to believe that some Jewish Cabal pulls the strings of American politicians, getting them to do only what Israel wants simply feeds the hate. I'm sure it helps him keep his job though.

It's an op/ed piece. His "day job" is a historian, and he does regular series for the BBC in that role.

" If my side could suffer 8 humilating years with that assclown Clinton and the Chinese Ho Algore, then you can stand 4 more of GWB,"

Over three thousand people didn't make it through the first year of GWB...a year in which he ignored warnings about bin Laden and refused to start up a Department of Homeland Security simply because it was put forward by reps of "that assclown Clinton. Of course, once it was too late and over three thousand people died, then he flip flopped, embraced the idea, and took credit for it.

Over eleven hundred people didn't make it through the last two years of Bush, and there will be more deaths and more deaths, including a massacre coming up in Fallujah.

Plus there will likely be another major terrorist attack in the U.S. And why not? Iraq, after all, has served as a virtual recruiting drive for terrorists.

"Stand four more years?" I'm not entirely sure we'll even survive it.

PAD

All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked

I guess I just imagined the Cole attack, embassy bombings and the Twin Towers falling.

Peter David wrote...
Iraq, after all, has served as a virtual recruiting drive for terrorists.

The administration does deserve credit for its wildy successful terrorist creation program. The sheer number of countries that have turned against you guys over the last few years boggles the mind.

Mark L wrote...
I guess I just imagined the Cole attack, embassy bombings and the Twin Towers falling.

It can't be denied that the U.S. has been attacked. It's probably true, though, that the actions taken by the Bush government have been gross overreactions to those attacks, paving the way for blatant disregard for that "freedom" Americans seem to value so highly, and probably making your country a more dangerous place to live, rather than safer.

If you got the irony, then i wasn't talking about you. but you might want to re-read some of the other responses to my note posted above, wherein the political and logistical difficulties of secession were discussed, where running away was deemed cowardly, and my lack of tolerance was discussed seriously.

The irony is noted, but I stand by my accusation. We don't know you, so we had no way to guage your use of hyperbole. As Lou posted earlier, in the last few days I've heard several people talk about leaving the country, and they were only half kidding. If you were more than half kidding, then perhaps you weren't the best one for me to vent about, but it does sound as though you were engaging in quite similar daydreams; I say this because you end your essay, "But when I wake up, I'll still be here. Shit."

And yes, I do perceive that entire line of thought, whether jest, daydream, or serious travel plans, as chickenshit. You lost an election. So damned what? You ran an experienced Senator, a war hero no less, who was intelligent and articulate about a heartfelt ideology, and he lost to a populist demogogue's reelection bid in a campaign where your Senator could only complain "Where's the outrage?" Welcome to my world, circa 1996. Get over it. I did. Don't just take my word for it, take Molly Ivins's: "So, fellow progressives, stop thinking about suicide or moving abroad. Want to feel better? Eat a sour grape, then figure out what you can do to help rescue the country - join something, send a little money to some group, call somewhere and offer to volunteer, find a politician you like at the local level and start helping him or her to move up. Don't mourn, organize."

I have now quoted Molly Ivins and John Edwards in the same thread. If TWL is still reading this blog he will plotz.

And with regard to a perceived lack of tolerance, anyone who wrote the following screed SHOULD be called on it. (Although I don't think anyone really believed you really think this is a nation of incestuous bestialists.)

belligerent, imperialistic, crypto-Fascist military theocracy that continues to grip
the US government, as it presides over a small-minded citizenry steeped in religious zealotry who love only their god, themselves, their first
cousins and their sheep, and whose leading export to the world is death;

And what the hell is a crypto-Fascist anyway? A fascist who likes to communicate through codes? (I know, the crypto- prefix should mean "covert" or "secret" but I don't think anyone could accuse the Republican party of keeping its agenda hidden.)

"So basically, the whole of Europe is anti-semitic, and all jews have to play along. Okay..."

Starw man argument, as I said no such thing.

It's hard to deny, however, that blatant anti-semites are tolerated in Europe to a degree unimaginable here. In the USA it is not considered a viable political position (except among a small number of inner city race baiters). Europe has political parties that actually get people elected on the agenda.

A condemnation of Europeans as a whole? No, but I'd rather be a Jew here than there.

"Society dictates what is right and wrong in our culture"

Nope, that's why we have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. We elect leaders who lead through wisdom. We choose the wisest and they make moral decisions, at least that's the way its supposed to work.

It doesn't matter whether the majority wants slavery or Jim Crow. They're wrong whether 99% of the population or 50% of the population wants it.

"eventually it'll be fine to sleep with little boys, animals"

You don't understand the simplest, and most intrinsic value in american culture.

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights."

All men, all human beings. We are constituted such that we have rights, by the nature of our being. Animals have no rights, none at all. Animals can never get married, can never vote, and can never exercise any rights afforded to humans, period.

So animals can never marry, nor can humans marry animals. You only have the right to such things insofar as it applies to other creatures with the same rights. Period.

As far as children go, again, you don't understand a single thing about the culture you live in. We have, already built into our intellectual framework, the notion of age of reason/age of consent. All of us have the right to vote, but not until we come into the age of reason. All of us have the right to marry, but not until we come to the age of consent. Its simple a part of our conceptual framework. Children cannot marry because they have not yet reached the age of consent. Period.

So these arguments are just so much reactionary hysteria, which have nothing at all to do with the actual philosophical underpinnings of our society.

Period.

Peter said "Over three thousand people didn't make it through the first year of GWB...a year in which he ignored warnings about bin Laden and refused to start up a Department of Homeland Security simply because it was put forward by reps of "that assclown Clinton. Of course, once it was too late and over three thousand people died, then he flip flopped, embraced the idea, and took credit for it."

So now you blame Bush for the attack on 9/11. Give me a freaking break. It wasn't his fault we were attacked then.

Start singing a new tune why don't ya? Btw, I seriously doubt this will be your last politcal blog entry in a while. You can't help but attack George any chance you get.

Good grief.

PAD,

Blaming Bush for 9/11 as you did with your comment about 3,000 dead is unfathomable to me. Are you not aware that Sandy Berger four times vetoed proposals to go after Bin Laden? Read the 9/11 report. One has to be extremely partisan to think that Bush is to blame for not achieving in 8 months what Clinton blew off (no pun intended, but apropos nonetheless) for 8 years. Come on. There are a lot of things that Bush has messed up and can be deservedly blamed for, but 9/11 is Clinton's stigma.

Dennis

but 9/11 is Clinton's stigma.

I'm not a Clinton fan, but let's hold OBL accountable for 9/11. We spent many, many years ignoring the build-up of Islamic extremism. If we want to lay blame on politicians, then let's look at the many generations of politicians too afraid to rock the boat.

What's good (and potentially bad) about Bush is that he's not willing to accept the status quo anymore.

However, OBL is who needs to be taken to task, not Clinton.

Regarding Mark's comment about holding OBL responsible, yes he is quite correct. I overreacted to PAD putting 3,000 deaths as Bush's responsibility. That is nonsense. No American president is responsible for this atrocity - despite the blame being laid on Bush. You can't blame the victim, namely our country. However, if there is blame for not being prepared - that is at the feet of Clinton rather than Bush.

How did we get into this discussion anyway?

Regards,

Dennis

I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this so far--hard to keep up with the multiple threads going on here--but Elizabeth Edwards was just diagnosed with breast cancer. To have this on top of the natural depression that comes with a failed campaign seems just too cruel. I would hope that everyone, regardless of political affiliation, would wish her a speedy recovery.

"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked"

"I guess I just imagined the Cole attack, embassy bombings and the Twin Towers falling."

Is it my imagination, or is the quality of conservative responses here just spiralling into the toilet?

The Goring quote is relevant to Iraq. Bush and Company mentioned Saddam, threats, and 9/11 so often and so frequently together that they managed to falsely convince 71% of Americans that Saddam was behind, or connected to, 9/11. He wasn't. Doesn't matter. Americans became convinced that America was attacked by Saddam, and thus gave him his war. When historians look for examples of "the Big Lie," they will have Bush's picture right up there with other spewers of big lies.

PAD

"There are a lot of things that Bush has messed up and can be deservedly blamed for, but 9/11 is Clinton's stigma."

Now that you and Novafan are busy attacking what I didn't say, howzabout you take a whack at what I did say.

I didn't say 9/11 is Bush's fault. It's the fault of bin Laden (you know, the guy Bush said he would catch dead or alive except now he doesn't think about him all that much.) But everything I said was true. Three thousand people did die in the first nine months of Bush's watch. He did ignore calls for a Department of Homeland Security. And he did ignore voiced concerns about bin Laden. Do I know he could have stopped it? No. But three thousand people died and Bush didn't do shit TO stop it. Now you can mischaracterize it all you want, but it's all true.

And while we're at it, when speaking of songs getting tired: I absolutely cannot wait to see how Conservatives are going to spin the upcoming horror show on Clinton. GOP Congress, Senate, President, Supreme Court vacancies to be filled by GOP...and yet, somehow, everything that's going to go wrong will mysteriously be Clinton's fault. Just watch.

PAD

Peter said "The Goring quote is relevant to Iraq. Bush and Company mentioned Saddam, threats, and 9/11 so often and so frequently together that they managed to falsely convince 71% of Americans that Saddam was behind, or connected to, 9/11. He wasn't. Doesn't matter. Americans became convinced that America was attacked by Saddam, and thus gave him his war. When historians look for examples of "the Big Lie," they will have Bush's picture right up there with other spewers of big lies."

Yes, us stupid, ignorant Right wing Conservative nuts are convinced that Saddam and 9/11 are connected. You sure got the nail on the head that time Peter. You better be careful about saying who people will remember as spewing lies. Your comment there is a lie since you have no way of proving it. Back your statement up with facts. You can't do it can you? I didn't think so.

"With Bush having to bear the burdens of an unpopular war into which we were led by lies and which is managed with incompetence, with a record loss of jobs, a sluggish economy, dreadful relationships with the rest of the world, out-of-control oil prices, with low "job approval" and "right track/wrong track" polling numbers, with having had the worst attack on American soil in history occur on his watch, and having done everything possible since then to increase terrorist recruitment... well, in any rational world, the incumbent would've been washed out of office in a tidal wave, regardless of the mediocrity of his opponent."

The REAL irony I suspect is that, should things pan out as many here expect, the voters who supported the President in the "red states" will suddenly become a very rare commodity indeed. You might have a hard time finding one. It's like here in Manitoba this year we re-elected the New Democrats, a socialist party. No one likes their high-tax, high-spend and don't worry about paying for it today philosophy, but you go find ONE person who will admit they voted for the NDP. But somehow the NDP won.

More fun to come.....

Peter,you've said everything is Bush's fault. I bet if it rained tomorrow to ruin your picnic, you'd blame Bush for not having the Weather channel predictions be more accurate. This is an overgeneralization, but it rings true doesn't it?

Why don't you stop trying to find faults with people, especially our Commander in Chief, and start being more optimistic. My guess on your response to this, "I don't have to find faults with Bush, he does that all on his own". Good grief.

"start singing a new tune why don't ya? Btw, I seriously doubt this will be your last politcal blog entry in a while. You can't help but attack George any chance you get."

Well, first of all, thanks for calling me a liar, to which I can only reply, Go to hell.

Second, "any chance" I get? This is my blog, I talk about what I'm thinking about, and the chances I have to attack Bush are when I'm sitting at a keyboard. That I write about politics such a staggeringly small percentage of the time underscores the falsity of your snot-faced response. Furthermore, no one is forcing you to read it, no one is forcing you to post, and nothing save your own intolerant need to get in my face about it prompts you to post.

Third...go see first.

PAD

Peter, you can call our Commander in Chief a liar, but I point out what you said is lieing, and then you tell me to go to hell. What a hypocrit. What part of your post I pointed out was factual? Prove it to me.

"Yes, us stupid, ignorant Right wing Conservative nuts are convinced that Saddam and 9/11 are connected. You sure got the nail on the head that time Peter. You better be careful about saying who people will remember as spewing lies. Your comment there is a lie since you have no way of proving it. Back your statement up with facts. You can't do it can you? I didn't think so."

This is the second time you've called me a liar. Read the following and write an apology for both insults, with your real name attached, if you're man enough to. Otherwise you're shrouded. I will ignore all further posts from you, and will suggest that others do likewise.

"Polls Find Americans Believe Hussein Linked to 9/11, Support War in Iraq
By Jimmy Moore
Talon News
September 8, 2003

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- Most Americans believe Saddam Hussein, the ousted president of Iraq, was connected to the attacks on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, according to a new poll released on Saturday.

The Washington Post found that 69 percent of all Americans believe that Hussein worked with al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden to carry out terrorist plans nearly two years ago. In fact, the poll found that even a majority Democrats and independents believe Hussein was a key player.

Poll analysts conclude that this belief by a large majority of Americans is why the Bush administration has been able to withstand criticism coming from the Democrats regarding the progress in the rebuilding efforts in Iraq."

And again, from USA today:

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.

President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however.

Veteran pollsters say the persistent belief of a link between the attacks and Saddam could help explain why public support for the decision to go to war in Iraq has been so resilient despite problems establishing a peaceful country.

The president frequently has called the Iraq war an important centerpiece in the United States' war on terror. But some members of the administration have said recently they don't believe there is a direct link.

The Post poll of 1,003 adults was taken Aug. 7-11 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Or...hey! How about this, of more recent vintage:

IPA POLL: Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Lies
by Paul Rosenberg

It's not just Bush who's living in a bubble, according to a report released Thursday. A majority of those who support him are fundamentally misinformed about key justifications for going to war against Iraq, and other important factors in his foreign policy. A new report from PIPA (the Project on Policy Alternatives) titled, Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Had WMD or Major Program,Supported al Qaeda, has the following lead findings:

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

The report is based on polls conducted in September and October.

PAD,

I think this thread is getting heated but you said:
"No. But three thousand people died and Bush didn't do shit TO stop it. Now you can mischaracterize it all you want, but it's all true."

My point, which I thought was awfully clear, was that Clinton had 8 years to do something - and had repeated terrorist attacks to prod him - and he didn't do anything. Bush had 8 months. Your heated rejoinders completely ignored what I said. Hey, Bush is a dud, but let's accurately remember history. To use your phraseology, Clinton didn't do SHIT over 8 years. Simple fact.

Sheesh

Dennis

Posted by: Novafan at November 5, 2004 09:20 PM

'Peter said "Over three thousand people didn't make it through the first year of GWB...a year in which he ignored warnings about bin Laden and refused to start up a Department of Homeland Security simply because it was put forward by reps of "that assclown Clinton. Of course, once it was too late and over three thousand people died, then he flip flopped, embraced the idea, and took credit for it."

"So now you blame Bush for the attack on 9/11. Give me a freaking break. It wasn't his fault we were attacked then."

As outgoing President, Clinton told Bush that one of the biggest problems facing him was Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda. Bush's response -- a dull, blank look. Bush's action -- nothing
When given an intelligence summary indicating that Osama bin Laden was planning attacks on the US, George II's response -- go golfing.
When finally pressured into doing something, Bush announced a new Terrorism task Force, to be headed up by Vice President Cheney. Who else was on the task force? No one. They never met. Contrast this to the weekly meetings the Clinton-Gore administration had with representatives of the NSA, CIA, and FBI to coordinate intelligence about Al Queda. Such methods, which Bush was so disdainful of, did work, which is why we don't talk about the Millennium Bomb Plot in the same way we do 9/11. If the Bushies had had the same level of determination, the available information could have been coordinated and the plan stopped. Bush decided, DECIDED, that doing nothing but lip service was a much better plan, because he didn't want to do anything the way Clinton did, even if it worked. (say, Contrast Bosnia-Kosovo with Iraq, but that's another thread)

'Start singing a new tune why don't ya? Btw, I seriously doubt this will be your last politcal blog entry in a while. You can't help but attack George any chance you get.'

Unfortunately, will be getting far too many chances, as the man makes far too many mistakes.

Good grief

You're basing your facts on polls that were taken by a news organization? What did the exit polls from the election tell Kerry and Edwards? They thought they were winning by a landslide didn't they? How accurate were the exit polls?

I appoligize for calling you a liar, eventhough you told me to go to hell, two times. ("Third...go see first.")

"That still doesn't make it right. You can look at where they're coming from, the reasons for why they believe what they believe, and accept for them it makes perfect sense. It doesn't mean they were right, or they should have believed. It was wrong for people to believe it was okay to enslave blacks. It was wrong for men to treat women like they were second class citizens. It is wrong to believe that the differences between someone else and you makes them less of a human being than you. it is wrong to believe that the love between two men or two women is less than the love between a man and a woman.."

These are all value judgements which you are making. There is no fundamental right or wrong, just what you believe it to be. And if a vast majority in a society share your beliefs, than that will be practiced. Under our current, ever evolving beliefs, all those things you named are wrong, and i'd agree that they are, but societies evolve and change, and though you may oppose these changes, they have precedent and are not wrong just because you say they are.

Cannibalism wasn't evil in the societies it was practiced in, it was the norm. In America, cannibalism isn't the norm, and indeed, anyone who practices it is shunned and the law protects against cannibalism. And a non-violent, non destructive example, polygamy, is prohibited, because a vast majority of lawmakers and the population are against it.

It isn't a greater step to prohibit gay marriage if thats what our culture and society sees fit.

And yes, fine, animals and children have reasons why having sex with them is not viewed as legitimate, but the point that once a minority group, even a very small one, like gays, forces its position on the majority, then others could do the same thing in time. I'd rather stop this process before worse, destructive things happen down the road.

"Nope, that's why we have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. We elect leaders who lead through wisdom. We choose the wisest and they make moral decisions, at least that's the way its supposed to work."

The very fact that there is limited direct democracy, mainly these initiatives, proves we have a mixed system. And there are many leaders we have elected who support these initiatives. And they are enforcing the will of their constituients.

What many of the pro-gay marriage people seem to say is that their voice and vote is more important than the majorities, and we don't have an oligarchy, and i don't want one. Despite your feelings on teh issues, the majority has a different view than you, and if democracy works how it is supposed to, the majorities opinion and voice should be heard and acted upon. And my main point is that legislating "morality" (which isn't the best term, since i'm not a christian, and i don't think gays are immoral) has precedent, and i bet that most of those who support gay marriage would not want to do away with other "moral" controls, like against polygamy, age of consent and such, and drugs. And if the majority passes such a proposal, it is law, and the system worked how it was supposed to. They aren't evil or stupid people, they just have a different view of the world than you, and they seem to be in the majority.

I don't think I'll get into the whole "gay marriage" debate right now. I don't want to be shrouded, whatever the heck that means.

Is that like being black-balled?

The great thing about this country novafan, is that you can stand up on your soapbox and yell about all the things that are wrong in the country. In fact, you can even protest the president if you think he's wrong. Oh wait. Never mind. When W. got into office he forced protestors miles and miles away from any site he was going to be at, something that, I believe, the "evil" Mr. Clinton never did even as the right-wing hammerheads dumped on him every single day.

When Bush decided to do that, I knew we were in for trouble.

"Once the Democratic party period of mourning is over, could the party please figure out why they couldn't sell their message to the majority of voters so something like this doesn't happen again?"

This is the part that I don't get. It's not the message that was rejected by the majority of voters, but the delivery??? But then, while trying to clear up the message delivery, you decide it's just easier to call people stupid that don't agree with you??? Yeah, that's a good way to try to persuade someone.

Posted by: hulkeye:
"The great thing about this country novafan, is that you can stand up on your soapbox and yell about all the things that are wrong in the country. In fact, you can even protest the president if you think he's wrong. Oh wait. Never mind. When W. got into office he forced protestors miles and miles away from any site he was going to be at, something that, I believe, the "evil" Mr. Clinton never did even as the right-wing hammerheads dumped on him every single day."

And I don't remember anytime protestors were stopped from protesting. They might have been told not to protest in an area near the President, but they were still allowed to move down the block and protest. News organizations still covered the protest. Crowd control is a nightmare wherever (and whomever) the president is, so asking an unruly mob to move down the street just makes sense. At least the Democrats didn't do something similar at their convention. Oh wait...

hulkeye (kewl name btw) said "The great thing about this country novafan, is that you can stand up on your soapbox and yell about all the things that are wrong in the country."

I'm all for that. If somethings proven wrong to me, then I'll jump up there and yell too. I don't believe in Flag burning though. That really bothers me.

Btw, I didn't think Clinton was bad at all, until he had that little incident with his friend behind closed doors. I actually didn't vote in 2000, since I was fine with Gore (bet I'll hear insults about this one) or Bush as President back then. I am glad that Bush was President when we are attacked though.

Novafaon spewed, "Yes, us stupid, ignorant Right wing Conservative nuts are convinced that Saddam and 9/11 are connected. You sure got the nail on the head that time Peter. You better be careful about saying who people will remember as spewing lies. Your comment there is a lie since you have no way of proving it. Back your statement up with facts. You can't do it can you? I didn't think so."

A quick google using the terms "no connection Saddam and 9/11" yielded

9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida
Commission opens final hearing before release of report
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

Published on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 by the Associated Press
9/11 Commission: No Link Between Al-Qaida and Saddam
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0616-01.htm

Clarke's Take On Terror

March 21, 2004
Clarke's Take On Terror
Richard Clarke says the White House dropped the ball against terrorism before Sept. 11.  (Photo: CBS)
"I find it outrageous that the President is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it."
Richard Clarke
Richard Clarke, former White House terrorism adviser, talks to Lesley Stahl about September 11.  (Photo: CBS/60 Minutes)
(CBS) In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one.

The charge comes from the adviser, Richard Clarke, in an exclusive interview on 60 Minutes.

The administration maintains that it cannot find any evidence that the conversation about an Iraq-9/11 tie-in ever took place.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

White House 'delayed 9-11 report'

By Shaun Waterman

UPI Homeland and National Security Editor
Published 7/25/2003 8:11 PM
(Editor's note: What follows is a corrected and updated version of a story originally published by UPI on July 23, 2003, under the headline "9/11 report: No Iraq link to al-Qaida.")
WASHINGTON, July 25 (UPI) -- A member of the independent commission set up to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks has accused the Bush administration of deliberately delaying publication of an earlier congressional inquiry into the attacks.

Former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., told United Press International that the White House did not want the report made public before launching military action in Iraq. He said the administration feared publication might undermine the administration's case for war, which was based in part on the allegation that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had supported Osama bin Laden -- and the attendant possibility that Iraq might supply al-Qaida with weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030723-064812-9491r

Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link
Bush maintains Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda are connected

US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.

The comments - among his most explicit so far on the issue - come after a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

For factual, biased reporting, try the Al Franken Show at
http://www.airamericaradio.com/

For factual reporting on media biases, try
http://mediamatters.org/
Note: Media Matters for America was founded by David Brock to highlight the right-wing manipulation of the American Media. He is an expert in this field, because he is a former right-wing media manipulator.

"My point, which I thought was awfully clear, was that Clinton had 8 years to do something - and had repeated terrorist attacks to prod him - and he didn't do anything. Bush had 8 months. Your heated rejoinders completely ignored what I said. Hey, Bush is a dud, but let's accurately remember history. To use your phraseology, Clinton didn't do SHIT over 8 years. Simple fact."

Simple fact? Really. Hunh. Okay.

I mean, I could have sworn that the US Navy, on Clinton's orders, fired cruise missiles at Al Qaeda encampments in Afghanistan, blowing them up, killing a number of Al Qaeda operatives, and also blew up a Sudanese chemical plant that was producing nerve gas. Even the GOP in Congress applauded the move. He also instituted economic sanctions against bin Laden and the Taliban.

For that matter, according to Clinton's bio, the CIA rolled up a score of al Qaeda cells, captured terrorist operatives, broke up plots against the US, found and broke up terrorist cells in the Northeast and one in Canada, thwarted planned attacks in Jordan, and intercepted a man crossing the Canadian border into Washington state with bomb making materials that he was going to use to bomb LAX.

True, he didn't catch bin Laden. But neither has Bush. So if you define that as not doing shit, so be it. But Bush's not doing shit has a way higher body count with far more to come, has fostered increased Muslim hatred for the US (which I wouldn't have thought possible) and has been a bin Laden wet dreams in terms of providing incentive for new recruits.

Simple fact.

PAD

Peter, you said "I mean, I could have sworn that the US Navy, on Clinton's orders, fired cruise missiles at Al Qaeda encampments in Afghanistan, blowing them up, killing a number of Al Qaeda operatives"

So, Al Qaeda attacking us on 9/11 could have been a retaliation for the attack on their encampments? What does everyone think on this?

About the Iraq Al-Queda connection...

the polls said 70% of Americans, not just right wing conservatives believed the connection, and without knowing the poll question, this could be misleading. And fine, i agree that many have a mistaken impression, i'll even agree that many Americans are not nearly as well informed as they ought to be, but that doesn't mean that all, or even most, conservatives and Bush supporters are ignorant and radical, and too many here have insinuated that.

And also, polls are polls. They aren't always right, they aren't always wrong, and i'll agree that while this poll shows a depressing trend, its still just a poll, and its easy for such numbers to be misinterpreted or skewed.

And about the fact that Americans still believe in a WMD program, not everyone follows the news like they should, and not everyone reads every government report. And even those that read the news get skewed reports and views there, so judging the intelligence of the public on polls on info garnered from news articles is never really going to be fair.

But not only did Clinton fail to catch bin Laden. He also rebuffed the Sudanese government's offers to capture him, decided that non-retaliation was the best response to the Cole attacks, and hampered in numerous ways FBI and CIA efforts to meet the terrorist challenge.

He even gave away the element of surprise for his 1998 missile attack on Afghanistan by giving advance notice to the Pakistani government... a hotbed of jihadists and bin Laden sympathizers.

Worst of all was the cumulative effect of his failure to act..in a real sense, Bill Clinton created Osama bin Laden(gasp!). Every time the Muslim radical would strike at the U.S. and meet with a weak response, Osama's prestige in the Islamic world would grow.

Strange thing about them polls.

When I agree with the outcome of the polls, they are more accurate than when I disagree.

Unless they have phrased the question wrong.

Denial, anyone?

You may very well be right about the DEMs convention. And if they are putting protestors blocks away from the event, then they should get a slap on the wrist, too.

Maybe its normal proceedure for a political campaign, but for someone that has worked in the media, it just feels like suppression, which irks me 10x more than when the other side is crowing about something I don't like.

To wit (and I didn't have time to investigate this a lot):

Dave Lindorff, investigative reporter, journalist, said, "White House advance teams and the Secret Service have routinely instructed local police at cities where the president or vice president plan to visit to remove demonstrators—particularly those carrying signs which might mar the TV imagery of a triumphant presidential motorcade or rally—and pen them in, often in fenced-in enclosures, well away from the event and the media. The result is news coverage that has seemed to suggest a universally adored administration."

ALSO, Dan Eggen writes in The Washington Post: "As Bush has traveled the United States during this political campaign, the Secret Service and local police have often handled public protest by quickly arresting or removing demonstrators, free-speech advocates say. In addition, access to Bush's events has been unusually tightly controlled and people who do not support Bush's reelection have been removed.

"Tickets to Bush events, distributed by the Republican Party, go only to those who volunteer or donate to the party or, in some cases, sign an endorsement of the GOP ticket and provide names and addresses. Party workers police the crowds for signs of Kerry supporters, who are frequently evicted."

I'm sure Kerry didn't want a whole lot of dittoheads shouting "four more years" at every tour stop, as well. It just seems like this government does its best to withhold everything it can from the public and keep anything that might be seen as weakness (like admitting a mistake) far, far from the eye of the camera.

It just gives me the same sick feeling about government I get when I watch "JFK."

My 2 cents.

I think if that was the case novafan then Osama's tape would have said so.

These are all value judgements which you are making. There is no fundamental right or wrong, just what you believe it to be. And if a vast majority in a society share your beliefs, than that will be practiced. Under our current, ever evolving beliefs, all those things you named are wrong, and i'd agree that they are, but societies evolve and change, and though you may oppose these changes, they have precedent and are not wrong just because you say they are.

Wow. You're actuially saying there is no such thing as fundamental human rights? When they wrote we believe these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, That's not true?

How is I'm opposing change when it's you who want prevent a new definition of Marriage. i'm for change you're not.

Change what your saying to interacial marriages and that you want to stop it befoire something worse imposes their will. It's better to stop blacks and whites frrom marrying because if we allow that then it means other group will want marriage too. Should we have stopped interacial marriage from being legalised so the homosexuals wouldn't have a leg to stand on?

You have not give one single reason why Gay marriage in and of itself is wrong. You say if we allow it then it could or will lead to the end of age of consent etc etc. (btw Age of consent laws aren't legislating morality it's protecting children from sexual abuse.) Assume that Gay marriage was to be allowed under the condition that if they allow it. then marriage can only be between TWO people OVER the age of 18, and there can be no challenges on this definition ever again. Would you still oppose Gay marriage?

And despite what you say about having no problem with hoomosexuals you'e connected it far too often to pedophilia for me to believe that you are being honest about that.

The Majority believe something. That in and of itself doesn't make it right. All beliefs need to be challenged it's the only to ensure that these beliefs are worthy. People didn't wake up one day and say you know I think women do deserve to have the same rights as men. That had to be fought for the old system had to be challenged.

Do you believe that it was a bad thing that a minorty of African Americans 'forced' their belief that they are every bit of deserving to have an equal place in society?

In regards to Clinton and how he handled terrorists, I offer the following from the Washington Post:

"In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation — from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) — that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.

. . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed — he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier — recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.

". . . people maintain Clinton should have adapted Bush's policy promising that regimes that harbor terrorism will be treated as severely as terrorists themselves, and threatening to evict the Taliban from power in Afghanistan unless leaders meet his demands to produce bin Laden and associates. But Clinton aides said such a policy — potentially involving a full-scale war in central Asia — was not plausible before politics the world over became transformed by one of history's most lethal acts of terrorism."

PAD

"About the Iraq Al-Queda connection...

the polls said 70% of Americans, not just right wing conservatives believed the connection, and without knowing the poll question, this could be misleading."

Well, hell, dude, you've got me cold, it seems. If only I had said "70% of Americans" instead of "70% of conservatives."

Wait...just give me a minute to scroll up so I can reproduce my shamefully misleading posting. Okay, yeah: Here it is. My false and vicious mischaracterizing of conservatives:

"Bush and Company mentioned Saddam, threats, and 9/11 so often and so frequently together that they managed to falsely convince 71% of Americans that Saddam was behind, or connected to, 9/11."

Oh dear. Why...it appears I did NOT single out conservatives. It appears I did, in fact, state exactly what the article said. Could it be that conservatives on this board are trying to twist what I said and make it sound like I'm bashing those in the right wing? No. Never. I refuse to believe it.

PAD

PAD,
Really, PAD. If you're going to cite cases to support Clinton's case, don't you think you can find a more informative source...than the man's biography?
On that same point, you stood in line for Clinton's book to be one of the first to get it and were proud to do so, right?
Didn't Clinton sign the Defense of Marriage Act? In your opinion, why wasn't that "legislating bigotry"?
Honestly, as you would say with Bush, he had two years with a Congress controlled by his own party to achieve things, and the only significant part of what he was able to accomplish in those two years that could be remotely described as liberal was the 1993 budget that raised taxes ( and did, to be fair, lead to a balanced budget).
Yet he blew a chance to improve health care. Even Dole was on board, and he blew a historic opportunity. He subsequently signed Welfare Reform, NAFTA, supported the death penalty, and weakened the Kyoto Treaty before Bush had a chance to reject it.
If he had an R after his name and had done these things, I rather doubt you would be standing in line waiting for his book.
But you defend him tooth and nail, while calling Bush a bigot.
Why?
Seriously, especially in his first two years, what did Clinton do to reduce or end the War on Drugs, an absolute joke that has infringed more on civil liberties than the Patriot Act has? Why don't you ever bring these things up? Why doesn't Clinton inspire your ire a fraction as much for doing these things and failing to do more when he had the political capital to do so?
Why?

"Maybe its normal proceedure for a political campaign, but for someone that has worked in the media, it just feels like suppression, which irks me 10x more than when the other side is crowing about something I don't like."

But, the big difference is that the protestors weren't being told they couldn't protest, just where they could protest. Protesting on site might make the protesors feel better, but does it really change anyone's mind about a particular issue? I think back to some speech Dick Cheney was giving, and some protestor jumped up in the balcony and started screaming things at Cheney during his speech. She was promptly "escorted" out of the room, and became a little side note in the coverage of the speech. What was she protesting or what did she say? I have no idea. It was just a disruption that didn't affect Cheney's speech, and put a poor light on the the woman.

This is a widespread problem. The sad fact is that protest has been rendered nearly completely pointless in the last ten years. Protesters are forced miles away from their targets (and by "targets" I mean the people the protestors are trying to deliver their message to), and the media doesn't cover the content of the protests. Rather than focus on why they're protesting, and perhaps get off their asses and do some actual journalism, they're content to find the fraction of the group who chooses violent or otherwise inappropriate means of expression.

Unless things change in the future, protest is dead.

From the Washington Post:

...The Clinton administration had defined its enemy as narrowly as its military instruments. Bin Laden and his aides were targets, but not the Talbian regime that gave them sanctuary.

..... For the next two years, Clinton pursued a policy of economic sanctions against the Taliban and sent numerous messages to the de facto government of Afghanistan requesting bin Laden's delivery for trial. Frustrated by the Taliban's lack of cooperation, Clinton's emissaries took on a more menacing tone in the spring of 2000. But though the administration deliberately raised the specter of military confrontation, it chose in the end to step back.

..... In Washington, however, Clinton's national security cabinet stopped short. "There were verbal scoldings, but that was about it," Shelton said. "There never was any consideration of going after the Taliban.

www.cnn.com
Bob Kerry pretty much hits the nail on the head here. I will say, however, that I think the Bush administration should have come in and cracked down on Al Qaeda when they came into power.

Those attacks included the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993; the bombing of Khobar Towers, a U.S. military housing complex in Saudi Arabia, in 1996; the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998; and the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000.

Commission member Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska, said he thought it was a "big mistake" that despite repeated provocations, only one military strike was launched against al Qaeda before September 11: a cruise missile attack on targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998.

"I don't understand, if we're attacked and attacked and attacked, why we continue to send the FBI over, like the Khobar Towers was a crime scene or the East African embassy bombings was a crime scene," said Kerrey, who had called for a declaration of war against al Qaeda before September 11.

"I keep hearing the excuse that we didn't have actionable intelligence. Well, what the hell does that say to al Qaeda?"

James Tichy wrote...

"But not only did Clinton fail to catch bin Laden. He also rebuffed the Sudanese government's offers to capture him."

I direct you to Al Frankens "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" page 113...

***************************************
Reliable Sources

In "Let Freedom Ring" (Sean) Hannity outlines a charge that he frequently makes both on television and on the radio: that Clinton let bin Laden slip from his grasp. He writes,

"It is truly astonishing. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and their liberal allies on Capitol hill were offered Osama bin Laden by the Sudanese government, and they were turned down. They could have taken him into custody and begun unraveling his terrorist network almost six years ago. But they didn't. And now more than three thosand innocent Americans have paid with their blood."

That IS astonishing. Hard to think of a more serious charge. You want to be damned sure you have that one locked own pretty tight before you put it into print.

But knowing what we already know about Sean Hannity and the standards to which he holds himself, what arethe chances that this whole thing is baloney?

His entire case comes from a guy named Mansoor Ijaz, a pakistani-American who claims to have transmitted the offer as a middleman between the U.S. and the Sudan. I got the story on Ijaz from former National Security Advisor Sandy Bergman and from Daniel Benjamin, past director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council and now senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Berger only had to meet once with Ijaz to determine that he was an unreliable freelancer, pursuing his own financial interests. Ijaz was an investment banker with a huge stake in Sudanese oil.

Ijaz had urged Berger to lift santions against Sudan. Why the sanctions? Because Sudan was and remains a notorious sponser of terrorism, harboring Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda. Also, the Sudanese regime is the leading state sponser of slavery and is considered by many to be untrustworthy. Ijaz, however, was arguing their case. As Benjamin said of Ijaz, "Either he allowed himself to be manipulated, or he's in bed with a bunch of genocidal terrorists."

Ijaz said that Sudan was ready to hand over bin Laden. The U.S. does not conduct diplomacy through self-appointed private individuals. When the U.S. talked to Sudan, there was no such offer. The U.S. pursued every lead and tried to negotiate. Nothing.

The story does have a happy ending. Ijaz now has a job as foreign affairs analyst for the Fox News Channel.

************************************

^^^

Typos above are my own.

Peter David provided:
"The Washington Post found that 69 percent of all Americans believe that Hussein worked with al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden to carry out terrorist plans nearly two years ago. In fact, the poll found that even a majority Democrats and independents believe Hussein was a key player."

Has anyone actually examined this particular poll in question? What was the sample size? Who was asked this question? How was the question worded? Sorry, but after all this time, I still find it hard to believe that 69% (or 70%) of ALL AMERICANS felt this way... I don't belive I know anyone who thought Saddam worked with OBL in the attacks on America on 9/11. Anyone here think that or was anyone here actually polled about it? Hmm... didn't think so.

The Goring quote is relevant to Iraq. Bush and Company mentioned Saddam, threats, and 9/11 so often and so frequently together...

The main difference between supporters of the Iraq war and the opposition is that those who support it see it as part of the war on global terrorism and state sponsors, those who oppose it see it as a separate event. Those who support it think that enabling the spread of freedom over dictatorship in the Islamic world is a good thing in the long run, even though it's painful in the short run. Those who oppose it apparently have no problem with the Saddams and Iranian mullahs keeping millions of people under their thumbs - all in the name of maintaining the status quo.

The West tried the ignore/appease route in the Middle East for decades. We figured if we ignored fundamentalist Islam, it would go away before it got serious. Saudi Arabia is still the best example of this. How many people are dying in Saudi Arabia because we are allied with the regime there? Next, you might say something like in Iraq they are dying as a direct result of our actions rather than indirect. How many people are dying in Iraq because we are an occupying force? How many were dying there because of sanctions? In every scenario: ally, sanctions or war, the US has received criticism that people die as a result of our foreign policy.

In the gay marriage thread, you've talked a lot about how conservatives want to keep the status quo, and how liberals want to move forward. Isn't it ironic that a conservative president is the one who is not accepting the status quo in response to Islamic terrorism in the Middle East?

Anyway, it's clear that we disagree on the most basic underpinnings in this discussion, so I doubt we'll ever be able to get past that into the finer points.

It's fascinating to see incredibly interesting news about the candidates coming out now--when it's way too late to do anything about it.

Case in point-- Newsweek has an amazing issue full of stuff they promised not to divulge until after the election, such as the unbelievable story of Kerry's attempts to get John McCain to be his vice president, even going so far as to offer him Secretary of Defense and put McCain in charghe of national security...a job that the, you know, CONSTITUTION gives to the president.

McCain, knowing that the wto of them would probably have won in a landslide, offerred the opportunity to be the second (or arguably, MOST) most powerful man on Earth, turned it down, telling Kerry he was crazy.

We should have known about this.

A man this nuts came within a few hundred thousand votes of getting into office.

Promises shmaises. When you have a story like that you ought to run with it. Shameful.

I wonder what would have happened if CBS 60 Minutes would have been able to wait until the last Sunday of the election to run the news report of the missing weapons in Iraq.

Thank goodness someone put a stop to that. They should be given a medal.

Here's a question for you. Why didn't Kerry through his medals away along with everyone else? He saved his medals and threw away his ribbons. Didn't he wear his medals to the Congressional hearing? Hmmmm.

ugghh, it shold have been 'throw', not 'through' in the above post.

Novafan

Bill, you said "We should have known about this."

I agree. However, most of the press and tv stations are biased towards liberals and would not report a story like that until they thought they would get some gain out of it.

I think it's amazing how everytime I turned on the tv, there was a story blasting Bush and nothing on Kerry except for praises, etc. He never had to answer for anything.

I think we owe a lot to Bloggers who quickly jumped on any false reports that the biased media reported.

Thank goodness for the internet, which was developed by Gore, right? :0)

One of my biggest concerns about the next four years is that it will, in many people's minds, become completely acceptable to accuse anyone who dares to disagree with the President of treason. This is rather chilling, especially in view of the fact that this country wouldn't exist if not for dissenting political speech.
It's also pretty goddamn hypocritical, in view of the mudslinging that went on during the Clinton administration. I don't recall anyone yelling "Traitor! Traitor!" at Linda Tripp or Paula Jones or the mopes accusing the Clintons of murder and drug-trafficking.
It bugs me that I can't, in good conscience, display anything that says "Support Our Troops," even though I do, because so many people think you can't support the people fighting the war and still be against the war itself.
It bugs me that "liberal" is being used as a pejorative term by those who call themselves "conservative." Yeah, I'm a liberal. As in "Liberty." You know, the word we have on all our money? That was there before "In God we trust?" "Liberty," as in "Freedom?" The thing the American Revolution was all about?
Four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded George W. Bush the White House, a co-worker of mine who had supported Bush asked me what I thought about the decision. I said, more or less:
"Well, I'm not too happy about it, but the decision is made. He's the man until at least 2005. I had reasons for not voting for him, and I think they were valid reasons. That said, I'm not wishing him ill. I hope he's a great success, for all our sakes. He's going to be the leader of the free world for at least four years, so how can I say I hope he fails? That would be terrible! Nothing would make me happier than to be able to look back in Novemeber 2004 and say, 'I was wrong about him. He's done a fine job. He's been a good President.'"
Now, contrast that with these actual quotes from another Bush-supporting co-worker, which I heard over the course of the day Tuesday:
To a longtime friend and former co-worker, who was a Kerry supporter: "You are no longer welcome in my home." To another co-worker: "If Kerry wins, I'm flying my flag in distress [upside-down]." During several loud phone conversations with friends and family members: "If [Kerry] wins, there'll be a big terrorist attack." "Bin Laden wants Kerry to win." "We'll all have to work three jobs just to live." "He'll take orders from the French." And my personal favorite: "He'll open up the borders and let in all them Mexicans."
So you'll have to excuse me if my first thought on seeing the results on Wednesday was, "Jesus Christ, they all swallowed that crap." My apologies to all conservatives and Republicans who weren't [i]that[/i] panicked about the possible consequences of a Kerry win.
Bush says he wants to be a uniter for real this time, that he wants a bipartisan effort to solve a lot of problems at home and abroad. I hope to God he means it this time--or at least, that someone explains to him that "being a uniter" and "bipartisan effort" doesn't mean telling everyone who disagrees to shut up and do as they're told.

Paul

Paul1963 wrote...
One of my biggest concerns about the next four years is that it will, in many people's minds, become completely acceptable to accuse anyone who dares to disagree with the President of treason.

It seems that to a lot of people, that's already the case. It's this sort of brainlessness that makes it tempting to write off Bush supporters as a bunch of zealots. It's simply astounding that people would say such things.

Paul1963 wrote...
It bugs me that "liberal" is being used as a pejorative term by those who call themselves "conservative."

That's got to be the only place in the world where "liberal" has somehow become a 4-letter word. Hell, in Canada it's the name of our ruling party.

As for who Osama would have wanted to be elected, one could make a case for either candidate. He could have wanted Bush to win, since his foreign policies are likely creating terrorists at a highly increased rate. Or, he could have wanted Kerry, if he somehow believed that Kerry would be "soft" on terrorism.

Isn't it more likely, though, that he just doesn't care? He's going to hate the U.S. either way, and I'm sure he was quite satisfied seeing the extensive damage he's done by dividing the country so effectively.

One of my biggest concerns about the next four years is that it will, in many people's minds, become completely acceptable to accuse anyone who dares to disagree with the President of treason.

Do you not remember the Gore rant?

They betrayed this country!

It's apparently already acceptable to accuse the President OF treason.

However, I think it's pretty crass to accuse the opposition party as treasonous. I've not heard it done in my part of the country - and I'm in Texas :)

I guess I'd be bitter too if my candidate lost by almost 4 MILLION votes, and my Party lost 3 seats in the senate, including minority leader Tom Daschel, lost about 16 in the House. Yeah. I'd be bitter too.

So instead of saying, maybe the Democratic party needs to change and do a better job of bringing our message out to the people, what are you guys doing? Getting angrier & going further to the left. You guys keep that up and you'll loose again in '08.

Kerry lost despite the fact that he had the support from VOTE FOR CHANGE concert tour. he had Springstein, Peral Jam, Mellencamp, REM, James Taylor, Dixie Chicks, Bonnie Rait, Stevie Wonder, Dave Matthews Band, etc. He had Move On.org, Hollywood actors like Streisand, Affleck, Dicapprio, He had the support of CBS & NBC News, and he lost by almost 4 MILLION votes.

Kerry lost despite promising every american health care, promising to lower taxes on the middle class & raising taxes on the rich. Hell, he promised just about everything under the sky and he lost. The DNP threw the best they had to offer and lost by almost 4 MILLION votes.

Notice, Senator Clinton is doing it very smart, Her voting record this year is very moderate & she will put herself more in the middle. She just saw that the far left doesn't win the presidency in this country. If she keeps that up she will have a good chance in '08.

"Oh dear. Why...it appears I did NOT single out conservatives. It appears I did, in fact, state exactly what the article said. Could it be that conservatives on this board are trying to twist what I said and make it sound like I'm bashing those in the right wing? No. Never. I refuse to believe it."

Sorry, i messed up in my post. I mixed things up in my head. Mistakes happen, and i didn't try to twist what you said. But you did say one of the reasons that the Republicans won the election was because Americans are stupid, and i think thats a really poor thing to say. You can't judge intelligence from one poll. And regardless of the intelligence of Americans, in our system, a mainly representative democracy, a stupid persons vote matters just as much as an intelligent persons. And by complaining about idiots putting our pres in office, it sounds sometimes like you are almost advocating an oligarchy, where just the liberals, who are obviously much smarter than the conservatives and Americans who voted for Bush because of that false connection, should rule.

Thats not how our system works, and i'm insulted by talk like this. Its a little condecending (sp.), saying that the Republicans won because their supporters are idiots. And i'm sure that some of them are, and i'm sure that some liberals are too, but that doesn't mean their votes don't count, and their ideas shouldn't be respected.

And about what i've said about gays and relating it to pedophilia. I don't think gays are immoral or wrong, i was using it as an example of something that in our society is determined to be wrong. Perhaps pedophilia was a bad example, but necrophilia or polygamy are better ones. These are determined to be wrong in our society, even though they don't really hurt anybody, (cept perhaps disrespecting a body). Just as these are determined to be wrong, by an overwhelming majority, and they are outlawed, an overwhelming majority could outlaw gay marriage. America discriminates against groups all the time, like polygamists, and necrophiliacs, and drug abusers, and NAMBLA members, there doesn't have to be a reason better than protection of the status quo, it happens. And though you may disagree, unless you are prepared to be rid of all social and moral legislation which exists, which i highly doubt even most gay marriage advocates are prepared to do.

Paul,

I could give you almost an exact word for word example of a KERRY supporter who was just as big a dick at my wife's job the day after the election. So let's just agree that both sides have their share of tools. Whatcha gonna do?

People keep bringing up polygamy. As a person who supports gay marriage I don't really know what to say to someone who says that if we allow it we will soon be allowing polygamy as well. It's not an entirely specious argument. I mean, who is hurt by it? You can argue that most polygamous marriages are pretty creepy these days but that could well be due to it being illegal.

Other than purely religious reasons, why should polygamy be illegal? If anyone has a good argument, let me know. I'm not in favor of making it legal but maybe, for consistancy's sake, I should be.

From Media Matters for America

TOP TEN REASONS WHY MEDIA MATTERED IN THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL RACE:

1. FOX News Channel
2. MSNBC
3. CNN
4. The Washington Times
5. The Washington Post
6. The Wall Street Journal
7. The New York Times
8. NBC
9. ABC
10. CBS
BONUS: The Rush Limbaugh Show

URL http://mediamatters.org/items/200411030002

See above for details on how the media did not provide fair and balanced coverage of the candidates, and how the right wing slander machine works.

The founder of the organization is David Brock, a reformed right-wing slander master. Due to his experience, he is very familiar with right wing smear tactics and media manipulation

Bill Mulligan wrote...
As a person who supports gay marriage I don't really know what to say to someone who says that if we allow it we will soon be allowing polygamy as well.
*snip*
Other than purely religious reasons, why should polygamy be illegal? If anyone has a good argument, let me know. I'm not in favor of making it legal but maybe, for consistancy's sake, I should be.

Well, from a completely objective, liberal, non-religious point of view, there should be nothing wrong with polygamy. As long as everyone participating in the marriage(s) is a consenting adult, there's no real reason to outlaw it...

except that it clashes with other rights. For example, if a man has 12 wives, and each wife has 2 kids, there's no way that this guy is going to be able to support 24 children. I think that would be the basic argument against polygamy (particularly polygyny, which is by far more common that polyandry). If someone could come up with a system to get around that issue, and if all participants in the polygamy were consenting individuals, I guess there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to go ahead and get married.

ECK wrote...
URL ">http://mediamatters.org/items/200411030002

I like the size-adjusted electoral map.

You've got to be kidding me ECK. 9 out of 10 of those media that you listed are slanted towards liberals, not conservatives.

Imagine CBS and/or the New York times saying anything positive about Bush. Egads.

And like that site you showed isn't biased at all. What the heck is a conservative agenda anways?

Novafan said...
And like that site you showed isn't biased at all. What the heck is a conservative agenda anways?

You're right, but at least the site is up-front about its bias.

"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

I'm sure the "conservative agenda" can be loosely defined as the determination to get conservatives/Republicans elected at any cost, and a willingness to distort the truth or fabricate outright lies to accomplish that goal.

Are there people with a similar "liberal agenda?" Undoubtedly.

The fact that this site is biased doesn't necessarily mean it's inaccurate. And if it does have some inaccuracies, that doesn't mean that everything it prints is bullshit.

It's up to the reader to sift through the material.

"I have no problem with people. I don't care what they do in their own place, as long as they leave me and my friends alone and understand that they had better stay away from me and mine."

Am I a bigot? Or just an unfriendly person?

If I get more specific about who I don't want near me, or more specific about who I do want near me... what business is that of yours?

Then what business is it of yours to saddle me with your "bigot" label?

"The righties spent the Clinton years listening to Flush Limbaugh demonize liberals, and now they wonder why the other side does the same to them."

if the reason why we are demonized is THIS... then those doing the demonized are goshdamn CHILDREN.

"There is no fundamental right or wrong, just what you believe it to be. And if a vast majority in a society share your beliefs, than that will be practiced. Under our current, ever evolving beliefs, all those things you named are wrong, and i'd agree that they are, but societies evolve and change, and though you may oppose these changes, they have precedent and are not wrong just because you say they are."

Sorry, I don't buy moral relativism. Try to sell it somewhere else.

"I'm not entirely sure we'll even survive it."

I'll bet you ten dollars that we do!

"A man this nuts came within a few hundred thousand votes of getting into office.

Promises shmaises. When you have a story like that you ought to run with it. Shameful."

My God! You mean John Kerry actually envisioned a bi-partisan presidency, working hand in glove with a man he likes and respects and he felt could serve this country...a man demonized by his own party even though he was a POW in Vietnam while the man the party preferred had his daddy pull strings to keep him out of the war?

Shame! Shame, I say!

PAD

My God! You mean John Kerry actually envisioned a bi-partisan presidency, working hand in glove with a man he likes and respects and he felt could serve this country...a man demonized by his own party even though he was a POW in Vietnam while the man the party preferred had his daddy pull strings to keep him out of the war?

Shame! Shame, I say!

PAD

Ahem. Back in reality-based world (as opposed to the emotion-based one), here's some of what Newsweek reports:

"To show just how sincere he was, he made an outlandish offer. If McCain said yes, he would expand the role of vice president to include secretary of Defense and the overall control of foreign policy."

McCain's response? "You're out of your mind. I don't even know if it's constitutional, and it certainly wouldn't sell."

I'm with McCain on this one. Unconstitutional and indicative of someone who is out of his mind. Had this come out before the election Kerry would have lost by an even wider margin.

I wonder if all of the "plans" Kerry had were as nutty as this one.

If McCain does run for president in 2008 it might be tough for Democrats to argue that he isn't fit to lead...after all, THEIR guy was willing to cede him control of foreign policy!

I wonder what the Democrat spin would have been had McCain made all this public?

Novafan wrote:
"You've got to be kidding me ECK. 9 out of 10 of those media that you listed are slanted towards liberals, not conservatives.
Imagine CBS and/or the New York times saying anything positive about Bush. Egads."

Obviously, you didn't follow the URL. For each of the 10 media outlets listed, there are several examples of conservative bias. Now, in the fact-based ones you listed, such as the NY Times and CBS (and yes, they do sometimes get things wrong) the repeating of the conservative talking points in a misguided attempt to be even-handed. Or just lazy reporting.

9 out of 10 are liberal? I'd like to see your list. That just isn't true. Let's take a look at a few

Fox. Pretty self-evident, very conservative bias. See Media Matters, outfoxed, watch it for an hour.

Washington Times: Owned by Rev. Moon, who was recently proclaimed King of the World and living Messiah by some Repubs.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/06/21/moon/index_np.html
http://www.gorenfeld.net/blog/2004_05_01_barchive.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38947
http://www.gorenfeld.net/blog/2004/05/im-and-i-approve-this-messiah.html

The Wall Street Journal: Although neutral to slightly conservative on the news pages, but on its editorial page, facts are out the window

There you go, three with strong conservative (or neo-conservative) bias. Just enough to show your 9 out of 10 figure as totally baseless. And as for the rest, I recommend you go check out the URL for media matters that I posted before

As for David Brock, who runs the biased but FACT BASED website, you can hear him on the Al Franken Show on Air America Radio (airamericaradio.com/listen.asp, another biased but FACT BASED source)
And some interviews that you can read
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/2002/03/David_Brock_031802.html
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/06/int04029.html

And the next time you make a flat assertion "Like 9 out of 10 are liberal," please be knid enough to include some sources.

Bill Mulligan said...
If McCain does run for president in 2008 it might be tough for Democrats to argue that he isn't fit to lead

That's true, and while the Democrats would obviously try to defeat him, they wouldn't be nearly as upset if they lost than they are now.

It's not the fact that Republicans are in the White House per se that has many Democrats so upset...it's the current administration's extremism.

I'm sure many Democrats would be perfectly comfortable with a moderate Republican like McCain in charge.

Novafan wrote:
"You've got to be kidding me ECK. 9 out of 10 of those media that you listed are slanted towards liberals, not conservatives.
Imagine CBS and/or the New York times saying anything positive about Bush. Egads."

Obviously, you didn't follow the URL. For each of the 10 media outlets listed, there are several examples of conservative bias. Now, in the fact-based ones you listed, such as the NY Times and CBS (and yes, they do sometimes get things wrong) the repeating of the conservative talking points in a misguided attempt to be even-handed. Or just lazy reporting.

9 out of 10 are liberal? I'd like to see your list. That just isn't true. Let's take a look at a few

Fox. Pretty self-evident, very conservative bias. See Media Matters, outfoxed, watch it for an hour.

Washington Times: Owned by Rev. Moon, who was recently proclaimed King of the World and living Messiah by some Repubs.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/06/21/moon/index_np.html
http://www.gorenfeld.net/blog/2004_05_01_barchive.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38947
http://www.gorenfeld.net/blog/2004/05/im-and-i-approve-this-messiah.html

The Wall Street Journal: Although neutral to slightly conservative on the news pages, but on its editorial page, facts are out the window

There you go, three with strong conservative (or neo-conservative) bias. Just enough to show your 9 out of 10 figure as totally baseless. And as for the rest, I recommend you go check out the URL for media matters that I posted before

As for David Brock, who runs the biased but FACT BASED website, you can hear him on the Al Franken Show on Air America Radio (airamericaradio.com/listen.asp, another biased but FACT BASED source)
And some interviews that you can read
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/2002/03/David_Brock_031802.html
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/06/int04029.html

And the next time you make a flat assertion "Like 9 out of 10 are liberal," please be knid enough to include some sources.

and put McCain in charghe of national security...a job that the, you know, CONSTITUTION gives to the president.

The way I read things, it would be the positions of Secretary of Defense and National Security Adviser.

But hey, Bush is allowed to create offices and departments in the government...

I'm with McCain on this one. Unconstitutional and indicative of someone who is out of his mind.

I don't see why it's so insane of an idea. I think the insane part is that McCain is willing to bend over backwards for his party, rather than caring about the country as a whole.

"It's up to the reader to sift through the material."

Oh, that's just great. I already have a hard enough time sifting through the information put out by CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, etc.

Now, I have to sift through the material on a site that leans so far to the left it isn't even funny. Good grief. I think I'll pass on that one. I'll stick with the liberal media sifting from proposed reputable sources.

Oh, good grief. So 7 out of 10 makes such a big difference as opposed to 9 out of 10. That's still more than half of the list that you said were slanted to the conservative side when the opposite is true. Am I right?

Novafan wrote...
Now, I have to sift through the material on a site that leans so far to the left it isn't even funny. Good grief. I think I'll pass on that one. I'll stick with the liberal media sifting from proposed reputable sources.

I was referring to all media, not this one site in particular.

If you'd truly rather take all information that you don't agree with and dismiss it outright, without even investigating it, then we have nothing further to discuss. I wouldn't imagine you're going to win over anybody with that attitude.

Posted by: Jeff Lawson at November 6, 2004 09:04 PM

Bill Mulligan said...
If McCain does run for president in 2008 it might be tough for Democrats to argue that he isn't fit to lead

That's true, and while the Democrats would obviously try to defeat him, they wouldn't be nearly as upset if they lost than they are now.
It's not the fact that Republicans are in the White House per se that has many Democrats so upset...it's the current administration's extremism.
I'm sure many Democrats would be perfectly comfortable with a moderate Republican like McCain in charge.

I agree. I could live with a McCain presidency. I could possibly even vote for him, say if the Democratic Nominee was Al Sharpton.

Posted by Novafan at November 6, 2004 09:24 PM

"It's up to the reader to sift through the material."

Oh, that's just great. I already have a hard enough time sifting through the information put out by CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, etc.

Now, I have to sift through the material on a site that leans so far to the left it isn't even funny. Good grief. I think I'll pass on that one. I'll stick with the liberal media sifting from proposed reputable sources.

Actually, if you had looked at the site, you would see that all it contains are quotes and transcripts from various shows (often with accompanying links to audio and visual clips). So what it is doing, essentially, is sifting through all the media for you.

By the way, there is no liberal media (outside of Air America, that is). Sorry. That's just one of those nice little Republican distortions.

ECK wrote...
By the way, there is no liberal media (outside of Air America, that is). Sorry. That's just one of those nice little Republican distortions.

I believe that's mostly true, but I was under the impression that a few media outlets, like the New York Times and possibly CBS, were more left-leaning than, say, FOX.

I get my news exclusively from Canadian outlets and The Daily Show, so I'm not too familiar with the American media.

"I think the insane part is that McCain is willing to bend over backwards for his party, rather than caring about the country as a whole."

You assume that McCain agrees with you that Kerry was better for the country than Bush. Obviously he disagrees, to the point where he gave up a great deal of power rather than ensure that kerry became president.

And I agree with those who think that McCaine would be acceptable to many Democrats...so there's a good chance we may have at least 8 years of republican administrations ahead of us. (He'd be 76 when he would have to run for a second term...possibly too old?)

Jeff Lawson wrote:
[b]That's got to be the only place in the world where "liberal" has somehow become a 4-letter word. Hell, in Canada it's the name of our ruling party.[/b]

Speaking as a fellow Canadian, I'd say that's [i]why[/i] it's a 4-letter word.

- Z

^ Sorry. If every board would be as sensible as this one and allow HTML, posts like that wouldn't happen.

- Z

Zeke, use > instead of [] for the html tags.

Zeke wrote...
Speaking as a fellow Canadian, I'd say that's why it's a 4-letter word.

Haha, a good point!

To clarify, the Liberal party has fallen out of favour as of late, particularly in certain areas of the country. My point, of course, was that the word liberal (small "L") hasn't been demonized here in the same way as it has in the States.

Jerome, is there, like, a conservative playbook or something that you guys are all working from? 'Cause it's the same crap over and over again.

I quote statistics, I'm asked for a source. I give the source, and the response is basically, "Well, it's the liberal media, can't trust it." People claim Clinton did such and such, I say, "Well, according to Clinton he actually did so-and-so," and the response is, "Well, you can't trust Clinton."

But ohhhhh, question any of the demonstrable lies that Bush and Co. have foisted upon the American public, and for shame! For shame! Criticize Bush and the playbook response is, "How dare you criticize Bush because, hey, you supported Clinton and Clinton did stupid stuff too!"

As if that's relevant. As if that has anything to do with anything. Yeah, I hated that Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage act. Which means...what? That Bush should get a free pass in supporting a constitutional amendment to disenfranchise one American out of ten?

Open your eyes.

PAD

Ok, Peter, you say "But ohhhhh, question any of the demonstrable lies that Bush and Co. have foisted upon the American public"

Can you provide examples of where Bush has lied to the stupid hicks that voted him back into office?

I'm not aware of any lies and I watch CBS, NBC, ABC, and visit CNN regularly. All of them have more of a liberal slant than conservative. I don't remember seeing any reports of these lies you mention. Can you direct me to the lies?

"Can you provide examples of where Bush has lied to the stupid hicks that voted him back into office? I'm not aware of any lies and I watch CBS, NBC, ABC, and visit CNN regularly. All of them have more of a liberal slant than conservative. I don't remember seeing any reports of these lies you mention. Can you direct me to the lies?"

You need to start reading more. It is nothing less than horrifying that TV is the main source for news when it doesn't even begin to address stories that can't be photogenic or summarized in ten second sound bytes.

In any event, beyond the obvious lies of "I'm a uniter, not a divider" and "I don't believe in nation building" and "We'll get Osama bin Laden dead or alive" and the whole thing about major operations being ended in Iraq (so the 1100+ and counting who have died since are just minor deaths, I guess) the following link should give you a nice intro into Bush's lies:

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm

PAD

Just wondering if any of you have seen "Voices of Iraq"? It is a powerful documentary. They gave 150 digital video cameras to Iraqis and the Iraqis made comments on the video from roughly January through September of this year.

This documentary exposes the story that some of you seem to ignore: What Iraq was really like before we invaded. For those of you who say about the holocaust in WW2, "never again," you seem to ignore that it indeed did happen in the last 20 years in Iraq where, by conservative estimates, at least 1 million (and some say 5 million) Iraqi's died under Saddam's cruel regime.

This documentary shows the true prison abuse that happened in Iraqi prisons, abuse that is far worse than anything we did there.

This documentary has people who are mad at America, who want us to leave, but it also has people who understand why we are there. It has very little commentary about what is being shown. Many of you will come out still feeling the war was a mistake. But you will at least see the truth of another side that is being widely ignored: we ARE doing some very good things in Iraq.

Obviously the directors had a choice in what footage they used. And they chose to use a lot of footage that had Iraqi's looking at the future with hope. But that does not lessen the impact of the documentary. You will hear and see a side of Iraq that you do not see on any of the mainstream media.

Jim in Iowa

"This documentary exposes the story that some of you seem to ignore: What Iraq was really like before we invaded."

Really. Does it show Saddam making WMDs?

Seriously. Because if it shows citizens being hurt, tortured, killed...well, not to sound cold, but there's lots of documentaries that can be made about lots of countries that's happened in. Now if you want to make the argument that America should be (with deference to Parker and Stone) the world police, storming in and taking over countries on a humanitarian basis, feel free. It's an interesting position to take.

But Bush never took it. If that had been his position, Congress would never have supported it. (And, let's face it, if 9/11 had never happened, Bush would never have gotten the authorization to invade in the first place). Bush's position was that we should invade Iraq specifically because Saddam was cultivating WMDs and had links to Al Qaeda. That's the bill of goods he sold, that's the reason we went to war, that's the reason 1100 and more young Americans have died, that's the reason we're stuck there, and absolutely every other position he's taken since then is post-invasion rationalizing.

PAD

Peter, you say "You need to start reading more. It is nothing less than horrifying that TV is the main source for news when it doesn't even begin to address stories that can't be photogenic or summarized in ten second sound bytes. In any event, beyond the obvious lies of "I'm a uniter, not a divider" and "I don't believe in nation building" and "We'll get Osama bin Laden dead or alive" and the whole thing about major operations being ended in Iraq (so the 1100+ and counting who have died since are just minor deaths, I guess) the following link should give you a nice intro into Bush's lies:"

I read things all the time from newspapers, to magazines, to comics, to great literature. How can you tell someone they need to read more when you have no idea if they do or don't? Don't you think this was a little bit presumptious on your part.

You might think that those statements are lies, but I don't. What proof do you have that his statements are lies besides your personal beliefs?

Do you agree that every politician goes for their party the majority of the time? If so, then don't tell me that the Democrats are more uniters than Republicans. It doesn't work that way. Bush has had several Democrats support him throughout the last 4 years. So, you could actually argue that he is a uniter by reaching across party lines succesfully.

So you're saying we are nation building in Iraq? I'm not sure if that's what you meant or not.

Osama will be found eventually. Bush saying he would get him dead or alive was not a lie. Or maybe you're saying when Bush said he wasn't really worried about Osama as much anymore. That still didn't make it a lie. He was telling the truth since most of Osama's network had been disrupted at that point in time.

Major operations did end in Iraq. The country was overrun and Saddam was removed from power and in hiding. This has been argued before by other people and you still consider this a lie?

In regards to the defense of marriage act, one of the main authors (REP. BOB BARR (R-GA)), came out and refused to support Bush for re-election (or 1st election, depending on your point of view) has criticized the current administration for the Patriot Act abuses and has come out against the marriage ammendment

Peter said "This documentary exposes the story that some of you seem to ignore: What Iraq was really like before we invaded." Really. Does it show Saddam making WMDs?

I guess you would say that Bush lied about the WMD's too. Didn't Kerry see the exact same intelligence that Bush saw? That wasn't a lie either. It was faulty intelligence. Want to know what happens when you receive faulty intelligence? see this:

"Clinton authorized the launching of missile in to both Sudan and Afghanistan based on intelligence that Osama was at the camp in Afghanistan and that the target in Sudan was a Chemical weapons factory. It turned out that neither was the case. Osama was long gone before the launch commenced and the chemical weapons factory was in fact an asprin factory. Both sites were selected based on intelligence gathered that was wrong"

So, how can you call someone a liar if they make a decision on faulty intelligence? Heck, most of the world believed Saddam had WMDs. The questions that should be asked are if he did have them, where did he put them. Or if he didn't have them, how could all of the intelligence sources have been so wrong.

I am a devout Christian living in a so-called "red state" and I did not vote for Bush (while I'm no Kerry fan and he ran a poor campaign he got my vote; I had to do whatever I could to get Bush out of office). I know many other Christians who didn't vote for W either.

This is not to discount the huge impact of conservative Christian voters on the election but to clarify that this is not solely a "religious vs. non-religious" vote issue.

Many of the same Christians who reduced the election to a Bush (good) vs. Kerry (evil) choice based on a few perceived "key" issues would also demonize me for the particulars of my individual views, regardless of how fervently I believe in Christ or attempt to follow his teachings.

Thus, regardless of how un-"Christlike" starting a war based on falsehoods and half-truths (and then doing little to nothing about yet another African genocide) is, because Bush says the "right" thing at the "right" time on, say, gay marriage, he is the "right" candidate for many. Given the general lack of knowledge, education and unwillingless to learn about the world among many Americans (see international rankings on such subjects as geography), it is much easier to zero in on hyped perceived right/wrong "issues" than to face the challenging prospect of intense study of complex matters with complex world-reaching implications.

Thus, if I talked of the notion that maybe Bush shouldn't get our vote because the administration has not been doing that great a job on the "War on Terror," which has implications for the welfare of the entire earth, it would be like a foreign language for many because their minds had already drawn lines between the candidates based on what they perceived as clear-cut "yes/no" issues, even when such labels were not as clear as they thought.

This struggle extends within the state of Christian religion itself. In many circles, it's depressingly more "say the right thing" over anything else (so much for freedom in Christ). If I don't think gay marriage should be illegal (personally, I think it's an infringement upon rights), it's unlikely I'll get a ministry position in a conservative church, regardless of the sincerity of my belief or the content of my character.

(This is not to say all religious people who voted for Bush are simple-minded or those that voted for Kerry aren't, nor am I saying that I am necessarily right... I'm just making trying to make sense of things based on my own many troubled observations.)

While I am distraught and discouraged that some of those of my faith had such a big role of re-electing Bush, I will maintain that it's not such a clear-cut issue as red religious vs. blue non-religious, as I and many others I know would have no place in such a framework. What place I do have is a frustrating question, but I am here and I am an American Christian.

ECK said or 1st election, depending on your point of view

And your point of view would be that Bush didn't win the 2000 election I take it. If that was the case, then why didn't Gore run against him again in 2004. If the election was stolen from him, why didn't he prove it this year? How exactly did Bush not win the first election again? Is it the 'popular vote' argument? Or do you think Gore was robbed in Florida? That the recount was not corect?

I've said before that I didn't care who won the 2000 election because both candidates were acceptable to me. But for someone to say he didn't win the 1st election really bothers me since it isn't true.

Action Speedo, you said If I don't think gay marriage should be illegal (personally, I think it's an infringement upon rights), it's unlikely I'll get a ministry position in a conservative church, regardless of the sincerity of my belief or the content of my character.

I'm curious. How can a Christian believe in gay marriage? Doesn't the Bible say it's an abomination? Can you let me know how you came to this conclusion? Maybe you can change my mind.

Did you know that the person you voted for voted against the ban on partial birth abortion 6 times? Have you ever seen this procedure done?

Well, before we all go zonky here, let's all calm down and get to the crux of the problem:

The crux of the problem as far as terrorism and more specifically OBL is concerned is that the government has been crisis-respondent instead of crisis-avoidant. That's why North America is a sitting duck for those guys.

BOTH the Clinton and Bush administrations had intelligence that indicated the potential for the 9/11 attack. Witness the FBI memos which advised of the presence of foreign flight students, which were ignored largely because they did not get to the right people.

OK. So both administrations can share blame, but in fact it's really irrelevant to point fingers now because that's all past. We have to deal with the present and focus on preventing another calamity of ewual or worse magnitude.

The problem is that Al Queda goes about its business and everyone scrambles to figure out what their true intent is. Well, here's a flash for you: their true intent is to destroy the Western way of life as we know it. Plain and simple. And they'll do it by any means possible because they put no value on human life and in fact encourage folks to go sacrifice themselves for a mythical heroism that they sell to these idiots.

Meantime at our end there is no coordination whatsoever as far as intelligence is concerned, and as long as this situation persists, OBL and his gang get to sit back and laugh while they watch everyone scurrying around like ants as they pull whatever strings they want to pull.

So forget all the stuff about who's to blame for this and who's to blame for that. What the government (Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter) and any allies they can convince to join in the cause, needs to do is get their collective s--t together and formulate a plan to:

1.) locate and isolate OBL and either take him out or capture him
2.) cut off the source of funding for terrorist activities, even if it means sanctioning Saudi Arabia. Now that's harsh, but it's also reality.
3.) determine the chain of command in AQ and eliminate all or part of it
4.) Eradicate the insurgents currently in Iraq to allow for some modicum of stabization of the country and subsequent downsizing of US forces

Surely with the resources that Western Civilization has at its disposal, someone (and I don't care of its President Bush or someone else in the administration or even someone in another country altogether) can take a strong leadership role to focus on these goals one at a time and achieve each one in a logical, progressive manner.

THEN we can start to worry about other matters in terms of social policies and the great societal chasm that needs to be healed.

But Bush never took it. If that had been his position, Congress would never have supported it. (And, let's face it, if 9/11 had never happened, Bush would never have gotten the authorization to invade in the first place). Bush's position was that we should invade Iraq specifically because Saddam was cultivating WMDs and had links to Al Qaeda. That's the bill of goods he sold, that's the reason we went to war, that's the reason 1100 and more young Americans have died, that's the reason we're stuck there, and absolutely every other position he's taken since then is post-invasion rationalizing.

Bush and Powell and others DID talk about the human rights abuses. I agree that WMD's were at the top of the list, but the human rights issues were very clearly a part. The issue of the Kurd's and the no fly zone, all factored into what was presented. Saddam shot daily at our planes that were doing what? Preventing Saddam from attacking and murdering the Kurds and others. The torture and mass executions were all talked about before we ever invaded. If that had been his only reason, I agree, he may not have been given the authorization. But that doesn't mean it was not said.

Let me point out, though, that I never said this film would give justification for WMD's or even for why Bush decided to go to war. I specifically said that this film documents a part of this story that has not been show on the news. Perhaps it is because of bias, or perhaps it is because it is too dangerous to get in there to do the work. Either way, this film shows a wide range of people and their lives in the war torn country.

I was told by many on this site that I needed to see F-911 by M. Moore before I judged it. I am suggesting the same standard be used here. I believe this movie is an extremely well made documentary that will show you a side of Iraq that you are not seeing anywhere else. It gives voices to the people of Iraq in a way that has not occurred since before Saddam took power.

Your point, also, seems to be secondary to the truth. Why does it matter if Bush never mentioned this? If it is the truth, then it should matter. Not to go back and "justify" the war, but to avoid a repeat of past mistakes. Isn't that why we say "never again" about WW2? And then, "never again" about the atrocities that happened in Rwanda, yet are repeating themselves in the Sudan?

Imagine, for a moment, that before Hitler invaded Poland, he turned on his own people and began executing all of the Jews in his country. I don't know if there were 6 million in Germany, but it really doesn't matter, the fact was that he was slaughtering them. The rest of Europe decided to "contain" him, but did not go in and remove him from power. He then tried invading Poland, but was beaten back. He then tried invading France, but was beaten back. During this time, he continued to be a brutal dictator over his own people.

How should the world have reacted? Should they have invaded to have stopped the first massacre? What if nothing was done then and it was 15 years later, and Hitler was still executing people (although the Jews were now somewhat protected by a no fly zone)?

That is what happened in Iraq. Saddam massacred over 150,000 Kurds. He murdered at least 1 million in his own country during his 24 year reign of terror. Whether it was Reagan, Bush H., or Clinton who should have done more, nothing was done. Whether for good reasons or bad, George W. chose to do something about it. The question remains, why was Saddam allowed to kill over 1 million people? Why does this not seem to matter?

Even if Bush was wrong to invade, why is there an unwillingness to be honest about the brutality of Saddam Hussein? This film is not a propoganda film giving Bush excuses for why he invaded. This is a documentary that puts faces to those who were tortured, had hands cut off, and who were put in mass graves. One Iraqi said it well in the film. There are French activists who fight for animal rights. Why are they not willing to fight for his rights as a human?

The documentary does not touch on WMDs. As I said, it is almost entirely what Iraqi's said into the camera, sometimes on their own, sometimes in response to a question (by another Iraqi).

It does touch on Al Qaeda (sp? I never remember and don't care to look it up). One person specifically says that Saddam welcomed and supported members of Al Qaeda in Baghdad. He gives some very specific stories about it. If true (since I understand that one person's comments do not prove it conclusively), it would show what Bush and Cheney actually said, that there are ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda (NOT that Saddam knew or was invovled with 9-11), is true.

For any of you who are daring enough to go and see the truth (and some of it is very brutal and graphic), then I encourage you to go and see this film. I don't care if you agree with Bush and why he went to war or not. If you can't face the facts of what Iraq was like then, and yes, the mess it is in now, it really will turn into the pit some of you already think it is.

Jim in Iowa

To avoid any confusion, let me clarify the following:

"One Iraqi said it well in the film. There are French activists who fight for animal rights. Why are they not willing to fight for his rights as a human? "

The Iraqi was referring to the 24 years Saddam was in power and nothing was done to stop him. He was not saying that he was now being abused and needed his rights protected.

Jim in Iowa

Some of Bush's old lies can be seen here, in this rare Bush vs. Bush debate
http://www.thedailyshow.com/mp/play.jhtml?reposid=/multimedia/tds/stewart/jon_7131.html&setplayer=real_media

Posted by Novafan at November 7, 2004 01:22 AM
>i I guess you would say that Bush lied about the WMD's too. Didn't Kerry see the exact same intelligence that Bush saw? >/i

No, Kerry did NOT see the same intelligence that the President saw. No Senator gets too see all of the same intelligence that the President sees. The Senate gets to see what the President allows them to see. The Senate was presented with all the dubious info, labeled as fact, without getting to see all contradicting info (e.g., yellowcake uranium, T-6 aluminum tubing)

"And your point of view would be that Bush didn't win the 2000 election I take it. If that was the case, then why didn't Gore run against him again in 2004. If the election was stolen from him, why didn't he prove it this year? How exactly did Bush not win the first election again? Is it the 'popular vote' argument? Or do you think Gore was robbed in Florida? That the recount was not corect?
"I've said before that I didn't care who won the 2000 election because both candidates were acceptable to me. But for someone to say he didn't win the 1st election really bothers me since it isn't true."
Posted by Novafan at November 7, 2004 01:30 AM

Alright, the recount wasn't done until well after Bush was in office. Immediate after the election in 2000, Gore asked for a recount of three counties in Florida. The Florida Supreme court stepped in and stopped the recount. A few days later, it was restarted for the entire state. At this point, the US supreme court stepped in and put a stop to the recount, declaring Bush the winner, 5-4, along party lines (I have knowingly skipped some of the steps involved for the sake of brevity).

Later, under a Freedom of Information Act inquiry (I believe, I'm too tired to google it right now) several new organizations got together and conducted a recount. The results:

If the recount had been limited to the three counties Gore had initially asked to be recounted, he still would have lost, by two hundred something votes instead of the 573

If the entire state had been recounted, Gore would have won,
http://www.drudgereport.com/mattv.htm -- notice, not a liberal source at all. you can google and find some others

Now keep in mind, that this is in addition to the tens of thousands of people erroneously removed from the voter registration rolls, under the guise of being felons, but for the actual crime of being black. This includes about 8000 people who committed misdemeanors -- not felonies -- in Texas.

And you said "But for someone to say he didn't win the 1st election really bothers me since it isn't true." Well, it really bothers me that such blatant election fraud could be perpetrated in my country. It really bothers me that when widespread disenfranchisement was occurring, all we heard about were dimpled chads and hanging chads. It really bothers me that the country that I grew up in has been stolen and turned into some kind of banana republic where it's OK to commit torture and ignore the Geneva conventions, where it is OK to arrest US citizens in a US city and to declare them an enemy combatant in order to whisk them away to another country to deprive them of the right of due process. And I am ever so slightly peeved that 51% of the former citizens of this country so obliviously unaware, or think that hating gays is more important that civil liberties or competent government, that they want to continue with the degradation of America.

"I read things all the time from newspapers, to magazines, to comics, to great literature. How can you tell someone they need to read more when you have no idea if they do or don't? Don't you think this was a little bit presumptious on your part."

Well, number one, I wasn't talking to you, and number two, since the poster listed nothing but TV news sources, my response was perfectly reasonable in saying he was representative of a sizable percentage of people who get their news only from TV, and I thought that was unfortunate.

Geez, why did I even bother to respond to you? No point. No point at all.

Won't make that mistake again.

PAD

"While I am distraught and discouraged that some of those of my faith had such a big role of re-electing Bush, I will maintain that it's not such a clear-cut issue as red religious vs. blue non-religious, as I and many others I know would have no place in such a framework. What place I do have is a frustrating question, but I am here and I am an American Christian."

I can understand your frustration. It's the same frustration I feel when, as a liberal, I'm lumped in with the most extreme proponents of liberalism. It's the frustration a moderate feminist feels when she's lumped in with women who believe that all men are potential rapists and thus should not be trusted. Or that Muslims feel when they're lumped in with people who distort the Koran so they can kill innocent people.

I mean, my wife is Catholic, for heaven's sake, so obviously I know that simply saying "Christian values" or somesuch is not one sweeping statement that means the same thing for all. To some, Christian values means Christian charity, to be forgiving and accepting of all. To others, it means to despise as hellbound sinners all those who do not share their exact views, and to treat them with accordant scorn.

PAD

"And you said "But for someone to say he didn't win the 1st election really bothers me since it isn't true." Well, it really bothers me that such blatant election fraud could be perpetrated in my country."

Yeah, well, hold on, it gets better. Remember how there was this exit polling that indicated Kerry was winning...and then, lo and behold, the machines said, no, Bush won, and people shrugged and said, Oh, well, the exit polling was wrong.

Not necessarily. Consider the interesting voting result in one precinct in Ohio:

Franklin County, OH: Gahanna 1-B Precinct
638 TOTAL BALLOTS CAST

US Senator:
Fingerhut (D) - 167 votes
Voinovich (R) - 300 votes

US President:
Kerry (D) - 260 votes
Bush (R) - 4,258 votes

No, that's not typos on my part. There were 658 ballots cast...and Bush got 4,258 votes. Look at that discrepency. Now think of an error such as that multiplied by twenty, maybe thirty districts, think of what Bush won Ohio by, and fear for your country just a little more.

PAD

You know, Jim, I'm getting kinda sick and tired of people comparing Iraq to the Holocaust. Especially when you're presenting the argument to someone who had relatives that died in German concentration camps. So it's pretty damned offensive to me that you're implying the situations are analagous when they're not. As if to be critical of Bush's war is to endorse the deaths of German Jews, because unless one supports Bush, then one is supporting the notion of allowing Jews to have been gassed. Yeah. Pretty damned offensive.

One million lives over 24 years? A tragedy. And compared to Hitler's annihilation of six million Jews in a fraction of the time (to say nothing of the millions more of other races)? Not even in the ballpark.

Furthermore, other countries didn't attack Hitler because he was killing Jews. They did it because he was trying to conquer them. And consider this: Sixty years ago, Europe told America that we should attack, and we ignored them. Three years ago, Europe told America we should NOT attack...and we ignored them.

If George Bush wanted a world wide coalition to go in and get Saddam on humanitarian grounds, then that's what he should have come forward with. He should have assembled a genuine gathering of nations and convinced them to do it. Instead he made half-assed claims based upon incomplete and false information, was dead wrong, damaged our credibility with the world, put us out on a limb and sawed it off behind us.

Yes, Saddam was a bad man. A very bad man, who belonged in the cornfield. And I believe he killed one million Iraqis in twenty four years. That's 41,666 Iraqis per year. So just out of curiosity, in the past eighteen months, how many Iraqis have we killed? Estimates range from 30,000 to as high as 100,000, what with our cluster bombs killing in one throw hundreds of Iraqi men, women and children who apparently were unaware that we're improving their lives. And we're just getting warmed up. The world is safer without Saddam in charge? My God, *Iraq* isn't safer without Saddam in charge.

Has anyone considered the possibility that they're trying to kill us because, to them, the only difference between us and Saddam is that, under Saddam, they had electricity and water?

As for people being killed, let's not forget to factor in that we've transformed Iraq, a country with no ties to Al Qaeda, into an Al Qaeda recruitment machine. Muslims who now believe everything bin Laden ever told them are hurrying to join the fight against the Great Satan. How many thousands, millions of lives will THEY be taking?

It's not as simple as you're making it. It never is. But one thing is simple, and that is that if Conservatives get to claim that, noooo, Iraq isn't the same as Vietnam because the body count can't compare, then I'm saying that Iraq isn't the same as the Holocaust because the body count can't compare. Of course, the difference is, we're the ones involved in the pile up now, with no end in sight. Pogo was right: We've met the enemy, and he is us.

PAD

"You know, Jim, I'm getting kinda sick and tired of people comparing Iraq to the Holocaust."

And some of us are getting sick and tired of people comparing the United States to Nazi Germany. But what can you do?

I was wondering how long before we'd see this:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/nyc-suic1107,0,2157220,print.story?coll=ny-nynews-headlines

"Distraught over the re-election of President George W. Bush, a Georgia man traveled to New York City, went to Ground Zero and killed himself with a shotgun blast, police said yesterday."

My favorite quote:"...Frank Franca, an East Village artist and registered Democrat, suggested the suicide was symbolic.

"I'm very moved by it," he said. "Obviously, this person was devastated. I can see why he would come here."

Can a little of sanity's light break through the darkness here? EVERY election is seen as Armageddon by the folks who lose. I had friends in college who were convinced that Ronald Reagan was going to launch World War 3 the day he took office. (those with a grasp of history may remember that this failed to take place). Get on with your lives! Democrats should talk to friends who are depressed and lift them up, before we see more of this madness (or the lesser but still crazy stuff, like the recent vanadalizing of the republican offices in Raleigh). Republicans should avoid gloating-karma can be a bitch.

PAD:
>>"You know, Jim, I'm getting kinda sick and tired of people comparing Iraq to the Holocaust."

Bill:
>And some of us are getting sick and tired of people comparing the United States to Nazi Germany. But what can you do?

I'd think that the most reasonable thing to do would be to carefully examine the similarities and distinctions, before casting the analogy aside or accepting it as valid. If dismissed completey, one can move on knowing that it doesn't fit. If central aspects hold true, initiate action, dialogue, etc to further ensure that history doesn't repeat itself.

To compare Iraq to the Holocaust isn't a fair comparison, to be sure. But then, we really didn't attack Germany to end the Holocaust (the news of the Holocaust was largely surpressed in this country by isolationists). We attacked Germany because Germany was invading a, as Stan Lee put it, "gobbling up countries" ... many of which were friends of the US. We also attacked Germany because they had chosen to associate with the nation which attacked Pearl Harbor. In comparison, we are now in Iraq as part of the War On Terror, establishing a more democratic government there. Saddam associated with Al Qaida, but did not have a direct hand in 9-11 (as the Commission concluded)... similarly to Hitler having associated with Imperial Japan, but not having a direct hand in the Pearl Harbor attack. There is the similarity. But to compare the Iraq front of the War On Terror specifically to the Holocaust isn't accurate.

Darin:

>We also attacked Germany because they had chosen to associate with the nation which attacked Pearl Harbor. In comparison, we are now in Iraq as part of the War On Terror, establishing a more democratic government there.

Hussein may have been a scumbag, but he doesn't fit with "the War on Terror".... well, he didn't until the definition of said war became so convoluted that it is impossible to define.

Also, consdering the fighting of a "War on Terror" and establishing democracy worldwide should never been viewed as synonomous. The first serves the entire world, while the latter is not only self-serving, but very egocentric.

>Saddam associated with Al Qaida, but did not have a direct hand in 9-11 (as the Commission concluded)... similarly to Hitler having associated with Imperial Japan, but not having a direct hand in the Pearl Harbor attack.

Nothing similar about it. Germany and Japan were allies, while bin Laden and Hussein had no use for each other and bin Laden had spoken out against the Iraqi leader on numerous occassions.

Fred

"Hussein may have been a scumbag, but he doesn't fit with "the War on Terror".... well, he didn't until the definition of said war became so convoluted that it is impossible to define."

Well, he sent big bucks to the families of people who murdered jews in Israel by blowing themselves up...if that's not supporting terrorism what is?

Fred, Saddam was a terrorist and a terrorist support ever since he gained political power in that region. That fact is indisputable.

"Also, consdering the fighting of a "War on Terror" and establishing democracy worldwide should never been viewed as synonomous."

When did I say anything about establishing democracy WORLDWIDE?

"Germany and Japan were allies, while bin Laden and Hussein had no use for each other and bin Laden had spoken out against the Iraqi leader on numerous occassions."

Bin Laden and Saddam would probably never have broken bread with each other, but their respective organizations were associating with each other throughout the 1990's. Al Qaida and Saddam's own terror network aided each other in that time. Again, the Commission verified this.

DW

Darin:

>>"Also, consdering the fighting of a "War on Terror" and establishing democracy worldwide should never been viewed as synonomous."

>When did I say anything about establishing democracy WORLDWIDE?

Sorry, I'll clarify and correct. Considering the fighting of a "War on Terror" and establishing a democracy in countries that do not currently run under one should not be viewed as synonomous.

>>"Germany and Japan were allies, while bin Laden and Hussein had no use for each other and bin Laden had spoken out against the Iraqi leader on numerous occassions."

>Bin Laden and Saddam would probably never have broken bread with each other, but their respective organizations were associating with each other throughout the 1990's. Al Qaida and Saddam's own terror network aided each other in that time. Again, the Commission verified this.

The U.S. had legal slavery, profited from young children working in mines, didn't give women the right to vote and until very recently had segregated schools and blatant bigotry in public places. All of these things, while atrocities, are in the past and would be sketchy at best in another nation's decision to invade us.

It was well known that bin Laden and Hussein were not allies. Bin Laden had regularly released statements about fighting against Hussein up until days before the U.S. invaded Iraq, placing Hussein in league with the U.S. as enemies.

Peter said Well, number one, I wasn't talking to you, and number two, since the poster listed nothing but TV news sources, my response was perfectly reasonable in saying he was representative of a sizable percentage of people who get their news only from TV, and I thought that was unfortunate. Geez, why did I even bother to respond to you? No point. No point at all.Won't make that mistake again.PAD

I'm just curious here Peter. Just who do you think you were responding to if you weren't talking to me? The poster you quoted was me so if you weren't talking to me, who were you talking to? You reposnded directly to the post you quoted didn't you? That poster was me wasn't it? Hmmm, in my book, 1 + 1 still equals 2.

You did to me exactly what Kerry did when the New York times article came out. You jumped to conclusions based on what was posted or printed out without researching the facts.

Did I forget to mention that you were responding to my post that you quoted again? Just wanted to make sure we were clear on that.

Novafan who needs to read more.

"Sorry, I'll clarify and correct. Considering the fighting of a "War on Terror" and establishing a democracy in countries that do not currently run under one should not be viewed as synonomous."

Okaaayyy... now when did I ever say or imply that they were synonymous?

"It was well known that bin Laden and Hussein were not allies."

They were allies, but they didn't particularly like each other. Their relationship is analgous to Hitler's with the Japanese Empiror. Hitler hated all races except his Aryan master race, yet he had working relationships with the Italians and the Japanese.

"The U.S. had legal slavery, profited from young children working in mines, didn't give women the right to vote and until very recently had segregated schools and blatant bigotry in public places. All of these things, while atrocities, are in the past and would be sketchy at best in another nation's decision to invade us."

I point out that Saddam's terror network and Al Qaida worked with each other throughout the 1990s and this is what you respond with? Let's keep this discussion reasonably timely.

Peter said No, that's not typos on my part. There were 658 ballots cast...and Bush got 4,258 votes.

Could you direct us to the news source that printed that information? I can't find it. If it's true, then I hope it's investigated.

Darin:

>>"Sorry, I'll clarify and correct. Considering the fighting of a "War on Terror" and establishing a democracy in countries that do not currently run under one should not be viewed as synonomous."

>Okaaayyy... now when did I ever say or imply that they were synonymous?

It appeared to be implied by your statement of "In comparison, we are now in Iraq as part of the War On Terror, establishing a more democratic government there." Cause and effect. If I misinterpreted, I apologize. Your meaning wasn't clear.

>>"It was well known that bin Laden and Hussein were not allies."

>They were allies, but they didn't particularly like each other. Their relationship is analgous to Hitler's with the Japanese Empiror. Hitler hated all races except his Aryan master race, yet he had working relationships with the Italians and the Japanese.

They were not allies when the U.S. used it as a basis for their invasion and hadn't been for some time.

>>"The U.S. had legal slavery, profited from young children working in mines, didn't give women the right to vote and until very recently had segregated schools and blatant bigotry in public places. All of these things, while atrocities, are in the past and would be sketchy at best in another nation's decision to invade us."

>I point out that Saddam's terror network and Al Qaida worked with each other throughout the 1990s and this is what you respond with? Let's keep this discussion reasonably timely.

Darin, you neglected to post my final statement, which tied my point to yours...."It was well known that bin Laden and Hussein were not allies. Bin Laden had regularly released statements about fighting against Hussein up until days before the U.S. invaded Iraq, placing Hussein in league with the U.S. as enemies."

Fred

Sorry, missed a point. The U.S.'s actions with the Contras, its previous support of Hussein, its self-serving actions in the Middle East are more recent examples in a long list. There are no white hats involved.

"It appeared to be implied by your statement of "In comparison, we are now in Iraq as part of the War On Terror, establishing a more democratic government there." Cause and effect. If I misinterpreted, I apologize. Your meaning wasn't clear."

You're right, you did misinterpret it. My meaning was clear.

"They were not allies when the U.S. used it as a basis for their invasion and hadn't been for some time."

That was one basis of a few for the invasion, in fact. Bush even said that any country which harbors terrorists (which, again, Iraq did) would be counted as an enemy. When Bush said that, every Democrat in the room sat up and applauded in agreement. Again, this basis was confirmed by the 9-11 Commission's findings.

"It was well known that bin Laden and Hussein were not allies."

It is NOW well known that they, in fact, were allies. Again, it's been established despite whatever rhetoric Bin Laden and Saddam spouted. They shared assets. And there is a historical precedent for this in that Hitler, who hated all races but his own, had allies in Russia, Japan and Italy.

DW

Nevermind, I found the following article which admits there was a problem, but also says the problem was found and corrected:

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/election/election-president.php?story=dispatch/2004/11/05/20041105-A6-01.html

Peter said No, that's not typos on my part. There were 658 ballots cast...and Bush got 4,258 votes. Look at that discrepency. Now think of an error such as that multiplied by twenty, maybe thirty districts, think of what Bush won Ohio by, and fear for your country just a little more.

I fear that there's actually people in this country that believe people rigged the election. That's what your getting at aren't you? Like it's not common for machines to fail sometimes. Did you watch Gates showing of his new operating system that worked with plug and plag to have the blue screen of death appear when he plugged in a scanner?

The problem was found and corrected. You're assuming that since Kerry lost, that it was due to fraud? Hmmm.

"Sorry, missed a point. The U.S.'s actions with the Contras, its previous support of Hussein, its self-serving actions in the Middle East are more recent examples in a long list. There are no white hats involved."

And by establishing a democratic republic in Iraq, instead of simply installing another dictator, we are not committing the same errors all over again in that region as we, as a nation, have in the past. I'd call that progress. You're right in that there are no white hats involved, but that doesn't really matter. We're doing a good thing over there. A strong, free and democratic Iraq will deliver a crippling blow to terrorism in that region. It's really the best weapon against terrorism.

DW

Btw Peter, eventhough Bush actually received 365 votes in the precinct after the error was found and corrected, it still beat Kerry's 260 votes. That's an important fact to point out.

"I fear that there's actually people in this country that believe people rigged the election."

Don't worry, Novafan. Had that actually happened, CBS would be all over it. CBS would also probably have fabricated a story if it looked as though they could make the arguement. But they can't because the Bush victory was too sound. Now, they might try something after a few months, in order to fuel the liberal base, but really, had Bush really stole the election, the liberally-controlled factions of the media would have screamed bloody murder by now.

DW

Darin said We're doing a good thing over there. A strong, free and democratic Iraq will deliver a crippling blow to terrorism in that region. It's really the best weapon against terrorism.

Bravo. Exactly correct. And it helps protect Israel, which is important also.

Okay, folks! Gotta go. It's been fun! :)

Novafan writes:
Could you direct us to the news source that printed that information? I can't find it. If it's true, then I hope it's investigated.

How 'bout CNN, for starters:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problems.ap/index.html

There are more problems listed in the article. And everybody should be concerned about electronic voting, regardless of party.

E-voting has potential, but it is currently being implemented in an thoroughly incompetent manner. Disclaimer: I have worked on point-of-sale software/machines, very similar to voting machines in design and function.

Two briefs by Johns Hopkins computer science professor Avi Rubin can be read here:

http://www.avirubin.com/judge1.html
http://www.avirubin.com/judge2.html

They are quite eye-opening. His views on the state of e-voting machines are essentially unanimous both in the computer industry and among academics.

Neil, while there are problems with every election, I don't see that as a reason to "fear for our country". Do you? Do you believe the errors were caused by Republicans trying to steal a vote?

PAD,

This whole discussion misses my point. Whether you agree or disagree with the war, go see this movie to hear firsthand what the Iraqi's themselves are saying. As I said before, you are not an idiot. I think you can filter through it to determine if it is accurate or slanted. I suggest that this film shows all sides, but that it particularly shows a side we are not hearing in the media today. It is a documentary that is worth seeing if you want to know the reality of the history of Iraq, past and present.

As I said before, this movie is not propoganda to change someone's mind about why we went to war. That is not why I suggested in the first place to see it. This movie is about seeing a reality that is completely missing from the media, a reality that we must understand if we are going to move forward from the place we are currently at in Iraq.

Here are a few responses to your comments.

You know, Jim, I'm getting kinda sick and tired of people comparing Iraq to the Holocaust. Especially when you're presenting the argument to someone who had relatives that died in German concentration camps. So it's pretty damned offensive to me that you're implying the situations are analagous when they're not. As if to be critical of Bush's war is to endorse the deaths of German Jews, because unless one supports Bush, then one is supporting the notion of allowing Jews to have been gassed. Yeah. Pretty damned offensive.

PAD, what part of my post was not clear? You are reading into it something I did not say, that unless you support Bush you are supporting Saddam killing people. The world is far more complicated than that. Stalin also slaughtered millions of people. I am not sure an invasion was feasible. BUT I do think it is far easier to look away for it happening than to face it head on. The situation may not compare in scope, but to say it is not analagous is to ignore what Saddam attempted to do.

One million lives over 24 years? A tragedy. And compared to Hitler's annihilation of six million Jews in a fraction of the time (to say nothing of the millions more of other races)? Not even in the ballpark.

Only because this time, a new hitler was denied the power he sought. This time he was thrown back when he tried to attack Iran and later Kuwait (and yes, I know Reagan supported him against Iran). But your response bothers me a lot. It seems to be a tragedy, yet you then go on to say we would still be better off with Saddam in power. See my next response.

Yes, Saddam was a bad man. A very bad man, who belonged in the cornfield. And I believe he killed one million Iraqis in twenty four years. That's 41,666 Iraqis per year. So just out of curiosity, in the past eighteen months, how many Iraqis have we killed? Estimates range from 30,000 to as high as 100,000, what with our cluster bombs killing in one throw hundreds of Iraqi men, women and children who apparently were unaware that we're improving their lives. And we're just getting warmed up. The world is safer without Saddam in charge? My God, *Iraq* isn't safer without Saddam in charge.

You are now comparing apples to oranges. Saddam did not kill one million in an act of war, he killed them to keep his power and simply because of their ethnicity. Yes, dead is dead. But we are not systematically and deliberately herding people together and shooting them. To speak of American "atrocities" is far more absurd than to compare Saddam to Hitler. Unless you include the death count from the car bombs and other attacks by the insurgents, the deaths from American actions is quite low for a time of war. Go watch the film. There are some Iraqi's who believe as you do, but many who do not.

Has anyone considered the possibility that they're trying to kill us because, to them, the only difference between us and Saddam is that, under Saddam, they had electricity and water?

That is one statement that is categorically false. First, both have been restored in virtually all of the country. The only places they have not is due to current acts by insurgents. Second, the difference between us and Saddam is NOT that they had electricity and water, it is because now they have democracy, which threatens 3 groups of people. It threatens the surrounding nations (such as Iran and Saudi Arabia) because of the hope it might give to their people, so they will support terrorism to destablize Iraq. It threatens some muslim factions in the country because it brings freedom to women, and it breaks the link between "church" and state in their country. It threatens and angers those from Saddam's regime who used to have power and who want it back.

As for people being killed, let's not forget to factor in that we've transformed Iraq, a country with no ties to Al Qaeda, into an Al Qaeda recruitment machine. Muslims who now believe everything bin Laden ever told them are hurrying to join the fight against the Great Satan. How many thousands, millions of lives will THEY be taking?

Again, go listen to what the people of Iraq actually say about this. This country did have ties to Iraq according to some who were there and would know firsthand. And your second suggestion is ludicrous. Muslims do not believe everything Bin Laden is telling them.

It's not as simple as you're making it. It never is. But one thing is simple, and that is that if Conservatives get to claim that, noooo, Iraq isn't the same as Vietnam because the body count can't compare, then I'm saying that Iraq isn't the same as the Holocaust because the body count can't compare. Of course, the difference is, we're the ones involved in the pile up now, with no end in sight. Pogo was right: We've met the enemy, and he is us.

The body count does not compare, but I would love to find the numbers and see how the percentages compare.

OK, time for me to lose my temper.

PAD: One million lives over 24 years? A tragedy. And compared to Hitler's annihilation of six million Jews in a fraction of the time (to say nothing of the millions more of other races)? Not even in the ballpark.

Dear God, man. How many millions would Saddam have needed to kill to get into the ballpark? Or is admission to the ballpark governed by the efficiency in which one slaughters civilians? You're discussing A MILLION DEAD HUMAN BEINGS and you're saying Saddam is less bad than Hitler because he wasn't as GOOD at slaughtering civilians? This is every bit as stupid as an argument over "who's worse, Hitler or Stalin?" Your argument is what? That there are degrees of genocide? "Hitler was humanity's greatest monster. Saddam is at most humanity's third greatest monster. How dare you compare him to #1?" Hitler is in fact worse; he made an entire nation into his accomplices and murdered countless (literally, we don't know how many) civilians in the most dehumanizing way imaginable; it's the worst crime in history. But the fact that you can be offended when someone compares one fascist tyrant who is responsible for millions of deaths (don't forget the Iran-Iraq war, 2,000,000+ dead) to another fascist tyrant who's responsible for millions of deaths makes me seriously question your judgment.

I'm frankly offended by the tradition of attacking non-Jews who try to make historical arguments about Nazi Germany. What happened there is part of the common history of humanity. It is the responsibility of every one of the six billion people on this planet to make sure nothing like this ever happens again. And your response of feeling insulted when someone claims it was happening again right there in front of us is exactly the worst thing you or anyone else can do. Hitler wasn't an alien from another dimension; he was an anti-Semite, very much like thousands of others in Germany and Austria, who rose to political power and tried to exterminate a civilization. Unless we understand how he did that, we guarantee it's going to happen again, this time in Armenia, or Rwanda, or the Sudan, or... Kurdistan. "Saddam Hussein's attacks on his own citizens mark the only time since the Holocaust that poison gas has been used to exterminate women and children." http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020325fa_FACT1 If you want to honor your family, be vigilant, not possessive.

You're right about the arguments Bush made for the war; it was primarily premised on the WMD theory which we now know was based on faulty information, instead of on humanitarian grounds, an argument which would have been unassailable. I was opposed to the war because I didn't think it was worth the cost, but that doesn't mean I was right; that may just mean that Edmund Burke was talking specifically about people like me. Again with apologies to Parker and Stone, maybe we should be the world police, if the alternative is global inaction.

Neil, while there are problems with every election, I don't see that as a reason to "fear for our country". Do you? Do you believe the errors were caused by Republicans trying to steal a vote?

Ok, I'm glad you don't see a reason to "fear for our country". I don't think I said anything about that either.

Yes, it's true that there are problems with every election. But it's always been possible to investigate/perform a recount. The newer systems do not lend themselves to any kind of auditing. A recount simply means making sure that the machine still spits out the same numbers, but there's no way to even begin to verify where these came from.

I personally doubt there were any deliberate manipulations this time around. But problems happen. And now there's no way to go over the paper trail 'cause there isn't one. It should be obvious why this is a concern for everyone.

Consider when you have, say, a local levy or initiative. Maybe most people in the area didn't want property taxes to go up to pay for that new modern art museum. Suppose the machine correctly counts the number of votes, but internally interchanges the "Yes" and the "No". The totals will look right, but there's no way to verify things, certainly not after the fact.

Too bad, you'll be paying those taxes anyway. All it takes is a rich artsy type and a single dishonest official. Farfetched? Not really, it's pretty trivial. Considering how often fraud has been attempted in the past, even the recent past (by all sides), then the fact that fraud is moving fast from "very difficult" to "trivial" means it's not an idle concern.

There are a number of simple and inexpensive ways to mitigate the problem. They are not being implemented. Chalk it up to lack of awareness, but it's still a problem.

Neil,

I think the "fear for our country" bit was ins response to PADS line "Now think of an error such as that multiplied by twenty, maybe thirty districts, think of what Bush won Ohio by, and fear for your country just a little more."

Not that it's easy to keep up with a thread that's gotten this big!

The problem was found and corrected. You're assuming that since Kerry lost, that it was due to fraud? Hmmm.

Are you aware that the CEO of Diebold, a Republican, the company that, iirc, provided the machines to that precinct in Ohio, said that he was going to "deliver" Ohio to Bush?

Just imagine that if such a mistake was made in one precinct, how easy it would be for such a mistake to occur in hundreds of precincts around the state, and how easily the results could be skewed.

But no, it's just more liberal paranoia bullshit.
This planet should be paraoid right now.

Dear God, man. How many millions would Saddam have needed to kill to get into the ballpark?

When you can give a rational explanation, that doesn't involve oil or non-existant WMD, as to why we haven't gone to any number of nations in Africa to deal with the genocide there, then maybe you can disprove PAD's point.

Until then, you just don't get it.

Btw, somebody, in one of these threads, mentioned about how 'major operations' are over.

How many people constitutes a "major" operation these days? More than 10,000 troops? I mean, that's how many we've got to sack... err... liberate Fallujah.

Apparently it's more than 10,000 though.

Could the election results be due to fraud? Part of me likes to think that the majority of this country are not stupid and/or cruel enough to vote for Bush and I have to also acknowledge that with all the lying and refusing to take responsibility of this administration, committing fraud would not be much of a leap.

It's funny...when we elect a new government in Canada, we're handed a piece of paper with the names of the candidates on it, we mark an "X" next to the candidate of our choice, and we hand the piece of paper back. Then all the pieces of paper are counted.

Is there a reason even the simple American ballots seem to be so much more complicated?

When you can give a rational explanation, that doesn't involve oil or non-existant WMD, as to why we haven't gone to any number of nations in Africa to deal with the genocide there, then maybe you can disprove PAD's point.

Quoted and emphasized, because I want to hear the answer too.

"I'm just curious here Peter. Just who do you think you were responding to if you weren't talking to me? The poster you quoted was me so if you weren't talking to me, who were you talking to?"

Yeah, you're right. I don't know why I thought that was from someone else; probably because I posted it in the middle of the night and getting tired. So sorry about that.

That said, if you don't want people to think you don't read, then don't list solely television as your source of news.

PAD

"The problem was found and corrected."

Yes, and I seem to recall the first reports were that Watergate was a third rate burglary that had nothing to do with the White House. Those first, tidy reports are always the ones you want to believe.

"You're assuming that since Kerry lost, that it was due to fraud? Hmmm."

Nooo, I'm the one assuming nothing. You're the one assuming that since Bush won, it's the will of the people. Hmmm.

PAD

What I heard as I flicked through the channels today and found myself on FOX News...

"...As the push towards Fallujah continues, in what most people believe will bring an end to terrorism in Iraq..."

Just a quick question. HOW out of touch?

John

"Btw Peter, eventhough Bush actually received 365 votes in the precinct after the error was found and corrected, it still beat Kerry's 260 votes. That's an important fact to point out."

I didn't bother to point that out because, frankly, it makes Bush look even worse. Because if all the tallied totals are that close instead of artificially, ludicrously inflated, then it makes the case for a recount even more compelling.

PAD

"Dear God, man. How many millions would Saddam have needed to kill to get into the ballpark?"

Noooo, no no. Conservatives don't get to change the dance card. I said months ago that Iraq was the new Vietnam, and was told that it was incredibly inaccurate and unfair to say that. And the ONLY reason I was given was that the relative handful of dead soldiers couldn't begin to compare to the, what--50,000?--killed in the 'Nam.

So now I'm being told that, hey, Bush prevented another Holocaust because he stopped a guy who killed one million people over two decades, so my response is to throw the conservative excuse right back in their face. If I can't compare Iraq to Vietnam based on insufficient body count, conservatives don't get to compare Iraq to the Holocaust if they don't have the numbers. Especially when genocide is happening just as fast in other countries that we can't be bothered with. Especially when the reason we went to Iraq was because of WMDs that didn't exist. Especially when there are dictators in this world far more dangerous to US interests whom we're not going after. Especially when Iraqis are dying at a faster rate after Saddam than before.

The third rail of this argument is the apparently unassailable position that the world is safer and better off without Saddam in place. So let's step on that third rail, shall we? Don't just say it. Prove it. And I don't mean by quoting conservative rhetoric from the usual suspects. I mean prove it. Prove that Iraqis are NOT dying faster than they were before. Prove it won't slide into full blown civil war and we won't be there for years and years and years. Considering the war has already cost us more than the entirety of Vietnam and has helped plunge us into record debt and helped recruit more terrorists for Al Qaeda who haate us with renewed fervor, and that U.S. casualties are piling up like cordwood, soldiers are being pushed into virtual indentured servitude through extended tours, and citizens live in fear of a renewed draft, prove that this country is better off and safer. Prove that the people of Iraq might never have thrown off Saddam themselves, as the Romanians did with their own homegrown dictator.

Prove that the flat statement conservatives so embrace as the fall back excuse to support an operation based on everything except humanitarian interests stems from something other than sheer optimism and ignoring of the facts

PAD

Shana just told me this great joke she heard on "Prairie Home Companion."

"What's the difference between the Iraqi war and the Vietnam war?"

"George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam war."

Just found this article, which I think is pretty interesting:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm

Is this proof the vote was rigged, the "smoking gun" some have been looking for? No, of course not. But, it certainly doesn't look good, and it raises some interesting questions.

(We'll see how much attention this story receives in the mainstream "liberal" media.)

When you can give a rational explanation, that doesn't involve oil or non-existant WMD, as to why we haven't gone to any number of nations in Africa to deal with the genocide there, then maybe you can disprove PAD's point.

What do you think his point was? I thought PAD's point is that you can't draw a comparison between atrocities that have different casualty figures without offending him. I'm not disproving his point, I'm saying his assertion was ludicrous. If at any point I claimed that we invaded Iraq because it was the only atrocity going on, you would have an excellent counterargument. Since I actually listed three other sets of atrocities in the last decade, I have to confess that I don't see why your post isn't a large non sequitur. Maybe we should have intervened in other occurrences of genocide-- which we are obliged by treaty to do, incidentally. That doesn't mean that the one genocide we did stop didn't happen.

Until then, you just don't get it

One of us doesn't. You picked the wrong one.

What do you think his point was?

You made the claim that just because people have died, we need to go there and do something about it.

Well, since the only other thing that Iraq has that other countries don't is oil, Bush must have gone to Iraq for the oil, because the WMD didn't exist.

But then, Bush will try and claim we went to Iraq because Saddam is "a bad man". Well, there are lots of bad men in the world. He just picked the one that he had a personal vendetta against.

Bush should look in the mirror some time. His ugly mug belongs up there with the rest of those "bad men" he doesn't want to do anything about.

Well then if the true reason for invasion was for humanitarian reasons, why didn't your government stand up and say so from the beginning? Why bother with all the rhetoric about WMD if the Administration simply wanted to stop the horrible things going on there?

Why hasn't your government suggested intervention in any of the other countries in which far worse acts are being committed?

Nobody's really denying that one could come up with humanitarian reasons for the Iraq invasion (whether those reasons are sufficient to justify the invasion would be another matter). What PAD (in my interpretation) is denying is that this was the primary motivation for going to Iraq. Which it wasn't.

Using WMDs as a reason to invade was defensible before hand...but the fact that no heads rolled when we found out how lousy the intelligence was not. And the constantly shifting emphasis on the reasons for invasion sure as hell looked dishonest (and if you think that won't have repercussions down the line, then you're being naive).

I'd have a whole lot less problems with this administration if they were at least competent at their jobs....

Craig said, Bush should look in the mirror some time. His ugly mug belongs up there with the rest of those "bad men" he doesn't want to do anything about.

You know what. I volunteered to defend my country. I would have given my life to ensure civilians could have the rights that they enjoy today. However, it saddens me very deeply that someone can say bad things about our Commander in Chief and nobody does anything about it. Is that was a democracy is all about? Even if, God forbid, Kerry would have been elected President, I would have swallowed my pride and supported him 100% as long as he was in office. To do any less would be futile and conter productive to the welfare of our nation.

I don't understand how anyone could do any less for any President we have. I just can't fathom it.

Novafan wrote...
it saddens me very deeply that someone can say bad things about our Commander in Chief and nobody does anything about it.
*snip*
I don't understand how anyone could do any less for any President we have. I just can't fathom it.

Really. You "can't fathom" why it's a good thing to question the government. To speak out against perceived injustices.

Funny, I was under the impression that that is one of your country's founding principles.

Are you aware that the CEO of Diebold, a Republican, the company that, iirc, provided the machines to that precinct in Ohio, said that he was going to "deliver" Ohio to Bush?

Please show a source for this with an actual quote. I find it hard to believe that someone would risk millions of dollars of business by admitting that they are rigging an election.

Roger said Using WMDs as a reason to invade was defensible before hand...but the fact that no heads rolled when we found out how lousy the intelligence was not.

I wonder if anyone has any idea the reaction Bush and Blair had when no WMD's were found. If it was me, I would say "oh s*#@" or something to that effect.

I think heads did roll. It almost cost Bush his re-election bid, especially as hard as the Democrats rammed it down his throat.

Is it possible there were no WMDs? Sure.

Is it possible there were WMDs and either hidden or given to another country or terrorists? Sure.

I hope the latter isn't the case, because if it is, we are in BIG trouble.

Jeff said Really. You "can't fathom" why it's a good thing to question the government. To speak out against perceived injustices. Funny, I was under the impression that that is one of your country's founding principles.

Maybe I missed that in print somewhere. Where does it say that is one of our countries founding principles?

There is a big difference between 'questioning the government and speaking out against perceived injustices' and constant attacking and insulting the personal character of a person and organization that you don't like.

And before anyone says anything about Clinton, I followed orders in the military under his presidency and I showed him the respect and honor of the position even though I entirely disagreed with the man.

Thanks Ken, you said I showed him the respect and honor of the position even though I entirely disagreed with the man.

Exactly what I tried to say, but you did it much better than me. :0)

Peter said I didn't bother to point that out because, frankly, it makes Bush look even worse. Because if all the tallied totals are that close instead of artificially, ludicrously inflated, then it makes the case for a recount even more compelling.

Would you be satisfied if a recount was conducted? If the recount showed Bush still won by an overwhelming majority, would you be happy? I don't think so. If he won by 1 vote or 4 million votes, you would still call foul right?

I'm all for a recount if it'll make you feel better. However, I'm sure it will show the same results.

Peter said Nooo, I'm the one assuming nothing. You're the one assuming that since Bush won, it's the will of the people. Hmmm.

I assumed nothing and don't remember saying it was the will of the people. However, it was one of the highest majority wins in history right?

Nah, that can't be the will of the people. It's all a fraud. The election must have been rigged.

Btw, extreme sarcasm in place in my last post. :0)

I want to thank you Peter for providing us a place for others to come to visit and converse with people. Even if we don't agree most of the time, it's still nice to be here.

Does anyone know why Gore didn't run in 2004, especially since some here believe Bush stole the election from him just like they believe Bush stole the election from Kerry?

"However, it was one of the highest majority wins in history right?"

nope.

bush got a three percent majority.

there have been victors in previous elections that got more a more than three percent majority.

see, its true that the most people voted for bush in this election, more than in any other election in history.

know whats also true?

the most people in any election in history also voted against bush.

the reason?

more people in the country who are registered to vote.

another thing to note?

the second-most votes in history were gotten by who? that's right, john kerry.

Craig said Well, since the only other thing that Iraq has that other countries don't is oil, Bush must have gone to Iraq for the oil, because the WMD didn't exist.

Yes, that must be exactly what happened. I'm glad the U.S. has control of Iraq's oil now. This way, we don't have to use the Oil for Food program that was being manipulated by Saddam for his benefit anymore.

I wonder why our gas prices haven't dropped since we have control of Iraq's oil now. Darn it, what an injustice. When are we going to see results from our newly acquired oil fields?

Ok, I mispoke. This highest majority wins should have read highest majority votes.

Maybe Kerry should run again in 2008. If he's that popular, he's a shoo-in for the next election right?

Wasn't Reagan vs. Mondale the biggest landslide in American history?

Great point about Kerry getting the second most vote in the history of American votes as well...

Ken wrote...
There is a big difference between 'questioning the government and speaking out against perceived injustices' and constant attacking and insulting the personal character of a person and organization that you don't like.
*snip*
I showed him [Clinton] the respect and honor of the position even though I entirely disagreed with the man.

How do you make that distinction? It can be a mighty fine line between the person and the position. Maybe even moreso with Bush, since his policies seem more "personal" for some reason (completely subjective opinion, of course).

When every single choice an individual makes is, in your estimation, the wrong choice, it's extremely difficult not to make a judgement of that person.

Now, I agree that it's unwise (and probably dangerous) to dismiss Bush as "stupid" or make some other character judgment. The problem is, particularly for someone living in another country, the man looks stupid. A lot.

Anyways, this isn't an attack on you guys so much as a question: how you do strongly question a president's policies while still showing him the "respect and honor" of the position?

"Does anyone know why Gore didn't run in 2004, especially since some here believe Bush stole the election from him just like they believe Bush stole the election from Kerry?"

The Demcrat party tends to devour those who lose. Remember Dukakis? Kerry served under him. I'm sure he could have said lots of nice things about him. Unfortunately, he is now in the democrat losing candidates protection program, living under an assumed name next to Henry Hill.

"Wasn't Reagan vs. Mondale the biggest landslide in American history?"

I'm pretty sure that Johnson vs Goldwater was way more of a blowout.

Not that it matters much. What do you call the guy who wins by 1 vote? Mr President.

PAD wrote (quoting me first): "Dear God, man. How many millions would Saddam have needed to kill to get into the ballpark?"

Noooo, no no. Conservatives don't get to change the dance card. I said months ago that Iraq was the new Vietnam, and was told that it was incredibly inaccurate and unfair to say that. And the ONLY reason I was given was that the relative handful of dead soldiers couldn't begin to compare to the, what--50,000?--killed in the 'Nam.

So now I'm being told that, hey, Bush prevented another Holocaust because he stopped a guy who killed one million people over two decades, so my response is to throw the conservative excuse right back in their face. If I can't compare Iraq to Vietnam based on insufficient body count, conservatives don't get to compare Iraq to the Holocaust if they don't have the numbers.

Since when am I bound by what other conservatives have said? I think you're right. Iraq has the potential to become another Vietnam. (Let's see: Principled deployment of force gone horribly wrong? Check. International coalition that boils down to the US backed up by a few other Anglosphere allies? Check, plus Poland. Winning every major battle but under constant guerrilla attack? Check. No clue when we get out of there? Check. Yep, there are parallels.) Even if other conservatives did make a stupid argument, that doesn't give you a free pass to make a stupid argument right back. Additionally, reading your post I didn't get the impression you were parroting a dumb argument you didn't believe. When you said you were offended when people compared Iraq to the Holocaust, I was fairly sure you meant it. And that is the exact same point that I have seen made time and again in the historical literature: the Holocaust is not susceptible to historical analysis and comparison because it is unique in human history. That point is and always has been fallacious: it is unique in scope and degree, but not in type. Crimes against humanity are as old as humanity, and if we are to stop the next one-- and there WILL be a next one-- we have to understand the ones in the past and identify the ones in the present. Writing this one off as a "tragedy" that nonetheless isn't in "the ballpark" minimizes a humanitarian disaster.

In short, if you didn't really subscribe to the flatly indefensible position you seemed to be advocating, I apologize.

The third rail of this argument is the apparently unassailable position that the world is safer and better off without Saddam in place. So let's step on that third rail, shall we? Don't just say it. Prove it.

I may have been unclear. I didn't say things were working out in Iraq. I don't think things are working out in Iraq; maybe the latest attempt to take Falluja will help. I said the invasion would have been justifiable on humanitarian grounds alone. The consequences are irrelevant to the morality of the thing: my position is that military force is justifiable to remove a genocidal tyrant from power. The justification is necessarly antecedent to the consequences. Whether the plan to win postwar Iraq was screwed up from its onset (again, given the Vietnam parallels, I've worried about that) is irrelevant to my point.

There is a big difference between 'questioning the government and speaking out against perceived injustices' and constant attacking and insulting the personal character of a person and organization that you don't like.

They go hand in hand. Why? Because Bush's character is on display every day as president, and his character stinks, just as his abilities as president have stunk.

Please show a source for this with an actual quote.

http://www.portclintonnewsherald.com/news/stories/20030827/localnews/140871.html

Note, the date on this article is August 27th.

Jeff said Really. You "can't fathom" why it's a good thing to question the government. To speak out against perceived injustices. Funny, I was under the impression that that is one of your country's founding principles.

Maybe I missed that in print somewhere. Where does it say that is one of our countries founding principles?

The Declaration of Independence?

David Bjorlin wrote...
The Declaration of Independence?

That's what I was thinking, but since I'm no expert on the fine print of American political documents, I'll leave it to you guys. =)

Heres an interesting question for the forum: If John McCain runs in '08, would the Democrats be justified in bringing the same concerns about his mental stability that HIS OWN PARTY used against him in '00?

Heres an interesting question for the forum: If John McCain runs in '08, would the Democrats be justified in bringing the same concerns about his mental stability that HIS OWN PARTY used against him in '00?

I think people were trying to claim that Howard Dean was unstable (after that wonderful soundbyte in Iowa), yet he probably would've been a candidate that could actually get people moving in the right direction.

All in all, I don't recall specifically how the Republicans backstabbed McCain, so I don't think it would affect my opinion of him.

Heres an interesting question for the forum: If John McCain runs in '08, would the Democrats be justified in bringing the same concerns about his mental stability that HIS OWN PARTY used against him in '00?"

I certainly hope they don't. I think what the GOP did was despicable, and hope the Democratic party doesn't get so desperate as to do the same. Furthermore, I can only guess that the way the GOP managed to get McCain to toe the line was to ensure him he was gonna be The Guy in 2008.

PAD

Nobody's really denying that one could come up with humanitarian reasons for the Iraq invasion (whether those reasons are sufficient to justify the invasion would be another matter). What PAD (in my interpretation) is denying is that this was the primary motivation for going to Iraq. Which it wasn't

There's no question that the WMD issue was the primary justification for the invasion. There's also no question that we haven't found anything close to what we were expecting to find (no WMDs, trivial WMD development programs). The government has subsequently been making the argument that even with the primary argument gone, there were several other justifications advanced for the invasion, and the remaining justifications are sufficient. If PAD were merely saying "who are you trying to kid?" (and in all honesty 2/3 of the resolution endorsing the invasion was about WMDs, q.v. http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf ), then I wouldn't have thrown a hissy fit. I don't think that's what he said.

We invaded a country that has strategic value in addition to humanitarian disasters, and didn't invade countries with disasters but no strategic value. That doesn't mean this disaster isn't serious.

David Bjorlin wrote...
We invaded a country that has strategic value in addition to humanitarian disasters, and didn't invade countries with disasters but no strategic value. That doesn't mean this disaster isn't serious.

Disaster is right. And I see nothing wrong with letting your government know that it is unacceptable to invade a country, and when the initial justification for the invasion evapourates, to make up new ones on the fly until one sticks.

Except this past week, the majority of Americans apparently let the government know that that sort of behaviour is acceptable.

"Strategic value" indeed. Pretty shaky moral ground to say the least.

Craig, that quote from his letter was no different than the wording on any fund-raiser letter sent out by a party supporter. It in no way implied anything about Diebold or their machines or that he was rigging them.

His quote was in reference to financing and hard work he would supply to help Bush win.

I can see where he should have worded it better, but to feel that he would rig an election off a quote on a fund-raiser letter is just too paranoid.

"Heres an interesting question for the forum: If John McCain runs in '08, would the Democrats be justified in bringing the same concerns about his mental stability that HIS OWN PARTY used against him in '00?"

I certainly hope they don't. I think what the GOP did was despicable, and hope the Democratic party doesn't get so desperate as to do the same. Furthermore, I can only guess that the way the GOP managed to get McCain to toe the line was to ensure him he was gonna be The Guy in 2008.

PAD
***********

Oh, I agree with you. But just speaking for myself, I'll want someone on the right to explain to me why he was crazy in 2000 and the right man for the job 2008 before I'll consider voting for him.

Jeff said Really. You "can't fathom" why it's a good thing to question the government. To speak out against perceived injustices. Funny, I was under the impression that that is one of your country's founding principles. Maybe I missed that in print somewhere. Where does it say that is one of our countries founding principles? The Declaration of Independence?

Nope, just read it and I don't see any reference to this. Are you referring to the colonies accusing the King of injustices and declaring independence?

Peter said Furthermore, I can only guess that the way the GOP managed to get McCain to toe the line was to ensure him he was gonna be The Guy in 2008.

He had a chance to be the man in 2004 if he stood by his friend, John Kerry. Why would he toe the line to be the man in 2008 when he could have been an extremely powerful man now? With McCain by his side, Kerry wouldn't have lost. Why did he choose to side with Bush? Do you think he was coerced?

I hope John McCain runs as an independent in 08. He could cream the republicans and democrats on his own.

Oh, I agree with you. But just speaking for myself, I'll want someone on the right to explain to me why he was crazy in 2000 and the right man for the job 2008 before I'll consider voting for him.

Speaking for Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Inc., I don't think that we took an official position on McCain's mental health. You'll have to seek the actual people who spread that rumor, rather than typecasting everyone who counts as "someone on the right."

Jeff, I've been to Halifax, Nova Scotia before. It was incredible. I loved the bag pipe player playing in the park and I saw Tatoo when I was there, which was great also. I'm not sure where you live in Canada, just wanted to say I liked your country.

I'm curious as to why you care about American politics. From what I gathered while I was there, they didn't care one way or another that I was from America. Then they tried to put mayonaise on my burger, ughhh. :0)

Novafan wrote...
I'm curious as to why you care about American politics.

A good question. There are a couple of big reasons:

1) The U.S. and Canada are each other's biggest trade partners, and so the policies of each government are very important. As the "little guy" in the trade relationship, Canada tends to have trouble holding its own in trade disputes, and so we have an interest in who's in charge over there.

2) As the leading world superpower, the entire world has its eyes on you guys. The actions of America, especially lately, have a huge impact on politics and economies worldwide.

3) I'm interested in politics in general.

It should be noted that some Canadian trade groups feel that Bush would actually be better than Kerry when it comes to resolving trade disputes, most notably the current embargo on Canadian beef, which is killing the industry over here. The Bush administration has been stellar for our economy, since your unstable economy has led to some huge gains in the value of our currency. :)

Also, while most Canadians bear no ill will to Americans as individuals, anti-Americanism in terms of politics hasn't been higher hear in a long, long time. Were you to visit today (and I encourage you to do so), you would probably find some very strong opinions regarding the direction your country is headed in.

"Speaking for Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Inc., I don't think that we took an official position on McCain's mental health. You'll have to seek the actual people who spread that rumor, rather than typecasting everyone who counts as "someone on the right."

Which reminds me--when is VRWC inc gonna send me this weeks Talking Points? I realise you guys were probably celebrating heavily Tuesday but it's been almost a week. This is no time to fall down on the job.

All this talk about what "The Republicans" did to John McCain...remind me, what party was it that almost nominated him? Who were his supporters? It's like saying what "The Democrats" did to Ted Kennedy when he ran against Carter.

Rest assured, the same people who would have been thrilled to have McCain on the ticket with Kerry will find some reason why he should not be within 100 yards of the White House if he decides to run in 2008.

Speaking for Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Inc., I don't think that we took an official position on McCain's mental health. You'll have to seek the actual people who spread that rumor, rather than typecasting everyone who counts as "someone on the right."

Are you the same VRWCI that phoned southern voters and asked them what they thought about McCain having an illegitimate biracial daughter?

Oh yeah, that was Bush 2000 campaign.

Craig, that quote from his letter was no different than the wording on any fund-raiser letter sent out by a party supporter. It in no way implied anything about Diebold or their machines or that he was rigging them.

Yet, it is rather amusing that when a problem still occurred with the machines, it favored Bush.

Either way, it was a VERY tacky comment for that guy to make, and he should know better.

Btw, I talked a Canadian last night who was sick and tired of listening to Americans complain about the election. She doesn't care. I told her that, in the long run, she should. *shrug*

Speaking of 2008 presidential candidates, I think you can start considering Iowa governor Tom Vilsack to try and run for the Democratic nomination.

He's apparently imposed a self-limitation of 2 terms, the 2nd of which will be up in 2 years, and he was a VP finalist for VP for Kerry.

Novafan:

You wanted to where being able to criticize the government is one of our founding principles?

Here it is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I hope that's helpful.

Ralph Sevush wrote: "I was simply reacting to the fact that the overwhelming majority of Bush supporters said "moral values" was the biggest factor in their vote..."

Source?

If this is the "fact" you were reacting to then you might have to rethink your reaction (or find some other rationalization for it).

The overwhelming majority of Bush supporters did not list "moral values" as the biggest factor in their vote. In one exit poll of about 13,000 voters from both parties, 22% listed "moral values" as the number one factor. Of that 22%, 80% voted for Bush. (Source: NY Times, 11/3/04) A fraction of 22% (even a large fraction) is still less than 22%. (We can also factor in a rather wide margin of error, since we know how "accurate" this exit poll was -- but let's take it at face value for a moment.) Even if every single one of that 22% voted for Bush, that leaves at least 78% -- which is in fact an overwhelming majority -- of Bush voters naming some other issue as the most important to them in the election. (Source: New York Times, 11/3/04)

Only 5% of voters polled listed "health care" as their number one issue. 73% of those people voted for Kerry. Does that mean that the "overwhelming majority" of Kerry voters thought health care was the number one issue in the election? No. Same thing.

If the people who are so angry about this result want to make sure it doesn't happen again, it might be wise to try to learn the real reasons it did rather than twisting statistics to reinforce pre-existing stereotypes, ironic or otherwise.

Thanks Den. So we've come to the conclusion that abridging the freedom of speech allows people to say whatever they want about the Commander in Chief, regardless if it's true or not.

Is that the general consensus?

Thanks Jeff for responding to my question. I enjoy talking to people from different countries.

Wait a minute, I just found out from Craig in the Fonzie thread that I'm actually Canadian so that makes us countrymen. :0)

Peter said Shana just told me this great joke she heard on "Prairie Home Companion." "What's the difference between the Iraqi war and the Vietnam war?" "George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam war."

If you thought that was funny, this is what I heard today on the radio:

"What do you call 10,000 liberals amassing at the Canadian Border?"

"A good start."

Interesting info from left wing blog dailykos; looking at the e-mail newsletters sent out by the Bush and Kerry teams reveals the following--
Bush Kerry
Give Money 8% 57%
Get Out the Vote 38% 29%
Issues/Events 54% 14%

The Kerry folks used the web as nothing more than a way to get money--exactly the same mistake that the Dean campaign did! the Bush team used it to get out the vote. result--Kerry got and spent a great deal of money, only to lose in the only thing that maters, which is getting your voters to the polls.

Dumb move for such supposedly smart guys...

What I would like to know is how on Earth Hillary Clinton can run for President in 2008 for the Democratic Party? Isn't there a 2 term limit on the presidency now? She already had her 8 years as President, let someone else try to compete. :0)

Novafan wrote...
Thanks Den. So we've come to the conclusion that abridging the freedom of speech allows people to say whatever they want about the Commander in Chief, regardless if it's true or not.

Were I Den, I would have bolded the part that said, "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What do you call 10,000 liberals amassing at the Canadian Border?"

"A good start."

Well, if/when the draft comes, it'd be kind of nice if only conservatives were left to send their children to die in Bush's war. All the liberals in Canada could wave bye-bye to the passing troop transports.

PAD

So we've come to the conclusion that abridging the freedom of speech allows people to say whatever they want about the Commander in Chief, regardless if it's true or not.

Well, as a public figure, the burden of proof for sustaining a libel charge is much higher, so yes.

People can accuse Clinton of rape and using cocaine without a shred of proof. That's been established for years now.

Oh, and murder, too. Can't forget the whole Vince Foster conspiracy.

Tell you what, Novafan, whenever the level of accursations leveled at Bush even comes close to what was leveled at Clinton, I'll let you know.

Jeff said Were I Den, I would have bolded the part that said, "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That's just it Jeff, they aren't petitioning the Government. Why don't they do this?

Den said Tell you what, Novafan, whenever the level of accursations leveled at Bush even comes close to what was leveled at Clinton, I'll let you know.

I have no idea about all of the accusations that were leveled at Clinton, nor did I care. He was our Commander in Chief, so I supported him up until the point where he let his little head do the talking for his big head. However, I still never insulted him, ran his name through the mud, called him names, or anything to that effect. Why? What he did was totally wrong and against my beliefs, so I had every right to protest and throw my arms up in disgust right?

Wrong. He was still my President until the next election. He is a man and entitled to make mistakes.

Peter said Well, if/when the draft comes, it'd be kind of nice if only conservatives were left to send their children to die in Bush's war. All the liberals in Canada could wave bye-bye to the passing troop transports.

Here we go with the draft nonsense. Another scare tactic that the Democrats used that I'm sure got a lot of younger people to vote for Kerry.

I'll believe it when I see it Peter. Btw, I bet if it were to happen, many people would protest and tear up their draft papers instead of fighting for their country in a time of need. What a bunch of wooses I say.

Novafan wrote...
That's just it Jeff, they aren't petitioning the Government. Why don't they do this?

One could argue they did, last Tuesday.

I guess they didn't get enough signatures =D

Jeff said One could argue they did, last Tuesday. I guess they didn't get enough signatures =D

Ha. You're right, but I don't think that was the intent of that article.

Here's an article analyzing the flaws in the study that established the 100,000 Iraqi war dead total.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/

I have no idea about all of the accusations that were leveled at Clinton, nor did I care. He was our Commander in Chief, so I supported him up until the point where he let his little head do the talking for his big head. However, I still never insulted him, ran his name through the mud, called him names, or anything to that effect. Why? What he did was totally wrong and against my beliefs, so I had every right to protest and throw my arms up in disgust right?

Wrong. He was still my President until the next election. He is a man and entitled to make mistakes.

It's noble that you feel that way, but as long as we have a first amendment protecting people's right to freedom of speech, there will always be certain people on both sides of the aisle who will engage in personal attacks, insults, and pure mudslinging. You're just going to have to learn to live with it.

Quite frankly, I'd rather live in a country where the president has to deal with a few personal insults than one where criticizing his judgment can result in you "disappearing."

People can accuse Clinton of rape and using cocaine without a shred of proof. That's been established for years now. Oh, and murder, too. Can't forget the whole Vince Foster conspiracy.
Tell you what, Novafan, whenever the level of accursations leveled at Bush even comes close to what was leveled at Clinton, I'll let you know.

The charges against Bush and Clinton have been remarkably similar:

Clinton: Whitewater coverup
Bush: SEC investigation of Harken
-
Clinton: Drug use
Bush: Drug use
-
Clinton: Womaninzing and rape
Bush: getting woman pregnant/helping with abortion
-

So, I think the accusation levels are pretty high on both sides.

Novafan:

>I have no idea about all of the accusations that were leveled at Clinton, nor did I care. He was our Commander in Chief, so I supported him up until the point where he let his little head do the talking for his big head. However, I still never insulted him, ran his name through the mud, called him names, or anything to that effect. Why? What he did was totally wrong and against my beliefs, so I had every right to protest and throw my arms up in disgust right?

>Wrong. He was still my President until the next election. He is a man and entitled to make mistakes.

Big difference between the two main incidents being cited. One got a hummer, while the other sent thousands of them over to invade a foreign nation.

You forgot:

Clinton: Accusations that he had Vince Foster and a number of other people murdered.

Bush: ???

When somebody accuses Bush of being Michael Corleone, they will be even.

"Bush lied and people died!"
"Blood for oil!"

Sorry that's already there, too.

Hell, Howard Dean once even accussed Bush of having pre-knowledge of the 9/11 attacks in one of his primary rants. He quickly backed down, though.

Yeah, well the problem with these more extreme accusations is that they tend to bury the more credible criticisms in the dross.

For example, I certainly don't think Bush lied on Iraq. But I have a sneaking suspicion that he and his team didn't scrutinize the intelligence as thoroughly or as carefully as he should have--and criticisms of this have been forgone and ignored in favor of shrill screaming about lies.

It's been well established that Rumsfeld and Rove cherrypicked their intelligence and, despite Tenet's "slam duck" assertion, most of the CIA expressed doubt that there were WMDs still in Iraq. So, they set up their own committee in the Pentagon to select only those reportst that favored their position. What made it to the president's desk and the congressional intelligence committees were reports that were massaged and tailored to support a predetermined conclusion.

So, is it an unfair accusation if it has some documented basis in fact?

With regard to how liberals would feel about a McCain presidency:

I can't speak for all liberals, but as a general rule, this liberal would not have a problem with him. Whether I would vote for him would depend on who the other parties put up against him.

My only real problem with McCain is his horrible, atrocious record on free speech/censorship issues. But Lieberman is as bad as he is, and Gore was close to as bad, and yet I voted for that ticket over Dubya.

I did give serious pause to voting for Clinton when he chose Gore as a running mate, for the same reason -- but decided it was better than George Bush pere.

You'll note that around that time, Tipper stopped pushing the PMRC, and I don't think that was a coincidence. There was no big push to limit free speech during the Clinton administration save perhaps for the V-Chip, and that is an optional tool. If McCain would take a similar tack, then again, depending on who he was running against, I would strongly consider giving him my vote.

For those looking for suspicious evidence of voter fraud, here's something from Keith Olberman;

"remarkable results out of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. In 29 precincts there, the County’s website shows, we had the most unexpected results in years: more votes than voters. I’ll repeat that: more votes than voters. 93,000 more votes than voters.”

Keith neglects to mention that Kerry won--or did he???- Cuyahoga county by a 2 to 1 ratio.

It is well worth looking into these allegations. Might pad out Bush's margin by even more, when all is said and done.

Bill,
Kerry conceded. This is not about the election. The main issue now is, can we trust that our vote counts? It is becoming increasingly clear that without a paper trail we have no idea what these machines are doing. There were glitches all over the country, but due to the fact that some states say we can trust the machines, we have no backup to find if they recorded each voters wishes accurately. Is any computer 100%, entirely safe from software or hardware problems? A paper trail should be mandatory and my republican friends agree with me.

For those looking for suspicious evidence of voter fraud, here's something from Keith Olberman;

Either way, the problems must be found and tracked down. And the CEO's of the companies that make these devices should be told to STFU.

No, I'm not blaming voting machines for Bush winning; it's already well known here how I feel.

Either way, the problems must be found and tracked down. And the CEO's of the companies that make these devices should be told to STFU.

Hell, yeah. No matter how you voted, this should really concern you. I can accept Bush won; I can't accept that the voting machines are as bugfree as humanly (or even inhumanly) possible.

I think this is an example where liberals and conservatives should be able to come to agreement. Everyone who can legally vote should be able to do so. All illegal votes must be eliminated (since every illegal vote is essentially the same as denying a valid one).

They can sure make damn sure that we don't get tax returns sent to the wrong person so I don't see how they can't control the voter rolls. A picture ID should be madatory for voting--we require it for far far less important things. Punishment for rigging elections should be harsh way beyond measure--a few convictions on this will be all that is needed to discourage it.

(I would also suggest law enforcement arrange for "volunteers" to infiltrate the operations of your opponents with the goal of looking for fraud.)

It can be done and people of good will should fight for it. Only those who think that they can't win a fair fight would object.

"Kerry conceded. This is not about the election."

Except it could be. A concession is merely a political gesture; it is not legally binding. If the FBI launches a full scale investigation, and finds singificant evidence of tampering that the results are in doubt, the election could indeed be thrown to the courts with Kerry's concession meaning nothing.

PAD

I think this is an example where liberals and conservatives should be able to come to agreement. Everyone who can legally vote should be able to do so. All illegal votes must be eliminated (since every illegal vote is essentially the same as denying a valid one).

Hell, yeah!

"remarkable results out of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. In 29 precincts there, the County’s website shows, we had the most unexpected results in years: more votes than voters. I’ll repeat that: more votes than voters. 93,000 more votes than voters.”

Keith neglects to mention that Kerry won--or did he???- Cuyahoga county by a 2 to 1 ratio.

It is well worth looking into these allegations. Might pad out Bush's margin by even more, when all is said and done.

Or it could go the other way, and Kerry could win by a 4 to 1 ratio. We simply don't know yet.

Agreed PAD. However, I don't believe there will ever be a true, factual and valid accounting of this election because there is no way to get any kind of accurate recount. There will be charges of voter fraud in every election from this day forward if we cannot find a way to give the American people confidence that their vote counts. I also don't think they could prove significant evidence of tampering. I don't know much about the programming end of things, but even I could probably come up with halfway credible excuses as to why the software did not work properly, therefore they will be able to claim that there was no intent to fraud. And I don't see the Kerry camp asking for a new election unless there are several convictions. I hate to be realistic about this, but that's why I don't think it's about this election anymore. I doubt there will be any outcome in which this administration would be supplanted. But we should ALL fight for the future. If we don't trust the process, then the country will remain divided with half always disputing the results.

Peter said A concession is merely a political gesture.

You want to see some more serious problems in this country? Let someone say that the election was a fraud and Kerry is actually the President. Or have Kerry take Bush to court over the election after conceding. If his career isn't finished now (which I bet it is if the Democratic party is true to form), it will be after that.

Why don't you just let it be. The election is OVER. Whether or not you and others agree with the results, it's time to move on. Get over it already.

I can't believe I heard on the radio today that Bush will do anything for money, including staging of the 9/11 attacks. They even said that he planned the attack on the Pentagon, not to mention that they think Cheney's wife would eat her own young. Utterly amazing. Was that one of you guys that called today?

I'm still waiting for my gas prices to come down since we're in control of Iraq's oil now. Life is so unfair.

I've been following Olbermann's coverage of the voting irregularities, which go far beyond what was quoted here about Cuyahoga County in Ohio -- there are allegations in other Ohio counties, in Florida, in New Hampshire and other states. Even Nader is speaking up about it, and we know there's no way any recount is going to come out in HIS favor!

We must eliminate not only any improprieties but any appearance of improprieties in our electoral processes. I am in full agreement with those that say that this is a non-partisan issue -- had Kerry won under similar circumstances, I'd make just as much noise about it. We simply have to know that our votes count and count accurately.

This is the second Presidential election in a row in which there was the appearance of improprieties. I'm not saying that there were improprieties, just saying that something appeared fishy in each case. And isn't it funny that they were also the only two elections in recent memory where the outcomes didn't match the exit polls?

There is an FBI investigation pending based on evidence being provided by a Congressional candidate in Florida. There are also allegations that a test-run at fixing the Florida election happened during the 2002 Florida Democratic Primary, causing Bill McBride to get the Dem nomination for Governor over the better-known Janet Reno (supposedly a politically advantageous match-up for Jeb Bush, though I think Reno would have had a hard time beating Jeb here after the Elian Gonzalez debacle -- she alienated a lot of the South Florida Dem base).

Five Congressmen have filed an urgent request with the GAO to look into the possible problems.

My gut feeling, though -- and this is not based on any inside info, it's just a feeling -- is that nothing is going to come of this before the electoral college votes are certified in early January, meaning that Bush will still be President. I think investigations will continue after that date. Most two-term Presidents end up with some scandal in their second terms (Lewinsky, Iran-Contra, Watergate), and this has the potential to be Bush's. Whether it ends up being minor or major depends on whether any improprieties are proven and whether they can be tied directly back to his campaign. If all that happens (and I consider it doubtful), we could have another Watergate on our hands, and Olbermann just might be recognized as the next Woodward or Bernstein.

Not bad for a guy that started out as a sportscaster.

Oh, one more point: on his show tonight, Olbermann mentioned that there is word that Kerry wants to run again in '08. If any of these allegations prove true or a large percentage of the population begins to get the general feeling that something went wrong in '04, I'd say he's a lock not only to win the nomination, but the presidency as well. Kerry has made the right move here -- he's stayed out of the fray and is well positioned to reap the benefits if these allegations are found to be (or are generally believed to be) true.

"If any of these allegations prove true or a large percentage of the population begins to get the general feeling that something went wrong in '04, I'd say he's a lock not only to win the nomination, but the presidency as well."

That's a logical point but then again, how much did it help Al Gore 4 years later?

That's a logical point but then again, how much did it help Al Gore 4 years later?

I guess you could say that Gore didn't benefit by this being the second time that the election has been this close, and the results are being even more closely scrutinized this time around.

In the end, there may be nobody else for the Dems to nominate other than Kerry - Dean might take the DNC position, people are still iffy on Hilary Clinton, Vilsack will only have 2 terms as Iowa's governor under his belt (but he's putting a self-imposed 2 term limit on the job), Obama needs more experience.

I did read something too about what Julio was talking about, and possible voting irregularities in Florida.
I mean, if this report is accurate, is is VERY fishy - almost everywhere, exit polls were matching up in terms of who was voting for who. We're talking that 90% or better of each party was voting in-party for president.

Yet, you've got alot of counties in Florida where the votes are showing like 50% of people voting for the other party. And this is happening with optical scanning machines, NOT the touchscreen machines that everybody was worried about.

Oh, and when I refer to exit polls matching up - I mean that for all the stuff about how everything was being called for Kerry early, and then how it was all "wrong", why is it only happening in these past two president elections that these exit polls are all so far off, when they were not in years past?
When nothing is being done differently?

Actually looking at past elections shows that the phenomona of democrats voting for Republicans goes back a bit--many districts with majority registered Demmocrats went for Dole over Clinton.

This is mostly seen in the South and should surprise nobody, since conservative Democrats have been voting for Republicans for president for some time now.

But when all is said and done, this is an issue that should have been settled a long time ago. Jokes about dead people voting in Chicago and more votes than voters in Philadelphia really aren't all that funny. I doubt that many, if any, presidential elections would be changed but what about mayors? School board? Dogcatcher? Elections where the margin is small enough that even a little fraud can change the outcome.

I'm deeply suspicous of folks who want to bury the issue of voter irregularities, or want to delay looking into it. Dammit, it's important! Move on it quickly, or you're a problem--you're more interested in the letter of the law than the spirit.

If this lingers, it tends to disillusion the folks new to the voting process or those who were formerly cynical about the process--and you don't want that, no matter what side of the ledger you're in.

This is mostly seen in the South and should surprise nobody, since conservative Democrats have been voting for Republicans for president for some time now.

Well, I think that's why the focus is on Florida in particular, where people aren't as likely to vote in such a manner.

Although, this also means that fraud is easier to get away with in other states in the south because the results are expected to be a given. :)

Interesting artcle today from ABC--it might put to rest some of what has been reported.

"In the battleground state of Ohio, where conspiracy theories abound, a Web site for Cuyahoga County seemed to show more votes than voters in some precincts.

The county's Web site was confusing — it lumped several precincts' absentee ballots together and then counted them several times, for each precinct. But those were glitches in vote-reporting — not vote-counting. The "phantom" voters who mysteriously appeared and voted for Bush in the county — which voted overwhelmingly for Kerry — did not exist other than in the imagination of Democrats upset about Kerry's loss.

This afternoon, the Web site that first raised the questions about the Cuyahoga votes took it all back. "OK," wrote the Webmeister at "Americans 4 America," "finally had a chance to figure this out. I apologize for any anxiety that went along with these numbers. It seems that data is useless without knowing how counties arrived at the numbers and this was a particularly tricky process."

"Peter said A concession is merely a political gesture."

"Why don't you just let it be. The election is OVER. Whether or not you and others agree with the results, it's time to move on. Get over it already."

Interesting rant. Two things come to mind. First, up yours, anonymous boy. Second, you didn't say I was wrong, you just bitched about my being correct.

"I can't believe I heard on the radio today that Bush will do anything for money, including staging of the 9/11 attacks. They even said that he planned the attack on the Pentagon, not to mention that they think Cheney's wife would eat her own young. Utterly amazing?"

What's utterly amazing is your problem with short term memory, as if GOP flacks, pundits and rabble rousers didn't spend eight damned YEARS on the radio trashing both Clinton husband and wife with absolutely everything they could come up with, without regard to accuracy, fairness or simple human decency. Were you out there howling that you were shocked--SHOCKED!--that they could say such vile things? I'm thinking not.

As for Cheney's wife, that would be the one who excoriated Democrats for saying flattering things about her daughter while at the same time using her grandson in a Halloween costume to criticize John Kerry. Oh yeah, that got her major points in my book.

PAD

while at the same time using her grandson in a Halloween costume to criticize John Kerry

Oh? I didn't hear about that one.

Damn that liberal media!

As for Cheney's wife, that would be the one who excoriated Democrats for saying flattering things about her daughter while at the same time using her grandson in a Halloween costume to criticize John Kerry. Oh yeah, that got her major points in my book.

Same one who wrote a lesbian potboiler in her writing career...

COME ON, PEOPLE! That's the sort of thing that just cries our for punditry commentary!!!!

Peter, just to clarify, that was the Cheneys' granddaughter in the Halloween costume, not grandson.

Just so those who aren't into campaign minutia know what is being talked about, here's the associated press:

"At a campaign rally Sunday, Elizabeth, 7, wore a scary Halloween costume as the Grim Reaper. To howls of laughter, Lynne Cheney introduced Elizabeth as "John Kerry's health plan," highlighting one of the many contentious issues of the campaign."

The "lesbian potboiler" is called Sisters. Hard to find, if you bought it your $2.50 investment could bring you several thousand dollars. Judging from the reviews at Amazon.com I'm not sure that very many have read it (The reviewers seem more fixated on the idea that Cheney must herself be gay since, as we all know, you have to be gay to write about gay people, in much the same way that Marvel repeatedly gives the writing chore for The Hulk to noted gamma ray survivor Peter David).

"...that would be the one who excoriated Democrats for saying flattering things about her daughter..."

So flattering that people in the press room gasped when he said it. The reaction among focus groups was incredibly negative. There are reports that people within the Kerry campaign knew it was a mistake when they heard it. As others have pointed out, it's not that what he said was bad, it was just that he said it--"He claimed to know the mind of someone else's child as a way to hurt the parents." as Jonah Goldberg wrote.

Well, this a fight that's already been fought. Of more interest to me is this table at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2004-2000.html . Basically it shows that of all 50 states and Dc George Bush increased his vote percentage over his 2000 showing in all but 2 states. Wow. Money well spent by George Soros.

So, let's meet our new Attorney General, shall we?

Let's start with his biography:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/gonzales-bio.html

And we'll follow this with a couple of articles displaying how there are worse people in the world than Ashcroft:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030620.html
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/05/30/Columns/The_man_behind_all_th.shtml

Oh, and when I refer to exit polls matching up - I mean that for all the stuff about how everything was being called for Kerry early, and then how it was all "wrong", why is it only happening in these past two president elections that these exit polls are all so far off, when they were not in years past?
When nothing is being done differently?

Do we actually know nothing is being done differently? Exit polling requires that a sample of the people leaving the polling places be asked for whom they voted. It's not hard to suppose that the organization doing that could have some sampling error built into their selection process. It's worth noting that the pre-election polls by at least one pollster look a heck of a lot like the final results. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/State%20by%20state%20comparisons%202004.htm That's less suggestive of election fraud than of simple incompetence in the exit poll organization, which was basically a repackaged version of the organization that did oh so well four years ago.

Rereading Mr. Ries's comment that I quoted just above, I suppose my answer to his question is, "the people doing the exit polls for the last two elections appear to be incompetent."

Why on earth should anyone be surprised that some early exit polls--and the operative word here is "polls"--were off? If ANYTHING was learned this year it's that polls are to be trusted only a bit more than the guy who reads chicken bones scattered on the ground.

Polls can be accurate if done properly - sampling area, sizes, accurate representation of the population and so on. The most common reason I've heard for the inaccuracy is that the pollsters are not doing a good enough job of sampling the rural areas which skewed the results towards Kerry.

Another thing about polls...the people answering the questions must be depended on to tell the truth. It wouldn't be suprising that a large number of people simply answered what they thought the poll takers wanted to hear.

PAD posted:
"...that would be the one who excoriated Democrats for saying flattering things about her daughter..."

Bill Mulligan responded:
"So flattering that people in the press room gasped when he said it. The reaction among focus groups was incredibly negative. There are reports that people within the Kerry campaign knew it was a mistake when they heard it. As others have pointed out, it's not that what he said was bad, it was just that he said it--"He claimed to know the mind of someone else's child as a way to hurt the parents." as Jonah Goldberg wrote."

Well, Bill, the "people in the press room gasped", but WHY? Gasping doesn't really mean a whole heck of a lot without the proper context. Exactly WHO gasped? How many were in the press room at the time? 2? 20? 200? How many of those people gasped? The gasping could also reflect simple surprise as well as shock, but again the *context* of the people's reaction is needed.
The "focus groups". Um, who were these "focus groups"? Republicans? Democrats? Conservative Christians? Focus groups aren't much better than "exit polls" (or Nielsen ratings, for that matter) in determining actual numbers. You take exit polling to task in another post, but you use "focus groups" as a justification? Um, okay.
Jonah Goldberg? You quote Jonah Goldberg as some source of authority in the matter? Sorry, but it's a bit like relying on Osama bin Laden as your sole source of information on Islamic thought. The man's an admitted conservative, and has absolutely no love for anything that John Kerry would have to say (unless Kerry were to suddenly and wholeheartedly embrace conservative ideology).
What I want to know is where the effin' hell Lynne and Dick Cheney, and their other daughter, Liz, were when Alan Keyes went on record to flatly state that Mary was a "selfish hedonist". Don't you kind of think that having a fellow Republican calling your daughter a "selfish hedonist" is just a bit more repulsive than John Kerry acting under the presumption that Mr and Mrs Cheney love Mary without any regard for her sexuality? It's amazing that the Cheneys offered no sort of public outrage over Keyes' comment; of course, I suppose that it's easier to use your lesbian daughter as a political toy when the "opposition" mentions her than when your "allies" mention her.
Both Lynne and Liz Cheney owe John Kerry an apology for their overreaction to his comments while completely failing to react to Keyes' words. Of course, we know that's never going to happen. Lynne Cheney just isn't noble enough to do it.

JosephW,

Everything you say about Jonah Goldberg is true...but entirely irrelevant to the discussion. I did not, as you say, quote him as a source of authority. I thought his point was a valid one ad I made sure to give him credit for it, lest it appear that I was just swiping it as my own words. Whether or not his point is valid is unrelated to his political leanings.

I don't know how anyone could put a positive spin on people gasping at something a politician says...I suppose it could be that they were just so carried away by his rhetorical brilliance that they were unable to express it in words.

Look, you may be right. I certainly can't prove that most people thought that Kerry was being crass. The polls can be wrong; the focus groups may be skewed. But I think you'd be on safer ground claiming that those mean republicans manipulated people into thinking ill of Kerry than to claim that the negative reaction to his statement was limited only to partisans.

"Don't you kind of think that having a fellow Republican calling your daughter a "selfish hedonist" is just a bit more repulsive than John Kerry acting under the presumption that Mr and Mrs Cheney love Mary without any regard for her sexuality?"

As for Keyes, I no more expect the Cheney's to acknowledge him than I would the Queen of England to respond to Lyndon LaRouch. The fact that the Illinois Republican Party thought that wackjob would save the day shows that idiocy is most certainly not limited to the left this year.

And finally in the interest of accuracy, looking at what Kerry actually said--“We’re all God’s children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney’s daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she’s being who she was, she’s being who she was born as. I think you talk to anybody, it’s not a choice.” says nothing at all about whether or not the Cheney's "love Mary without any regard to her sexuality". Perhaps conservatives did read too much into what Kerry said but it seems like you're doing the same, albeit more generously to Senator Kerry.

Peter said Interesting rant. Two things come to mind. First, up yours, anonymous boy. Second, you didn't say I was wrong, you just bitched about my being correct.

You know what, for someone who seems to be intelligent, you keep slamming me for not revealing my name. I could say it's Jack Monroe and you would have no freaking idea if it was correct or not. So what's the big deal? Why do you need to know who I am beside my screen name? Are you going to look my name up, try to figure out where I live, so you can picket my house or something? It's none of your business what my name is. What does that have to do with anything?

I still can't believe that you made me appoligize to you or you would shroud me and tell others to do the same (i.e. you threatened me) and you can't stop the Mr. Anonymous stuff or appoligize to me for telling me to go to Hell.

JosephW said Lynne Cheney just isn't noble enough to do it.

Not noble enough? Are you aware that Mrs. Cheney writes children's books? That shows high moral character and generosity doesn't it? What has Edwards wife or Kerry's wife done for the world?

Let's see. Kerry's wife gave us ketchup and tells reporters to Shove it. I have no idea who Edwards wife even is. The only thing I've ever heard about her is the fact that she has cancer now, which is tragic and I hope they found it fast enough to stop the spread.

What Kerry said in the debate was totally freaking wrong. When I was watching the debate and he said that, my jaw dropped to the floor. I am sure that millions of people watching the debate had the same reaction.

It was totally inappropriate and a political attack. Some people said Cheney didn't react when he was presented with the question in his debate with a similar question about his daughter. The difference is he was asked a question. Did anyone notice that he only thanked Edwards for his comments? He didn't say anything else. So, wouldn't that give them a hint where his family was off limits. I guess not. It was wrong and he paid for his comments.

Craig said So, let's meet our new Attorney General, shall we?

I wonder if you would put this much effort into this if he was a Democrat.

Do you find fault with everybody in office now or just people that Bush appoints?

Just how do you recommend getting information from a terrorist who tries to kill innocent people? You think they should be pampered and offered protections agaist interrogations? Hell no, I say. If some person attempted to kill innocent people, I say they should have no rights whatsoever. If they have to be tortured to find out who their contacts are, who paid them money, what the terrorist plan was, then so be it. Forget this Geneva rights BS. Anyone who thinks a terrorist deserves equal protection under the law has a screw loose.

We need to feret these people out, make them scared to death to ever mess with us, and make sure we get the information out of them to stop any and all future attacks from occurring. Plain and simple.

Forget this Geneva rights BS.

Another reason I want to get the hell away from the people in this country.

Because, if it's ok for this kind of treatment toward terrorists, it's ok toward those that speak against Bush, against gays, against minorities, and against those evil liberal bastards, right?

Craig, at least if you quote me, don't quote me out of context. I said the Geneva Convention should not apply to terrorists.

Another thing that bothers me. Saddam Hussein knows so much information that he will not, and never will tell us about weapons he had, things he had planned, etc. Because of the Geneva Convention, he is entitled to certain rights.

Don't you think that someone who is a proven terrorist should have every resource we have used against him to get whatever information we need to prevent innocent people from losing their lives? What rights should a mass murderer like Saddam be given? I say none whatsoever. What rights did he give the people he slaughtered? You have to show these people the same mercy they would show you or other innocents.

I bet you think Osama Bin Laden should have rights too once he's captured. Forget that. If he has to be tortured to find out what all of his plans were, who his lieutenants are, etc., then so be it.

rant over

I hope every Veteran here and abroad had a Great Veteran's day. All of you deserve great respect and honor for supporting and defending this country, regardless of when it occurred.

Novafan

Not noble enough? Are you aware that Mrs. Cheney writes children's books? That shows high moral character and generosity doesn't it? What has Edwards wife or Kerry's wife done for the world?

Stop being partisan and, at least, do some homework. Jeezus.

Roger said Stop being partisan and, at least, do some homework. Jeezus.

I have no reason to.

And, my name is Novafan, not Jeezus. :0)

Novafan:

>Not noble enough? Are you aware that Mrs. Cheney writes children's books? That shows high moral character and generosity doesn't it?

Yeah, Madonna has proven that.

By the way, Novafan, look up Teresa Heinz and philanthropy.
Also look up Lynne Cheney and lesbian novel.

There are some things to be debated on this issue, but what you said sure doesn't add anything.

Yeah, Madonna has proven that.

I didn't know she wrote children's books. Very interesting.

So, you're saying it's not noble to write children's books?

I don't agree with everything Madonna does, but I like her music and applaud her if she wrote Children's books.

Novafan:

>>Yeah, Madonna has proven that.

>I didn't know she wrote children's books. Very interesting.

Yep. She just did a public reading in the U.K for her 4th book.

So, you're saying it's not noble to write children's books?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that one not need to be noble to write children's books, nor do they necessarily write children's books for noble reasons.

How about you do a search on real job for her comment made to the press? Teresa's mouth gets in the way of any accomplishments she's made. Compare the search results of your request to my request.

oops.... I mentioned that they need not be noble. Your original point focused on high morals. Writing children's books doesn't show anything of one's moral character.

Just curious here:

How many of you think Arafat was a terrorist?

How many of you think Arafat was a peacemaker?

I say terrorist. What sayest thou?

I bet I can guess what some of the responses will be from certain posters without you having to respond.

I bet I can guess what some of the responses will be from certain posters without you having to respond.

How many of you think Bush is a terrorist?

How many of you think Bush is a peacemaker?

I bet the answers won't surprise anybody.

Not noble enough? Are you aware that Mrs. Cheney writes children's books? That shows high moral character and generosity doesn't it? What has Edwards wife or Kerry's wife done for the world?

Actually, to be fair I think we have to concede that Teresa Heinz Kerry has been running a charitable foundation for quite some time, and I've never heard or seen anything to indicate she's been anything but an asset to Western Pennsylvania because of that. I think she'd have been a nightmare of a First Lady, primarily because a Kerry victory would be a precondition of that, but let's not belittle her legitimate accomplishments.

Roger said Stop being partisan and, at least, do some homework. Jeezus.

I have no reason to.

Dude, we're about to kick you out of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. You're making us look bad.

I have no reason to.

And, my name is Novafan, not Jeezus.

You're apparently one of those right wingers that justifies all of Michael Moore's comments--ignorant and proud of it. You're showing that you REALLY need to be doing your homework.

But apparently you prefer someone who writes a lesbian romance to a philanthropist. Hmm....if Teresa Heinz had Lynn Cheney's writing background, I'd bet you wouldn't be quiet about that....

Let's see. Kerry's wife gave us ketchup and tells reporters to Shove it.

You do know that Teresa Heinz-Kerry has absolultely nothing to do with the operations of H. J. Heinz Company, right? Did you know that she is very active in charitable work in Western Pennsylvania?

Yes, her first husband was a member of the Heinz family, but the entire family owns less than 4% of the company's total stock. None of the living members of the family even sit on the board of directors of the company anymore.

You do know that Teresa Heinz-Kerry has absolultely nothing to do with the operations of H. J. Heinz Company, right? Did you know that she is very active in charitable work in Western Pennsylvania?

Novafan doesn't care. He doesn't need to do homework.

Hm. That's the very same thing that led to Teresa Heinz's rather stupid comment about a real job.

Obviously, it's OK when HE does it...but when a Democrat does it, it's a mortal sin....

Craig J. Ries wrote...
How many of you think Bush is a terrorist?

Okay, fine, I'll bite.

I don't think you can make a case for Bush being a terrorist, if only because he is the recognized (easy set-up for bickering if you guys are interested) leader of a nation, and has an army at his disposal.

Of course, all that really means is that instead of a terrorist, you could probably find a case for him being a war criminal...

Wow, what did I miss with Novafan? he got shrouded? I only remember one other poster getting shrouded before.

Novafan: I say. If some person attempted to kill innocent people, I say they should have no rights whatsoever...Craig, at least if you quote me, don't quote me out of context. I said the Geneva Convention should not apply to terrorists.

To be fair, I think what Novafan MEANT to say was that the GC should not apply to terrorists, but that's not what he said. He said "some person" who attempts "to kill innocent people."

Face it, terrorists are really nothing more than criminals. People who commit acts of violence with no government backing are criminals. People who commit acts of violence with a government's sanction or support are soldiers. The GC deals with the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilians during wartime.

So, in a way, Novafan is correct: the GC do not apply to terrorists. Since they usually lack a formal governmental association, they can't be the subject of a war. They are "militans civilians," which is a fancy way of saying "criminal."

I'd suggest Novafan go read some basic documents about what this country is supposed to be about, but that might be too much like assigning homework. Check out the Declaration of Independance and the Consitution of the United States of America. It's got some basic language in there about what our founders thought were some basic truths about mankind, and what rights belonged to all people, criminal, civilian, soldier, everyone.

The divestment of those right traditionally was a very challenging thing to accomplish. Novafan wants that divestment to occur whenever someone commits a terrorist act, which by his own words is when "some person attempted to kill innocent people."

Here's the thing: If you condone the use of torture (which, history has proven, doesn't usually elicit reliable information, it just gets the poor soul you're torturing to tell you what he thinks you want to know) for ANY reason, you open up the possibility that torture will in fact be used for ANY reason. I'll grant you, it must take some kind of inhuman being to plan and execute an attack that kills thousands of people. However, I do not want to see our society dragged down into that same inhuman mentality that allows us to condone the use of torture, murder, and invasion clothed in the guise of protection and safety.

If you condone the use of torture (snip) for ANY reason, you open up the possibility that torture will in fact be used for ANY reason.

Yes, and Novafan completely and utterly failed to recognize that fact in the reply I post, where he just sits there and claims I'm misquoting him.

Some people just don't get it. And they'll do anything they can to try and justify senseless violence against others.

Why should we care about that "Geneva Convention BS?" Simply put, if we don't adhere to the spirit of those accords, why should we expect any other nation to do the same with captured US soldiers?

I wouldn't shed any tears for any suffering that Osama bin Laden might endure, but how can we as a country claim to uphold high ideals when we're willing to chuck those ideals when they become inconvenient?

Not sure how many people are still reading the thread after more than 300 entries, but for whatever it’s worth, I just wanted to chip in with this.

A friend and co-worker ran for state representative (his first political campaign) this year, and lost by just shy of 900 votes. Not bad for a first campaign, I suppose. A week or so before the election, he was in the office taking care of some business and discussing the campaign. He found the lengths people would go to try to dig up dirt about their opponents amazing.

One of the truly amazing things (to me at least) were the ads circulating in his district saying both he and his party as a whole favored the importation of Canadian trash into the local community. And what was truly amazing about that allegation is that my friend’s family actually lost their farm because of said trash importation. He said that when he brought that point up at a debate and in interviews, the other party (or a 527 group, I’m not clear whether the opposition party actually paid for the ads) quickly backed down from those ads.

Yet, that doesn’t negate the fact that they tried to smear my friend, and his party as a whole, with a broad stroke of a muddy brush, obviously heedless of whether said smear was true. I guess ads stating why their guy would be the best choice for state representative (and one would assume they must have had _some_ reason to support him; if nothing else, they could have gone with his being older and thus having more “life experience”, and with his having campaigned before.) was too complicated a concept for them. Better to go with a scare the voters/smear the opposition campaign. It’s not like it’s gonna backfire, right? Who knows, maybe they couldn’t think of anything positive about their own guy in terms of why he was better qualified for the job.

In some ways, that ad campaign was laughable because they happened to pick a candidate whose family had been directly affected in a negative way by the trash importation and tried to depict him as being in favor of it. Yet, I wonder how many people took the allegation at face value without doing even a modicum of research. I wonder, for that matter, how many people bother to research any negative ad made about any candidate in any election. Probably a depressing few.

Overall, I find the nastier tone in politics in recent years somewhat depressing. I happened to catch the senior President Bush on PBS recently, talking about his father, Prescott’s observations about his time in the Senate. Prescott Bush, the former president said, believed there was more civility in reaching across the aisle and working with the opposition party in his day. Now, whether that was actually true, or whether the senior Mr. Bush had looked back through rose-colored glasses at his senate career, I don’t know. Either is possible, I suppose. There have been nasty political campaigns in the past (Adams Vs. Jefferson would rank as one, as I understand it), so maybe these things are cyclical.

If so, I’d like to see an imminent end to the nasty, attack-ad campaign cycle, and the emergence of more campaigns focused on issues, with honest, and respectful disagreement between the candidates as to whom is best to hold the office.

Maybe it'll happen before the sun goes nova.

Rick

Well, I have no hopes for it, given the sentiments expressed on this very thread.

Kingbobb said I'd suggest Novafan go read some basic documents about what this country is supposed to be about, but that might be too much like assigning homework.

Been there, done that. Thanks for the advice. Because I don't think we should turn the other cheek when it comes to dealing with the scumbags of this Earth, that means I haven't read nor understood the founding documents of this country? I beg to differ. There has to be exceptions to every rule. Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Milosevich (sp) should not even be considered human since they did and in the case of Osama, are doing so many inhumane things. How can we treat things like this as humans? They only thing they understand is force.

Craig said Some people just don't get it. And they'll do anything they can to try and justify senseless violence against others.

You've just captured Osama's second in command. You stopped him from executing his latest scheme to murder thousands of innocents. You know they have another major plan in place that will dwarf the 9/11 attacks hundred fold but you can't figure out when the attack will occur or where the target is. What do you do? Do you wave the human rights flag in this guys face or do you do whatever it takes to get the information out of him so that you save lives?

What do you do? Place your principles aside for the greater good or potentially sacrifice millions of lives because you're worried about offending this scumbags rights.

Novafan wrote...
There has to be exceptions to every rule.

Um, no.

You miss the point. By treating inhumane people humanely and with justice instead of revenge, it lifts us all up. Why go down to their level? The way we treat criminals says a lot about a society. I want to live in one that respects the law FOR EVERYONE, not where Abu Ghraib is allowed. To decide to treat people differently, as if they are not human, is easy. Thus it makes it easier to justify monstrous acts of our own. But this does not make it right.

Jeff said Um, no.

Ok, so maybe not Every Rule. I was trying to make a point where we should not apply normal rules to Terrorists. Does that sound better?

Karen said You miss the point. By treating inhumane people humanely and with justice instead of revenge, it lifts us all up. Why go down to their level? The way we treat criminals says a lot about a society. I want to live in one that respects the law FOR EVERYONE, not where Abu Ghraib is allowed. To decide to treat people differently, as if they are not human, is easy. Thus it makes it easier to justify monstrous acts of our own. But this does not make it right.

No, I don't miss the point. Sometimes you have to make decisions that are difficult but Necessary to make, even if they don't meet your standards of Right. I bet there are things that you have to do or have had to do in your lifetime that you do not agree with, but it was necessary to do for whatever reason. Do you understand what I'm saying?

You are wrong. It is easy to live your life without treating others badly. It is not difficult to ask for justice, instead of revenge. This is why there was a Geneva Convention. To spell out what is right and appropriate. Most of the nations in the world agreed. It is part of what makes us civilized. The rules are for EVERYONE or they are worth nothing.

Karen said The rules are for EVERYONE or they are worth nothing.

You undertand that these people want to destroy everything we believe in, including our way of life, and you still think they should be treated the same way as everyone else? If they kill you, they think they will be rewarded in the after life. You think they give a darned about our civilization's rules?

I have a different opinion than yours, and I believe it's a valid opinion. Would your viewpoint change if a terrorist killed someone you cared about and it was learned that he or she could have been stopped if they would have gotten the information out of someone they had captured. Think about that before you start saying that I'm wrong and you're right. Your minds already made up, why do I even bother.

Well, Novafan, since you invoked the Biblical phrase of "turn the other cheek," maybe you can find for me the scriptural passage that says that concept doesn't apply to scumbags.

Look, I get what you're saying. These folks do terrible things. They murder and terrorize their own citazens, plot or allow plots to murder and terrorize hundreds, and in some cases thousands of civlians. They're the bad guys.

The reason why we can't sink to the levels you're advocating is that, once you start to go in that direction, it's very hard to come back. And I'm not just talking about a general moral decay here. Once we start, as a society, to ignore the concepts of due process and inherant human rights, we take a few more steps toward anarchy. Handing government the ability to decide who does and does not have rights is not a good thing.

Here's a thought: take your scenario from above. The man you've captured has been raised from birth to believe that you and everything you represent is evil. He also believes that to die in the struggle against you is going to send him directly to heavan. And that the more that he suffers, the greater his reward in the afterlife is going to be. What makes you think that there's anything that you can do to him on earth that will make him divulge any useful information? Or worse, give you misinformation? So you then act, set up troops, look to defend the supposed target, and then the strike occurs somewhere else entirely? So, not only are those countless civilians now dead, but you've also violated your own belief in due process, the rule of law, and basic human rights. All for what? Nothing.

And even if you do manage to detect and thwart the plan, you've still given a whole new generation of terrorists another reason to hate us. Because for all our talk about freedom, democracy, and rights, at the end of the day, when it's American lives at stake, we're just as violent and selfish and immoral as the next guy.

And yes, the fact that you see nothing wrong with stripping anyone of their basic human rights without due process shows that you don't comprehend the meaning of the documents that form the foundation of our society. Remember, our founders where in their own fashion terrorists fighting against the English monarch. Certainly not on the scale of the people we face today, and certainly not targeting civilians to the extent they are targeted today, but still, would you condone the English torture of George Washington had they captured him?

Sometimes you have to make decisions that are difficult but Necessary to make, even if they don't meet your standards of Right.

Uh, guys, you're trying to reason with a concrete block. Look carefully at the above quote.

He's apparently oblivious to the fact that something that doesn't "meet standards of Right" is, in fact, more commonly referred to as "wrong". Given that, I don't think you'll have much luck getting through using mere logic, rationality and good sense.

Though no doubt we'll soon be treated to a dizzying rationalization of how doing something wrong is right. There might even be a tedious, yet at the same time strangely unoriginal, ad hominem attack thrown in for good measure. How exciting.

Hoo Boy. This has been one heck of a thread. Some bullets

ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES
I hate them. Precisely because they are not bug proof, and therefore may give an inaccurate account even if such was not planned. Plus, I remember an article in "Insight" magazine (a very conservative publication) that stated the possibility of suchmachines being programmed to register three votes for every vote cast for one vote cast for one candidate, for example. The possibility of such a thing happening - regardless of intent - bothers me a great deal.
A paper trail should be required. Maybe we could go back to butterfly ballots, and teach the easily confused how to follow a bloody ARROW that is pointing to the hole they have to punch for their candidate.
Having been on the losing side of a couple close elections in Philadelphia, including one where basically everyone agreed the Democratic candidate for mayor got about 10,000 fraudulent votes and won by about 3,000, I am sensitive to this topic, and do not change my opinionwhen it benefits, or has the potential to benefit, those I support.
It is essential in a democracy/ democratic republic that elections are generally thought to be won fair and square and that the true 'choice of the people" is victorious.
We lose that...

Re: TORTURE

You know, there really is a middle ground on this (despite some saying there can't be exceptions to every rule, despite the fact that this contradicts those who are constantly chittering about "nuance" and "the world is not black and white").
Of course we should do our best to uphold our ideals, but there are limits.
Actually, if "life" is one of the things guaranteed to us, are we not abandoning our ideals in a BIG way if we could possibly stop the deaths of millions of people by "getting our hands dirty".
Because, frankly, Abu Ghraib was not true torture. For true torture, ask those who know of The bataan Death March, or John McCain...or those who were mutilated and saw their wives raped in front of them by Saddam Hussein.
If you would rather see millions die than point and laugh at an enemy's penis, then you really have been blinded to all sense of perspective.

An addendum to my last point:
Would you say it is chauvinistic/wrong for a man to hit a woman who is trying to kill him, or destroy a city?
Of course, a man hitting a woman is wrong 99.999 percent of the time. But there ARE exceptions to every rule

MADONNA AND CHILDREN'S BOOKS

"Writing children's books doesn't show anything of one's moral character"

Sure it does. Not everything, mind you. But if you look at the majority of successful children's authors, they have empathy for, compassion for and yes, love for children.
In a day and age when a lot of crap from both the Right and Left is justified as being "for the children", connecting and truly caring about children is indeed, dare I say, a moral act.
Even if they are accused of being in it "for the money", well, they could make money by selling crack in the playground, too. That doesn't negate the education and enjoyment children's books bring to millions of children.
And why do people still get all up in arms about Madonna's morality, anyway?
Has she ever been threatened with having her children taken away from her?
Has she ever been "scandalized" by a drug or alcohol addiction?
Has she ever been caught being violent?
She's a successful businesswoman, has constantly adapted to the times, has now had an enduring marriage and by most accounts is a doting mother.
But she's comfortable with bothe her body and her sexuality, which drives prudes and alarmists and religious fundamentalists and rabid feminists crazy.
Pretty silly when you think about it.

Jerome Maida, Don't know that your comments were directed specifically at me, but I'll add in my $.10 (having already added about $.08)

I'd have to scroll up a ways, and that's getting to be some work now, but I don't think we were discussing any specific example of torture/abuse here. Novafan was speaking in generalities, and I think the responses to him have also been in generalities.

I see a difference between "getting your hands dirty" and torture. Some of the things that occurred, so far as we know, at Abu Gharib would approach, but not cross, the line. Some things go far beyond that line. They're prisoners: If it was supposed to be a pleasant thing, Canada and Mexico would have declared war on us long ago, with a simultaneous surrender offer.

But Novafan is talking about doing ANYthing in order to extract the information you THINK the prisoner has.

Also, here's the problem with weighing your potential losses against the torture of a few to gain information. That reasoning works, IF your prisoner actually knows something. Heck, you could even chalk it up as an even deal if your prisoner is at least guilty if something. BUt what if your guy's innocent? What if you make a mistake? How do you measure the torture/murder of an innocent life, even whe your goal is t protect many, many more lives? Who makes that decision?

If I may borrow from Star Trek, the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the one. Logic would dictate otherwise. But you tell that to the innocent guy who has his rights, freedom, and perhaps his very life sacrificed in the name of safety. If we had a foolproof way of determining who, exactly, the bad guys are, we'd not be having this discussion. But that's exactly what due process and the protection of basic human rights is all about.

Kingbobb said But that's exactly what due process and the protection of basic human rights is all about.

Are you telling me that if you were in the same room as Osama Bin Laden that you would care about basic human rights? It would take every ounce of energy I have to prevent myself from killing him with my bare hands. I probably would cross the line if faced with that situation.

What would you do if someone opens their jacket laced with dynamite and is about to light it? Would you stop and think about their basic human rights or would you act to try and stop them?

What would you do if you were a witness to a girl being kidnapped? Would you act to stop them or stand there and do nothing because you might infringe upon their rights. This happened a few days ago. A girl was kidnapped in front of other people and the bystanders did nothing to stop it. Did they do the right thing? Would they have violated his human rights if they had to hurt him to stop him?

There are 3 types of people in this world. Those that watch things happen (see above), those that make things happen, and those that wonder what the heck just happened (see above).

The only way we know what happened is it was captured on tape. I would have yelled at someone to get their license plate number, yell at another one to call the police, and then do what I could to prevent him from getting the girl in the car. Even if I had to hurt him to stop him, I would do so. As far as I'm concerned, his basic human rights stopped the minute he crossed the line and attempted to kidnap that girl. He trampled over her human rights didn't he? Who's the victim here, the kidnapped girl or the kidnapper?

David said Dude, we're about to kick you out of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. You're making us look bad.

I appoligize for my comments about Teresa. It was uncalled for since I didn't do the research on her background. I was really upset when someone questioned Mrs. Cheney's nobility, and I lashed out in response, which doesn't make it right.

Novafan (man enough to admit he made a mistake)

"Writing children's books doesn't show anything of one's moral character"

Sure it does. Not everything, mind you. But if you look at the majority of successful children's authors, they have empathy for, compassion for and yes, love for children.

Interestingly enough, so do most child molesters.... for entirely different reasons, of course.

I appoligize for my comments about Teresa. It was uncalled for since I didn't do the research on her background. I was really upset when someone questioned Mrs. Cheney's nobility, and I lashed out in response, which doesn't make it right.

Novafan (man enough to admit he made a mistake)

Yeah, that is a sign of a man; heaven knows I made my share of mistakes. (And if you prefer Mrs. Cheney to Teresa Heinz as a person, that's fine...I can admit there are grounds to do so...)(and personally, writing a racy novel in the past is a plus in my book....Heh).

I probably would cross the line if faced with that situation.

I wonder how many Iraqis would do the same thing if they were in the room with an unarmed George W Bush.

Ahh, but that would be terrorism to kill Bush.

To kill Osama in the same situation? Well, I'm sure Bush would be willing to try and get you off from murder.

But then, there's a difference between an unarmed enemy combant who has been captured or given up (like Saddam), and one who's pointing a gun at your head.

Or do you advocate wonderful events like Tianamen Square, where the army would rather just run over the unarmed civilians in tanks? Yeah, that's humane.

Craig said Ahh, but that would be terrorism to kill Bush.

You've got this fixation with Bush don't you. Did he do something personal to you that you can't stop bashing him or can you not stand the fact that people actually like him as Commander in Chief. Which is it?

Can you make one counter post to mine that doesn't involve you trying to slam Bush? I ask a question about Arafat, you turn it around and ask the same question about Bush. I state something that could occur with me in the room with Osama, and you put a spin on it to include Bush. I can't wait to hear what you're going to come up with next.

Is there anything else you would like to say about Bush? I'm sure everyone would like to hear everything you have to say on the matter.

For this statement "Writing children's books doesn't show anything of one's moral character" Sure it does. Not everything, mind you. But if you look at the majority of successful children's authors, they have empathy for, compassion for and yes, love for children.

eclark1849 said Interestingly enough, so do most child molesters.... for entirely different reasons, of course.

Have you ever been molested before? I'm so glad to hear that the messed up individual who did that to me actually loved me. Yes, that makes me feel great for you to say that.

How can you compare the love someone feels for children that they express in children's books to a child molester. That is a very sick thing to say indeed.

Let's hear, "if that really did happen to you..." again, shall we. Not that I haven't heard it before.

Got anything else snappy to say?

Novafan (disgusted)

Ok, I should know better, but I'm going to try one last time.

Novafan, you describe several situations. All in response to my statement about due process. First, you're in a room with Bin Laden, and he's sitting in a chair across from you, so you must resist the temptation to kill him. He's not threatening you, he's unarmed, and he's pretty much not going anywhere.

Your second and third situations are a bomb-bearing guy is threatening to detonate himself, and finally, the very real and recent apparant broad daylight kidnapping of a woman by two men in a mall parking structure, which several mall shoppers witnessed, but apparantly not one got a license plate number, or a description of either the woman or the men.

There's a significant difference in these examples. With Bin Laden, he doesn't appear to be threatening you right that moment. Is he planning to? Has he planned something? Sure, maybe, I don't know. What I do know is that you are in no immediate danger, that I can tell, and last I checked, private citizens aren't given a license to kill, so if you do give in to that urge, and you do kill him, congratulations, you've just committed murder. Now, I don't know what it's like to kill another person. I pray to God I never do. Truth to tell, if Bin Laden were calmly sitting in a chair across the room from me, either he's screwed, 'cause he's been captured, or I'M screwed, 'cause I'VE been captured.

Your other two situations? Let me make a suggestion: Go look up under what conditions actions taken in self defense provide absolve you of any guilt under the law. You kill a suicide bomber before he can make himself go BOOM? Self defense. You act to prevent a kidnapping, and the kidnappers get hurt or killed in the process? Self defense, or defense of another. Legally accepted defenses that protect you from criminal sanction when you act in a way that otherwise would be a crime. The key factor? The threat was real, or reliably perceived as real, and it was IMMINENT.

If Bin Laden's just sitting defenseless in a chair, there's no imminent threat to defend against.

The scariest thing I've heard in recent times is Americans saying they have no problem with a pre-emptive military strike on possible future threats. It scares me because there's nothing to stop us but ourselves. And Novafan, to be very honest, it's people like you that scare me the most. Because you have absolutely no concept of how very much like our current enemies you are.

I can't wait to hear what you're going to come up with next.

Well, if you're disgusted, then I can say "Mission Accomplished.

A) You know how I feel about Bush getting releected,
B) It's the potshot at Bush you're expected, and I didn't even have to say his (sorry ass) name.

Craig said Well, if you're disgusted, then I can say "Mission Accomplished.

My disgusted comment was directed at the individual who made the uncalled for child molestation comment. Maybe if you actually read the post, you would have figured that out. That would be giving you too much credit though wouldn't it.

kingbobb said If Bin Laden's just sitting defenseless in a chair, there's no imminent threat to defend against.

You know what the problem with liberals is? Well, let me tell you what a major problem is.

You cry foul if a mass murderer such as Osama Bin Laden has his rights taken away from him, and yet you do nothing as the rights of someone who isn't even born yet has his/her rights taken away from them.

Don't you see a fundamental problem here? It's OK to murder an innocent life in the womb of a mother because it's her choice (as you say), but it's not OK to take away the liberties of a mass murderer.

I can't figure this one out and neither can the Democratic Party. Until they do get it figured out, I don't think they will get someone into the Presidency again.

If a woman voluntarily has sex with a man and gets pregant, then they are committing murder when that child is aborted. How you can't see it this way, and yet cry foul when a deviant gets his/her rights taken away is hypocritical to say the least.

The only time abortion should be legal is if the woman was raped or if there is a problem that could result in the death of the woman and/or the baby if the pregnancy continues.

How can you care about the rights of criminals when you care nothing about the rights of the unborn?

Novafan: Wah wah wah I was molested as a child!

Bladestar: Shut up and get over it.

That certainly explains why you turned to religion since you feel so powerless and useless that you need to belief in an imaginary higher power to give you worth in your own eyes...

So according to Nova-dork, an atrocity commited in repsonse is OK, but not one commited by one (or ones) who do it in the name of THEIR faith in THEIR god? Gotta love that christian ethic...

"The crusades and the inquistion and the salem witch trials were good! But any other belief system is wrong!"

I wish you idiots had a working mirror so you could see how sad and pathetic you really are...

And the unborn aren't people, so they have NO rights...

Novafan:

I was being sardonic. I was pointing out that child molesters, and in fact a great deal of criminals, are great practitioners of pyschology. Child molesters know how to approach their victims by getting them to trust the molester. Look at a typical molester. He pretends he's looking for a lost puppy. He asks a child to help him, and he looks so sad. The child feels great empathy for him and helps. Or he acts as an authority figure which the child is afraid to disobey for fear of being punished. (The opening scene in Mystic River is a good example). Another is "Your mom/dad sent me to come take you to them." The child trusts them because they believe their mom/dad wouldn't send somebody that would hurt them.

BTW, as for whether or not your particular molester "loved" you or not, my guess would be that he honestly either didn't think or know the difference. I don't think that most child molesters think they're doing anything evil. Look at NAMBLA.

As for whether I was ever molested is more personal that I intend to be on these boards.

(Crap. I'm just gonna have to stop reading these boards all together to stop posting)

My disgusted comment was directed at the individual who made the uncalled for child molestation comment. Maybe if you actually read the post, you would have figured that out. That would be giving you too much credit though wouldn't it.

You seem to be disgusted by liberals in general because some of us won't bend over and take it up the arse from Bush & all the other sad conservatives in this country.

Bladestar: Shut up and get over it.

I don't remember throwing peanuts in your general direction, so what makes you think you're comment means jack squat to me. Yes, I found religion to make up for being molested. Boy, you sure hit the nail on the head with that one.

Novafan: Throwing peanuts now.

Bladestar: Loser here who thinks the Unborn have no rights!

Novafan: 'nuff said for me on this thread

Craig,
You might want to check out this website:

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

The fight isn't over yet. There are people trying to find out the truth. My personal opinion? I think they managed to steal another election. I have a problem believing 51% of the voters actually think this administration is doing a good enough job to keep doing what their doing. Looks like we aren't the only ones. Although I've heard about this on Air America and several blogs, like Dailykos, and Josh Marshall's Talking points memos, the mainstream media is treating this story as a non-story. Anyway, seeing your political leanings, I thought you might be interested.

Oh no, pathetic loser can alter my statements in his "Quotes" because he too sad to be a man...

Craig,
You might want to check out this website:

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

The fight isn't over yet. There are people trying to find out the truth. My personal opinion? I think they managed to steal another election. I have a problem believing 51% of the voters actually think this administration is doing a good enough job to keep doing what their doing. Looks like we aren't the only ones. Although I've heard about this on Air America and several blogs, like Dailykos, and Josh Marshall's Talking points memos, the mainstream media is treating this story as a non-story. Anyway, seeing your political leanings, I thought you might be interested.

Well, if it turns out that there were irregularities, but it didn't affect the election, I'd STILL want to get the problems fixed. There should be no toleration of fixable mistakes.

However, I have nothing but contempt for politicians who play partisan games with voting. The Republicans in Washington state are complaining about Democrats suing to get a look at provisional votes (so the Dems can contact the voters in question to get them to confirm that they are, indeed, legit). That's not the problem...the problem is that the Republicans here are allowed to examine provisional votes in other counties and are taking advantage of the ability in those other counties. (And they have the nerve to say that Democrats are not playing fairly....)

Roger,
Well, if it turns out that there were irregularities, but it didn't affect the election, I'd STILL want to get the problems fixed. There should be no toleration of fixable mistakes.

I agree. Right now (and I'm not sure of any exact figure) but there is a large percentage of people out there who don't think this election was properly counted. There are quite a number of irregularities in many states. (Especially those with the electronic voting machines without paper back-up). This is a non-partisan issue. Both sides should want to ensure we have an election with a true accounting of each vote.

By the way, I live in WA state, and the Dems are able to have a look. They judge found no reason why they shouldn't. Especially since many counties were already open to ispection.

inspection, not ispection

I post so many typos you all must think I am illiterate at times.

You might want to check out this website

I've heard of the site. I also heard that the founder of that did some interview with Dean or something and she showed how easy it was to manipulate the vote.

I think I might've mentioned this, but I read an article in Florida about voter registration vs voter turnout. And how the touch machines look fine, but it's the optical read ballots that seem odd.
People want to dismiss these results as nothing more than "Southern Democrats", but Florida isn't the South that everybody thinks they know and love. Nor can it be so easily explained when the results are not even across the board.

My personal opinion? I think they managed to steal another election. I have a problem believing 51% of the voters actually think this administration is doing a good enough job to keep doing what their doing.

Ah, yes. Your opinion is just so right that a majority of the people in the country couldn't possibly have done something different.

The election is over and conceded. I agree that if there are problems they should be fixed, but denial doesn't help.

Seems Novafan has left the building, so this is probably going to be like talking to the wind. Which, come to think of it, isn't all that different when he's lurking around.

Anyway, Novafan brings the issue of abortion into our discussion of whether it's ok or not to kill a known terrorist in cold blood. AKA murder. And let me start by saying that, when the person you're discussing something with brings a totally unrelated subject into the conversation, trying to make a "how can you do THIS when you also do THAT" point, it usually means that they're run into something that you've raised that they know they can't rebut, so they try a "bait and switch" tact.

Again, anyway, Novafan starts to make my point for me. We started out talking about whether it was ok to kill Osama Bin Laden when he's sitting calmly in a room, not threatening anyone. Now Novafan's talking about taking away Bin Laden's rights, and comparing that to allowing abortion.

See, he's changing the situation. The whole point about not being able to just kill Bin Laden, or any prisoner, is that people as individuals shouldn't have that authority. That's why we have governments, entrusted with the authority to decide when an individual has forfeited their basic human rights, such as freedom, liberty, and life. If just anyone could make that decision, we'd be spiraling down into anarchy.

And by the way, Novafan, I'll thank you to not make assumptions about me. I don't think I've spoken to the issue of abortion on these boards before, and neither have I made a delcaration of party affiliation, so please, when you're ressponding to something I've said, don't make those assumptions. I hope it comes as a surprise to you that my feelings about abortion mirror yours in many ways.

"The overwhelming majority of Bush supporters did not list "moral values" as the biggest factor in their vote. In one exit poll of about 13,000 voters from both parties, 22% listed "moral values" as the number one factor. Of that 22%, 80% voted for Bush. (Source: NY Times, 11/3/04) A fraction of 22% (even a large fraction) is still less than 22%. (We can also factor in a rather wide margin of error, since we know how "accurate" this exit poll was -- but let's take it at face value for a moment.) Even if every single one of that 22% voted for Bush, that leaves at least 78% -- which is in fact an overwhelming majority -- of Bush voters naming some other issue as the most important to them in the election. (Source: New York Times, 11/3/04)"

Captain Math asks me to point out that there is severe math abuse going on here.

If 22% of all voters (based on the sample) voted based on "moral values", and 80% of those moral voter values went for Bush, then 17.6% of all voters voted for Bush based on moral values. Does that mean that 82.4% of folks voted for Bush on reasons besides moral values? Nope, because about 49% of voters didn't vote for Bush at all. About 51% voted for him... which means that more than a third of the folks who voted for Bush (again, assuming the sample is an accurate one) did so based on "moral values". It also means that if you take out the "moral value" votes for both sides, Kerry beats Bush handily in the popular vote, making this arguably a "swing" issue.

Captain Sociologist also idly wonders why some many folks are taking the exit poll info as accurate as to demographics and as inaccurate when it comes to representing how people actually voted.

Captain Sociologist also idly wonders why some many folks are taking the exit poll info as accurate as to demographics and as inaccurate when it comes to representing how people actually voted.

Screwing with the polls (on principle)?

Mark,
I stated MY opinion. I did not try and say it was fact. I find it hard to believe. I'm still allowed my opinion, aren't I? Or in this new America do I have to think the way the "majority" does to be allowed to speak. I don't think anything will come of it for this election. Bush will be inaugurated in January. Yay for your side. But, I'd like to make damn sure that the next election is truly the will of the people instead of the voting machines.

Posted by Glenn Hauman:
"Captain Sociologist also idly wonders why some many folks are taking the exit poll info as accurate as to demographics and as inaccurate when it comes to representing how people actually voted."

This is an example of the lazy media (hey, I'm counting myself in that group). You have to look at where the exit polls are taking place, mostly in urban (city) centers. Reporters and the like don't really want to stray far from the comforts of home, and home is the cities.

It reminds me of what happened here in NC several years ago. Jesse Helms was running for reelection against Charlotte businessman Harvey Gant. It was a horribly nasty campaign from both candidates, and ALL of the polls (both pre and exit polling) showed Gant with quite a large lead. But, in actual votes, Helms won easily. This is because the pollsters didn't go out from the urban centers to the small towns and rural areas where Helms was very popular (because he actually worked for these people, unlike a soon-to-be former senator from NC).

Karen says

"I stated MY opinion. I did not try and say it was fact. I find it hard to believe. I'm still allowed my opinion, aren't I? Or in this new America do I have to think the way the "majority" does to be allowed to speak."

See, I think this is one reason why the left lost. You state an opinion, mark mocks it and you respond in a way that implies he is trying to in some way strip you of your right to speak. Straw man argument, all the way.

Like the boy who cried wolf, if people insist on treating disagreement as equal to censorship it will become easier for the true censors to get away with it.

I stated MY opinion. I did not try and say it was fact. I find it hard to believe. I'm still allowed my opinion, aren't I? Or in this new America do I have to think the way the "majority" does to be allowed to speak. I don't think anything will come of it for this election. Bush will be inaugurated in January. Yay for your side. But, I'd like to make damn sure that the next election is truly the will of the people instead of the voting machines.

You have the right to speak and I never claimed otherwise. You are the one throwing out accusations of election stealing based on polling data, though, and saying that "the fight isn't over yet". You can cloak it by saying it's an opinion, but if I say my opinion that John Kerry was a traitor for meeting with the North Vietnamese, you'd probably be calling it slander (BTW, just for the record I don't consider Kerry a traitor). It reminds me of what's sometimes said by the losing side in a close football game: "We won every statistic except the final score". Only one poll counts - the one on election day.

I agree with you, though, that the election process needs updating. In the last 10 years I've used three types of systems: punch-card, optical scanner (connect-the-dots), and now e-voting. Optical scanner is the best of the lot in my opinion. You get a paper trail with no confusion on chads. I imagine if optical scanners became the norm, though, we'd have problems with a lack of pens causing disenfranchisement. :)

Bill,
See, I think this is one reason why the left lost. You state an opinion, mark mocks it and you respond in a way that implies he is trying to in some way strip you of your right to speak. Straw man argument, all the way.

Key word being Mocked. I responded because it appeared as though what I said should not be aired since it was not the majority view. It wasn't right.

Mark,
I never said it was fact. Just my opinion. I also don't think anything will ever be proven. This is not just my accusation. Many people think there was something funny about this election. And even if there was no overt fraud at all, if the machines had glitches that miscounted, then there is a huge problem. (From what I understand more than a few had problems. The ones that did not appear to have anything wrong could still have performed below standard, we just don't know about it.)

I mentioned optical scanners above as the best modern tool precisely as you've said: A valid paper trail.

And the pollsters go where a majority of the people polled will be. If you have 100 urban voters and 25 rural voters then the most likely accurate statistics will be answers from the 100, not the 25. And no one is addressing Captain Sociologist's comment of why part of the poll viewed as accurate, but another is viewed inaccurate.

Karen,

Being mocked is not the same as not having the right to say things. There are those who will mock you no matter what you say. Your only reasonable option is to try to be as accurate as possible so that the mockery isn't well deserved.

At any rate, there is no logical reason to assume that being mocked means that you have lost the right to state your opinions. Mock back. Ignore it. Provide evidence. Whatever. But don't cry censorship and expect anyone to take it seriously.

As for Captain Sociologist's statement...personally I don't put much stock in ANY of the poll results. There are a thousand ways to skew them. Only one or two were good at predicting the eventual outcome. The stuff about moral issues being so important is also something to take with a grain of salt, though both sides are making hay from it. (People were given a list of options and "moral values" got the most hits--but when asked to name their own most important issue "moral values" dropped considerably as a choice).

And no one is addressing Captain Sociologist's comment of why part of the poll viewed as accurate, but another is viewed inaccurate.

You mean about "values" being the "most important concern"? Well, here's one Republican who would agree that it was not. I life in Dallas/Fort Worth and generally the number one reason(s) people in my sample area voted for Bush were 1) terrorism and 2) economy. No values came into the equation. I tend to dismiss the accuracy of values as much as I dismiss that Kerry had a lead in Ohio :)

Ah, yes. Your opinion is just so right that a majority of the people in the country couldn't possibly have done something different.

Sounds like religion - Their opinion is just so right that a majority of people in the country that thinks it right must mean it's right.

You have to look at where the exit polls are taking place, mostly in urban (city) centers.

Yet, this makes even LESS sense - because the more rural you are, the more likely to have your focus upon "moral values".

More people in urban areas are concerned with violence, with terrorism, and with the economy.

So if 20% of people said moral values, and the polls are only done in urban areas, then it's likely much higher to the total %-age of people that would cite moral values.

Sounds like religion - Their opinion is just so right that a majority of people in the country that thinks it right must mean it's right.

or like Political Correctness/Moral Relativism.

Bill,
At any rate, there is no logical reason to assume that being mocked means that you have lost the right to state your opinions. Mock back. Ignore it. Provide evidence. Whatever. But don't cry censorship and expect anyone to take it seriously.

The statement, "Your opinion is just so right that a majority of the people in the country couldn't possibly have done something different." does not require evidence. I take it to mean that since I am not among the majority my opinion is wrong. I would like to point out that since it is opinion it is not wrong or right. I would also like to point out that since it is personal opinion I do not have to back it up with facts. There are no facts. I cannot prove anything, which I have said before. I was not crying censorship. I asked a rhetorical question. I did not accuse Mark specifically. You seem to think I am being too sensitive to the mocking. Perhaps I am. Perhaps after a couple of weeks of hearing discussions about whiny liberals because we don't choose to accept our loss in the way we are told we should, I am more than a little defensive. I will not get over this election any more than Rush Limbaugh got over the election on Bill Clinton. I did not change my mind about this administration because of this election. I truly believe that history will mark this time as a dark period for the US. Again, my personal opinion.

You seem to think I am being too sensitive to the mocking. Perhaps I am. Perhaps after a couple of weeks of hearing discussions about whiny liberals because we don't choose to accept our loss in the way we are told we should, I am more than a little defensive.

On the flip side, Karen, I'm probably a bit defensive since the election hearing the talking heads (and more than a few people on this forum) wringing their hands about the stupidity of the masses in the Red States and about the intolerance of those who voted for Bush. We're tired of being insulted, too.

Truce?

Truce.

I'm not here to fight with anyone. I really like that PAD provides a forum for our thoughts and allows all sides. I loved his writing before I found this site, but have a lot of respect for what he does here. I learn things here while reading the thoughts of those who take the other sides of issues. Sometimes it crystalizes my own thoughts, sometimes I even agree and change my mind after seeing the information some bring to the conversation. (Not as often.) :)

A bit late, but my goodness this little snit from PAD was too good to pass up. Funny how the so- called "Party of Love and Understanding" can turn around and be so incredibly bigoted.

But I'll hit on a few points here.

PAD: Well, if/when the draft comes, it'd be kind of nice if only conservatives were left to send their children to die in Bush's war. All the liberals in Canada could wave bye-bye to the passing troop transports.

I absolutely disagree. I think that only those who wanted to bring back the draft in the first place -- the Democrats -- should be forced to send their children to war.

This entire draft thing has been a massive myth that the liberal left -- and the liberal media -- has persisted in spreading. Bush is against the draft. The Republicans are against the draft. The military is against the draft. The only people who wanted to bring back the draft were all left-wing lunatics and Democrats. Kerry was far more likely to bring back the draft than Bush ever was.

Secondly ...

This cute little tidbit from that snit that was posted:

... that if Canada could just give up a strip of land along the northern
border of North Dakota and Montana, we could build a "Freedom Trail"

A cute little pipe dream. That particular stretch of Canada is Red Country and would've went overwhelming to Bush if they were USA states. Take out Quebec and Canada is just as evenly split in the Conservative/Liberal spectrum as the USA is. A little bit more to the left, but it's not quite the socialist paradise that many people think it is.

You'd be better off seceding to Europe instead.

But ah well. You lost. I won. I'm glad that the public did not buy all the lies that the mainstream media tried to cram down our throats those last few months. That really restores my confidence in the intelligence of the American population.

Now we need to do something about the brain-washed 47%.

Starving Writer posted: "Now we need to do something about the brain-washed 47%.

You mean you believe that the other 4% of Bush's voters voted for him of their own accord? :D

(Yes, I'm just kidding -- but I couldn't resist such a wide opening!)

Let's not forget what the leftists and the Democrats did in the period before the election.

- Had a "neutral" TV station all but reveal its liberal bias when they "revealed" memos designed to smear the President of the U.S.A. Too bad those memos were proved fake by the blogsphere in 15 minutes flat.

- Attempt to bring back the draft, then claim that the Republicans were doing it. Take a closer look at the two "bills" that tried to bring back the draft. All of them were co-sponsored by Democrats. The bill that was passed up in the House lost overwhelming. Only two Representatives voted for it. Both were Democrats. Bush, Republicans, and the U.S. Military all steadfastily stated that they would *not* bring back the draft. And yet this somehow became an issue thanks to a certain rather biased newsanchor.

- Protestors shot up various RNC headquarters around the nation. I have yet to hear of one instance where Republicans or righties tried to shoot up a DNC headquarter. It seems as if most of the lunatics were on the Democrats' side.

- Some cute "pranksters" tossed pies at Ann Coulter when she was giving a speech. When's the last time a Republican threw anything at any of the many celebrity leftist asshats out there? God knows Michael Moore certainly deserves having several pies tossed his way. Of course he probably would've taken it as a compliment or devoured them before they hit the ground.

- A Democrat tried to drive over Katherine Harris, the ex-Secretary of State of Florida. He thankfully failed. Not one single Republican lowered themselves to attempted murder. Too bad you Democrats can't say the same thing.

- The very existence of Michael Moore and his crockumentary. The fact that otherwise rational human beings actually gobble up his bullshit then ask for more. No, wait, actually, you leftists keep Michael Moore. I honestly believe that he played a massive part in handing Florida and Ohio over to President Bush. As long as Moore is around, the Republicans will continue to pile up victories after victories.

Here's to another landslide in 2006, and a new Republican president in 2008! (Oh, please please please nominate Hillary in 2008 -- The Republicans could put up a boiled cabbage and it would still beat Hillary in a landslide.)

- The very existence of Michael Moore and his crockumentary. The fact that otherwise rational human beings actually gobble up his bullshit then ask for more. No, wait, actually, you leftists keep Michael Moore.

Well, yeah, the right has had Rush Limbaugh. Fair's fair, I guess.

"Protestors shot up various RNC headquarters around the nation. I have yet to hear of one instance where Republicans or righties tried to shoot up a DNC headquarter. It seems as if most of the lunatics were on the Democrats' side."

There was at least one incidence where the headquarters of the Democrats was shot at--don't have the details right now but I remember seeing it.

I'd agree that the violence was mostly fromt he left though I think one should fairly point out that it may well have been more from the anarchist fringe than from true liberals. I would no more blame liberals for the actions of the anarchist fringe than I would want conservatives to be tarred by what some separatist militia group does.

You know, thinking about the "let's split away and make our own country! Mom could make the costumes and my dad has lumber!" fantasy; a good number of the "blue" states didn't go to Kerry by a whole lot. How is the new country of FONAS going to ensure that a shift of just a few percent in the electorate doesn't turn a state into one of (shudder) THEM? Re-education camps? Loyalty oaths? Come to think of it, would FONAS even be a democracy? Founded on specific political values, would it risk having a mere majority potentially alter those values?

And bang, right away I find a potential solution-- from alleged "humorist" Garrison Keillor in an article found at http://maroon.uchicago.edu/news/articles/2004/11/07/npr_star_keillor_tel.php

"Not one to shy away from speaking his mind, Keillor proposed a solution to what he deemed a fundamental problem with U.S. elections. “I’m trying to organize support for a constitutional amendment to deny voting rights to born-again Christians,” Keillor smirked. “I feel if your citizenship is in Heaven—like a born again Christian’s is—you should give up your citizenship. Sorry, but this is my new cause. If born again Christians are allowed to vote in this country, then why not Canadians?”

Oh my sides! The article describes "tears of laughter" rolling down the sides of the audiences cheeks. No word on whether or not they ended the festivities by rampaging through the downtown area smashing the windows of any Republican owned shops.

FONAS Uber Alles!

Well, yeah, the right has had Rush Limbaugh. Fair's fair, I guess.

Okay, I can't believe I'm goig to stand up for Rush considering I grew tired of him over a decade ago. However, one important difference between Rush and Michael Moore is that Rush doesn't present his show as a "news" show the way Michael Moore presents his films as "documentaries". Rush says point blank that his primary intent is to entertain.

Other talk show hosts (Hannity comes to mind) don't bother making that distinction.

Now we need to do something about the brain-washed 47%.

Yeah, we 47% have been brainwashed by an Administration reveling in the New Evangelical Kingdom.

I think you got the wrong %-age there being brainwashed.

Btw, does anybody else think it's pathetic on the part of the right that they literally spit on Michael Moore, yet defend ultra-bitch Ann Coulter as if she's the Second Coming?

You think some of us, and Michael Moore, have a particular distain for the right. But if Clinton died tomorrow, Coulter would be there to piss on his grave.

"Btw, does anybody else think it's pathetic on the part of the right that they literally spit on Michael Moore, yet defend ultra-bitch Ann Coulter as if she's the Second Coming?"

Well for starters, "literally" means he has actually been spat upon. If that happened, shame on whoever did it (hell, write them up for assault, no telling what they might be carrying).

Since I have not spit on Mr Moore, that being far more energy expending than I think he is worth, and I got tired of Ann Coulter about 2 weeks after I first heard her, I guess I am not a member of the right. And the left won't have me. I feel forlorn.

I think you got the wrong %-age there being brainwashed.

and

You think some of us, and Michael Moore, have a particular distain for the right.

I wonder why we would think that.....

Karen,
While I too would like to see a paper trail with electronic voting machines - which I detest - you are really going over the top here. Let's look at some of the statements that have you so hot and bothered, okay?

KAREN: My personal opinion? I think they managed to steal another election. I have a problem believing 51% of the voters actually thnk this administration is doing a good enough job to keep doing what they're doing.

MARK L:Ah, yes. Your opinion is so right that a majority of people couldn't possibly have done something different.

Karen, you're not "merely stating an opinion here". A pure opinion would be "Bush sucks", "PAD's latest NF book is the best ever" or "chocolate rules".
You are not doing that. You are accusing people of committing a crime and trying to delegitimize a freaking national election for President. If there were actually strong evidence, fine. But there's not. Just your feeling that the majority of the country MUST agree with you. That's what Mark L was trying to say. Reread the damn post. He's not saying you have to side with the majority. He's pointing out that because the evidence/vote counts don't jibe with your way of thinking the election must have been "stolen". That is an acuusation you made, so don't play the victim.

KAREN: I responded because it appeared that what I said should not be aired because it was not the majority view"

Wrong. He was simply responding to your outrageous assertion that because the electon did not go the way you wanted it to, there must be some foul play, snce you have a hard time believing a majority of people don't think the same way you do.

KAREN: I would also like to point out that because it is my personal opinion I do not have to back it up with facts.

What are you? Five? No, Karen, you don't. But it would sure give your accusations and/or your opinions in this case a bit more legitimacy, rather than being viewed as playing the victim and being paranoid, strident, delusional, partisan, drowning in sour grapes, arrogant and elitist.

This is what most people don't get. You are entiltled to your opinion. You are not entitled to have your opinions respected or even taken seriously. Al opinions do not have equal weight.

I wonder why we would think that.....

I don't hide it. But the point is that those on the right point fingers and then try to hide when the focus is upon them.

Moore shows his distain with facts, yet right-wingers then just say to be nothing but a freak show, that he must be full of lies.

Coulter ought to look at her own ugly mug in the mirror some time if she wants to see a real freak.

Couple those "opinions" toward people like Moore, with the Bush Administration's bs, and it's no wonder that the people don't know the truth.

I find it sad that this discussion has now devolved into, "Your side has more freaks than our side does."

While I decided to throw my support in with the Kerry camp this election, I have never joined either political party because inter-party debates always seem to end up in name-calling discussions like this.

I have heard plenty of stories about bricks being thrown threw windows that had Bush posters or cars with Kerry stickers being keyed. This was a particularly contentious election and many people did take it way too far. But I don't think these people are indicative of what the vast majority of members of either party are like, anymore than I think Michael Moore or Anne Coulter are indicative of typical Democrats or Republicans.

Most Democrats and Republicans are decent, hard-working Americans who just want to pay their bills and take care of their families. I know that's a shocking idea to some here, but it's true. I think a lot people need to remember that for the next election.

Is it true that Canada is "a land that tilts more to the left than the United States" as reported by reuters?

Isn't Alaska more to the left than Canada? But then again doesn't Alaska tilt more to the right? Something to ponder. :0)

Here's a support site I found:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.html

Craig said Moore shows his distain with facts.

That has to be one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time. Stop it, you're killing me. LOL

Keep going Craig, and soon it will be one enemy of freedom down with millions to go...

Bladestar said Keep going Craig, and soon it will be one enemy of freedom down with millions to go.

LMAO @ Bladestar. He actually wishes me and others ill will.

Gee, imagine that.

I feel pretty free, Bladestar, as I'm sure others in the so called "millions" that you refer to do also.

Canada has great beer. You and Craig should get together sometime if you're legally old enough to drink that is.

Scratch that Bladestar, don't get together and drink. Beer is a depressant, of which, you don't need right now. The best thing to do is breathe deeply and count to 10. You can use your fingers if you want to. :0)

For those who still believe Saddam wasn't connected with terrorists:

"WASHINGTON — Money from the United Nations Oil-for-Food program (search) helped pay the families of Palestinian homicide bombers, the House Committee on International Relations is expected to reveal Wednesday during a hearing on corruption in the Iraqi relief program."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138759,00.html

Here's a liberal site reporting similar items so you can't say it's made up by Fox.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/15/food.for.oil.ap/index.html

So, how many of you still believe it was the wrong war at the wrong time?

Novafan said...
So, how many of you still believe it was the wrong war at the wrong time?

I do.

But that's not why I'm posting. What part of the CIC Canada website are you drawing attention to, and why? I must confess I'm not sure what you're pointing out.

Moore shows his distain with facts

Disdain with facts or disdain for facts?

Craig,
First of all, it's DISDAIN. Not DISTAIN. I don't even think DISTAIN is a word.

"BTW, does anybody else think it's pathetic on the part of the right that they literally spit on Michael Moore, yet defend ultra-bitch Ann Coulter as if she's the second Coming"

No, what I find pathetic

1.) Is that you have to ask for support from others, as if the more people who agree with your opinion the more truthful or witty your statement is

2.) That you actually think think the right LITERALLY spit on Michael Moore, meaning someone actually did. If so, I would love to hear/read it

3.)That you're willing to believe all of Michael Moore's bullshit because you hate the Administration so much

4.) That you speak in generalities and stereotype "the right" as "defending" Ann Coulter as if she's the second Coming
A.) I love Ann Coulter. A lot. But Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of the National Review fired her after he thought she went over the line. Honest, Craig, all of "the Right" don't think alike

It's also pathetic

5.) That you would continue to bring up Coulter when no one else did, and that you continue to bash her books when you have not read them. I actually read three of Moore's books. Some of the content was funny opinion, some were things that made me think and some were easily debunked lies. I also have seen "Fahrenheit 9/11". This way, I actually know what I'm talking about when I criticize.
Unlike you when you criticize Ann Coulter.

It's pathetic that
6.) You have to stoop to calling a woman you don't agree with a "bitch"

7.) You are constantly negative anymore. You weren't always this way. Yet now you're almost as nasty as Bladestar. Isn't there anything in this country you're happy about or grateful for? No jokes or sarcasm. I'm serious.

Finally, it's pathetic that you state
8.) "an Administration riveting (I believe you meant reveling, but what the hey)in the New Evangelical Kingdom".

This is really ridiculous. Yeah, a bunch of people with a point of view different than yours actually voted and exercised some power. How dare they!
If Blacks tipped the balance for Bush, would you talk about a New African Kingdom"? If Hispanics, which actually voted in great percentages for Bush this time and definitely helped tip the balance, were focused on, would you be fearful of a New Mexican Kingdom? I mean, a majority of Hispanics are - gasp - religious, so you could bash two birds with one stone that way?
Do you have any idea what your blatant disdain for those who hold different points of view from you - ESPECIALLY if they're religious - looks like? Hate and intolerance, pure and simple.
In short, it's pathetic.

I love Ann Coulter. A lot. But Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of the National Review fired her after he thought she went over the line. Honest, Craig, all of "the Right" don't think alike

And not all of the Left, either; so bringing up Moore as a symbol of the Left should be about as effective as bringing up Limbaugh--I take 'em both equally seriously. And in fact, you can't really point at one person to personify the ideology of either side...

Jeff said What part of the CIC Canada website are you drawing attention to, and why? I must confess I'm not sure what you're pointing out.

Did you go to the site Jeff? It's the immigration site that has been frequented in the last 10 days or so. Did I get the address wrong?

Yes, but unlike you religio-fascists dirtbags, we're fighting for freedom for everyone, while you're trying to get your ignorant religious beliefs turned into laws that limit everyone, not just yourselves.

Keep you religion to your self! Not everybody believes all that garbage.

Novafan wrote...
It's the immigration site that has been frequented in the last 10 days or so. Did I get the address wrong?

Nope, I must just be missing the part where it's newsworthy. Not surprising...I don't reckon you'd find the immigration section of your government's website engrossing either =)

Let me toss this into the mix:

The GOP has been claiming that the election results show that most of the country is now behind the Bush administration. I've done some rough math, and I don't see the numbers supporting that claim.

I've seen that there are an estimated 186 million American voters. 59.5 million voted for Bush. Close to 56 million voted for Kerry. That leaves about 71 million Americans who voted for neither.

Can someone explain to me how less than 1/3 supports a claim of "most?" And I don't buy the explanation of "when the GOP says that, they mean a majority of voters." Bushites are claiming that they've got the support of the country now, and I really don't see it. They won the election by a margin of around 2% of all eligible voters. Where I come from, that's not considered a huge margin of victory.

kingbob,

If you accept that reasoning, then no president ever has support of much of the country. Most presidential election turnouts the last few years have been in the 40% range - meaning only 20% might have supported some candidate.

However, votes translate into power. If people don't vote, that's their own problem. Bush has the support of most of the people who count - the ones who show up at the polls.

So, how many of you still believe it was the wrong war at the wrong time?

I do. Where's the connection to 9/11?

Whenever you have to resort to juggling the stats to show that the guy who beat you really didn't beat you, if you look at it a certain way, it's time to take up a new hobby. It's like saying that your foootball team, which lost by 7 points, actually WON if you look at things like how many yards they rushed and who held onto the ball longer and who has the more stylish helmet design and which quarterback has the prettiest wife, anything but the actual final score.

I said: It reminds me of what's sometimes said by the losing side in a close football game: "We won every statistic except the final score". Only one poll counts - the one on election day.

Bill said: It's like saying that your foootball team, which lost by 7 points, actually WON if you look at things like how many yards they rushed and who held onto the ball longer and who has the more stylish helmet design and which quarterback has the prettiest wife, anything but the actual final score.

Hmm, where have I heard that before :)

Mark L.:

Yep. Mind, I'm not saying Bush didn't win, or that he has the support of a majority of voters. In a way, I'm splitting hairs, by putting a lot of stock into words. Which, if the fours have taught me anything, you'd think I'd have learned not to do.

The point I was trying to make was that the Bush administration is laying claim to something they can't prove with numbers. At best, the "majority of Americans" are ambivilent when it comes to his government. They didn't vote, either for him or against him.

I think a true test of where our current government is will be in 2 years. If things lean heavily republican there, I think that'll show a trend that we are swinging conservative. I'm not convinved yet that we are.

And even so, I wish some GOP supporters would stop trying to tell Democrats and liberals that they are "wrong." Last I checked, the Senate still needs 6 additional voted before they can really get anything done, meaning that they are going to have to accomodate 6 democratic votes for everything they want to get done, assuming we don't start to see splintering within the GOP. A lot of promises were made this election, and people are going to expect making good on those promises.

In other news, does anyone feel safer now that Russia has announced that they are developing new ICBMs? I sure do.

No, wait, actually, I don't....

The bottom line is, what people who didn't vote think is completely irrelevent. If you couldn't get off your ass on the one day that our voice really counts and make yourself heard, why should anyone care whether you support the president or not?

Personally, I think everyone between the ages of 18 and 27 who didn't bother to vote should be immediately drafted and shipped out to Iraq. Maybe they'll take their right to vote seriously next tim.

You and Craig should get together sometime if you're legally old enough to drink that is.

Now that's a good one. But then, I've heard it before. Best defense is a bad assumption?

Now I'll make an assumption of my own: Do you have the iq of a Bush or a monkey? Oh, wait, those are the same thing. Maybe they need to stop letting you out of the zoo.

and that you continue to bash her books when you have not read them.

You know, it's funny, but I don't think I ever said whether I had read her books or not.

But, no, I haven't. And until the last few days, I hadn't read/watched anything from Michael Moore either - I still don't care for him and some of his tactics, but he at least knows the truth.

I have read some of Coulter's editorials, and they are so far off base it's downright sad.

would you be fearful of a New Mexican Kingdom?

Drag me over the coals for this one, but I've called the illegal immigration of Hispanics into this country a "passive invasion".
Thankfully, the states, blue and red alike, are starting to wake up and take notice of the fact that our federal gov't isn't going to do shit about it.

Do you have any idea what your blatant disdain for those who hold different points of view from you - ESPECIALLY if they're religious - looks like? Hate and intolerance, pure and simple.

So, I see that a gay marriage amendment meets your approval then? That that isn't intolerance?

Try looking to your own side of the fence sometime before bitching about what my yard looks like.

I'll say it again, for the umpteeth time: it is my opinion that the people that voted for Bush show a general display of ignorance and stupidity that makes me wonder why any of us try at all. That this country isn't worth it, because it's being run into the ground by a bunch of people who are only good a running a propoganda machine of intolerance and ignorance.

Take it or leave it.

Btw, wake me when the right-wingers realize how much DISDAIN they show for gays, liberals, and anybody else that doesn't agree with their God-enforcing "philosophies".

Personally, I think everyone between the ages of 18 and 27 who didn't bother to vote should be immediately drafted and shipped out to Iraq. Maybe they'll take their right to vote seriously next tim.

(sarcasm)
Heaven forbid we send good and honest Republicans to fight and die for what our leaders believe in!
(/sarcasm)

From Den: "The bottom line is, what people who didn't vote think is completely irrelevent. If you couldn't get off your ass on the one day that our voice really counts and make yourself heard, why should anyone care whether you support the president or not?

Personally, I think everyone between the ages of 18 and 27 who didn't bother to vote should be immediately drafted and shipped out to Iraq. Maybe they'll take their right to vote seriously next tim. (sic)"

Makes me wonder, why just 18 and 27?

Don't you think you're making a broad assumption about those 71 million who didn't vote? And just look at that number. Since they nearly form a true majority, I'd really think twice before I went about kicking that bee hive.

I do know a few people who abstained. And yes, in most voting cultures, absination is a valid voting choice. Some don't vote because they truly feel that their vote doesn't count. Even if their "side" wins, they don't really have any say or control over that elected official, so why bother? Also, I've heard many people didn't vote because neither Kerry nor Bush represented a candidate they could support.

As to your drafting idea, I'd much rather put the people who voted for Bush in line for the draft before anyone else. In fact, anyone who supported Bush and his attack on Iraq that's not already contributed a body to the military should volunteer to do so. I mean, if they so clearly support the idea that we should go around attacking nations that we think are going to be threats some time in the future, there's a recruiter near you that'd be delighted to see you.

I say this in jest, but with no small amount of trepidation. I was the guy, after the 2000 election, who shrugged and said "how bad can it get? Bush only has 4 years to screw things up. We'll be able to fix anything that he breaks."

Now, I'm not so sure there's going to be anything left to fix...

Craig:
Coulter ought to look at her own ugly mug in the mirror some time if she wants to see a real freak.

Ann Coulter may be a lot of things but "ugly" isn't one of them. She is a little too skinny for my personal tastes.

(Yeah, I know. I can't stay away. Just like everything else in life that's probably bad for you, PeterDavid.net is addictive too.)

Btw, wake me when the right-wingers realize how much DISDAIN they show for gays, liberals, and anybody else that doesn't agree with their God-enforcing "philosophies".

Will do. Right after the left-wingers realize how much DISDAIN they show for conservative Christians and anyone else who doesn't agree with their God-excluding "philosophies."

Jim in Iowa

Right after the left-wingers realize how much DISDAIN they show for conservative Christians and anyone else who doesn't agree with their God-excluding "philosophies."

Yeah, damn those left-winger Founding Fathers of ours.

You want to preach? Do it from an altar, not a press podium.

"Personally, I think everyone between the ages of 18 and 27 who didn't bother to vote should be immediately drafted and shipped out to Iraq. Maybe they'll take their right to vote seriously next time."

You know...that's an intriguing notion. Reinstitute the draft, from ages 18 to 35, except voting in a national election earns you an exemption. Watch the voting rate skyrocket.

And Jim...just an observation: The liberal left believes the country is metaphorically going to hell because we don't believe in Bush. The religious right believes I, and others like me, are literally going to hell because we don't believe in Jesus. When it comes to arrogance and disdain, we can't come close to you guys.

And for anyone who wonders why I have political discussions here...look at the response rate to just about any other blog entry, as opposed to this one.

PAD

Makes me wonder, why just 18 and 27?

Because that's the age of registration for selective service and the age of the coveted "youth vote" that Puff Daddy (who apparently didn't vote himself) and the media hyped as being key to this election, but turned out to be nothing.

I am so sick and tired of the "waa waa, my vote doesn't count," bullshit. If you'd pull your ass away from the X-box and actually vote, it would count.

As for sending the Bush supporters off to Iraq: Absolutely, let them put their money where their mouth is. Let's start with the Bush twins. Sending them both to Iraq should make up for daddy ditching out on Vietnam.

"As for sending the Bush supporters off to Iraq: Absolutely, let them put their money where their mouth is. Let's start with the Bush twins. Sending them both to Iraq should make up for daddy ditching out on Vietnam."

I've heard this sentiment expressed any number of times. While it's an entertaining notion, I think we all know it's simply not feasible. First, not only would you be sending them, you'd have to send about two dozen secret service guys with them. And even then, it's simply not worth the risk, because if one or both of them gets captured, then--to paraphrase Jed Bartlet--we no longer have a commander in chief. We have a father who's out of his mind with worry because his little girl is in a hut somewhere in Iraq with a gun to her head. No one needs that.

PAD

Will do. Right after the left-wingers realize how much DISDAIN they show for conservative Christians and anyone else who doesn't agree with their God-excluding "philosophies."

Um....you DO realize that many left wingers ARE Christians? And, in fact, base their philosophies on Christian doctrines?

It may not be the same doctrines that you count as important, but's let's not show the disdain for their principles that you claim to dislike.

And for anyone who wonders why I have political discussions here...look at the response rate to just about any other blog entry, as opposed to this one.

Maybe this theory can apply to your books as well? Maybe people will buy your books just so they can vehemently disagree with them. You certainly seem to have an audience for your political thoughts. I say you put them in a comic and charge us $2.95 for it!

Mark L.

Great minds think alike and all. Also, I have no short term memory.

I also have no short term memory.

We have a father who's out of his mind with worry because his little girl is in a hut somewhere in Iraq with a gun to her head. No one needs that.

And yet, it makes you wonder how many families are going through exactly this, PAD.

I've heard this sentiment expressed any number of times. While it's an entertaining notion, I think we all know it's simply not feasible. First, not only would you be sending them, you'd have to send about two dozen secret service guys with them.

No way. Send them out with nothing but the standard equipment every other GI gets. Let them tool around Fallujah in a Humvee with no body armor with the common grunts. Bush can afford to buy them nightvision goggles. He's forced many other families to buy them for their sons.

And even then, it's simply not worth the risk, because if one or both of them gets captured, then--to paraphrase Jed Bartlet--we no longer have a commander in chief. We have a father who's out of his mind with worry because his little girl is in a hut somewhere in Iraq with a gun to her head. No one needs that.

That's exactly what we do need. If Bush is too wussy to make the sacrifices he's demanding of every other family in America, then he can just tell Dick to swallow a couple of nitroglycerin tablets and make the tough decisions. After all, Dick's daughter is safe. She's already passed the "don't ask, don't tell" stage.

And yet, it makes you wonder how many families are going through exactly this, PAD.

Those families don't have access to the nuclear codes, though.

Den said: "I am so sick and tired of the "waa waa, my vote doesn't count," bullshit. If you'd pull your ass away from the X-box and actually vote, it would count."

Wow, there goes the point, whizzing right by you.

I made no reference to folks who, through apathy or laziness, fail to vote. I mentioned people who choose not to vote. Some of these folks think that, when presented with the choice of a punch to the jaw or a knee to the groin, choose "none of the above."

Keep you religion to your self! Not everybody believes all that garbage.

Not everyone believes your ideology, either. I don't think it's fair to ask other people to shut up unless you're willing to do the same.

Although I know that in many cases, the right and left can be divided along lines of religious and non-religious...as a religious Democrat, I don't feel that the label is an oxymoron, or that the terms have to be mutually exclusive. There is a lot more grey in this world then people seem to be painting...

kingbobb said As to your drafting idea, I'd much rather put the people who voted for Bush in line for the draft before anyone else. In fact, anyone who supported Bush and his attack on Iraq that's not already contributed a body to the military should volunteer to do so. I mean, if they so clearly support the idea that we should go around attacking nations that we think are going to be threats some time in the future, there's a recruiter near you that'd be delighted to see you.

How about all of the Kerry supporters get their girls pregnant and have them get a partial birth abortion. Fair's fair right?

Craig wrote: Yeah, damn those left-winger Founding Fathers of ours.

You want to preach? Do it from an altar, not a press podium

Say what? The very foundation of freedom of religion came from a country that was predominantly Christian. This was not a concept that was imposed by a "left winger" Thomas Jefferson, but was a concept that a large number of pastors preached from the pulpit (we don't preach from an altar at my church ;-) ).

Name me a single country that has as much freedom as we do that did not have Christian roots? Greece was not free. Only the wealthy men could vote. Muslim countries are not free. The very ideas of enlightenment came in the context of a Christian world view. It was Christian nations and Christian leaders who were at the forefront of liberating slaves (there were others who favored freeing slaves, but they never had the organization or moral zeal that the Christians had in this effort). I am not saying that Christians have a monopoly on ideas of freedom, etc., nor that there have not been times of abuses, but historically Christian nations and cultures have allowed some of the biggest advances in human rights this world has ever seen.

I believe in the freedom of religion. That means I can be free to base my views in a religious worldview, and you are free to base yours in one that is not, or one that is a different religious worldview. We then compete for the minds and votes of others. Freedom of religion means I cannot simply write laws because the Bible says something is right or wrong apart from a vote of the people. Freedom of religion does not mean that just because the Bible agrees with my view (whether that murder is wrong, gay marriage is wrong, adultery is wrong, or slander is wrong), it cannot be made into law. Law, and the rule of law, is based ultimately on the will of the people. That is the beauty -- and the danger -- of democracy. If 70% believe gay marriage is ok, then that will become the law of the land. If 70% believe it is not, the same is true. If 70% believe slavery, or racism, is right, then you battle for their minds and try to convince them why they are wrong.

Bottom line, we ALL are allowed to preach, whether from the Press Podium or the Pulpit. That is freedom. What we are not allowed to do is to impose our will on others without going through the democratic process--as happened with making abortion legal, and as has been tried with gay marriage by judges and others.

PAD wrote: And Jim...just an observation: The liberal left believes the country is metaphorically going to hell because we don't believe in Bush. The religious right believes I, and others like me, are literally going to hell because we don't believe in Jesus. When it comes to arrogance and disdain, we can't come close to you guys.

PAD, is it disdain if I tell someone he is infected with AIDS but he refuses to accept the diagnosis? Since you believe I am wrong, then I understand you will see it as arrogance and disdain. Since I believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, then it is not disdain to tell you that you are going the wrong way and headed towards a canyon where the bridge is out (to change the metaphor), but an act of compassion.

I would point out that it was you, not I, who brought up this issue of salvation. I have not treated you with disdain, nor have I used your site as a place to "proselytize" for my faith. I have tried to understand why you and others believe as you do, and have sought to explain why I believe as I do.

I was under the impression that this was a place that was interested in the exchange of ideas, even if we disagreed. Do you consider it an act of disdian for me to simply say I disagree and why I disagree? I have found the exchanges quite challenging and helped me to think through why I hold to my positions.

I find it interesting that I answered a comment in almost the same tone and manner in which it was given. I did not attack or call names, but merely pointed out the view from the other side. I find the level of response quite enlightening.

Roger wrote: >B>Um....you DO realize that many left wingers ARE Christians? And, in fact, base their philosophies on Christian doctrines?

Um... you do realize that I specifically wrote CONSERVATIVE Christian in my response? Which would, by definition, not include a left-wing Christian?

(For those of you who seem to not understand when I use sarcasm, that was being mildly sarcastic. Hopefully not disdainful, but just answering the comment in the manner it was given.)

It may not be the same doctrines that you count as important, but's let's not show the disdain for their principles that you claim to dislike.

How, exactly, did I show disdain? I was simply mirroring a comment that was aimed at my political and religious point of view.

PAD wrote: And for anyone who wonders why I have political discussions here...look at the response rate to just about any other blog entry, as opposed to this one.

PAD, I confess, I have complained about the political nature of this site. I repent of such comments. I have found the opportunity to be challenged and to challenge others quite helpful. As much as I appreciate your views on other issues, the only other blog entry I go to first before ones like this is your "Cowboy Pete" roundup. So I retract my complaint.

I don't feel it is my perogative to bring up these issues on your site when they are not the point of the blog, so your initiating them allows me the chance to interact. So continue your political blogs--it is enlightening. (And no, I am not trying to use reverse psychology to actually get you to stop writing them! I am sincere about this!!)

Jim in Iowa

Den W. said No way. Send them out with nothing but the standard equipment every other GI gets. Let them tool around Fallujah in a Humvee with no body armor with the common grunts. Bush can afford to buy them nightvision goggles. He's forced many other families to buy them for their sons.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Kerry vote against additional funding for the troops.

I don't see Kerry's daughters volunteering to go to Iraq either. If they did, they would take a camcorder with them to get some good shots of themselves in while other people are there fighting a war. Sounds like Kerry doesn't it. Maybe they'll go to an anti-war party afterwards, jot down some information from people who say they committed war attrocities, meet with Saddam in jail, then petition Congress that all vets are War criminals and this war needs to stop now. Then they will insist to Congress that all insurgent attacks will stop as soon as we meet Saddam's demands.

Craig said Now I'll make an assumption of my own: Do you have the iq of a Bush or a monkey? Oh, wait, those are the same thing. Maybe they need to stop letting you out of the zoo.

That's really funny Craig --- Not. Don't run out and quit your day job. You need a lot of work.

Have you checked out that immigration site yet? They are looking for a few good men.

Wait, you don't qualify for that do you? See, now that was funny.

Maybe you can move to Mexico instead? Do you speak Spanish? No hable English?

I don't think they like liberals very much in Mexico though. You can still give it a try.

kingbobb said Now, I'm not so sure there's going to be anything left to fix...

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

This post isn't directed solely at you kingbobb, but at liberals in general.

How can you liberals stand living like this? Everything is negative. Everything is broken. Good grief, would you take a look at yourselves. Grow up a little bit. Why, for goodness sakes, why don't you for once hope that things will turn out ok. Why don't you hope that our President, no matter who he is, will lead our nation into greatness. Is that too much to ask?

Why do you have this fixation on the negative? Is it really that difficult for you to wish our President well? Don't you think that if he succeeds that our Country succeeds?

If you don't want every President we have, regardless if you voted for him or not, to succeed, then there's something fundamentally wrong with you. You need to take a long hard look at yourself if you want the leader of our country to fail.

ok, so nobody shoot me for putting this up, cuz i really don't use this kind of language...well, ever,and maybe i don't agree with all the rants it makes... but since it sort of followed the theme of the original post, i thought i would just throw it out there

www.fuckthesouth.com

and again, yes, its probably offensive to a lot of ppl, but isn't everything these days?

Novafan wrote...
If you don't want every President we have, regardless if you voted for him or not, to succeed, then there's something fundamentally wrong with you.

I'm sure they do want the president to succeed; however their opinions on what he should succeed at are very different from the goals he is pursuing.

Nobody's obligated to hope someone succeeds at something when they fundamentally disagree with what that person is doing. I'm going to get all kinds of grief for this extreme example, but German citizens in the late 30s were not obligated to root for Hitler's "policies."

Let me hit this off at the pass.

Here come the ... Conservatives attacked Clinton ... argument, so if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander right?

Wrong. For one, I didn't attack Clinton when he was in office. And two, two wrongs don't make a right.

What argument can you use besides the one I just mentioned?

Even if you didn't vote for Bush, at least you can support him now while he's still in office. Or is that too much to ask?

Jeff said I'm sure they do want the president to succeed

I think you're wrong here Jeff. Let one of these liberals speak up and say they want Bush to succeed at anything. I can't see them doing it.

Greece was not free. Only the wealthy men could vote.

Wow, somebody needs a history lesson.

Who could vote when this country was founded? It wasn't women, it wasn't non-whites.

Yep, it was wealthy, land owning white men.

So much for your Christian roots - gone to hell in a blaze of prejudice and bigotry.

Why don't you hope that our President, no matter who he is, will lead our nation into greatness.

Oh please, he's already had four years in office, and he's fucked things up pretty badly as it is, yet people reward him with another four years to fuck things up even further.

Yeah, I'm supposed to hope what exactly? That Bush quits screwing everything up and everybody over?

That he won't discriminate against gays? That he won't continue to let technological jobs get shipped overseas?
That we won't have another 9/11 when he can't even find the original target of the War on Terror in the first place? That he won't find another convenient target to invade because, again, he can't get his hands on bin Laden? Or worse, that he continues to NOT EVEN MENTION bin Laden?

I'd take another 8 years and listening to details of Clinton getting his jollies than deal with this crap from Bush.

Let one of these liberals speak up and say they want Bush to succeed at anything. I can't see them doing it.

Bush may succeed at never admitting to making any mistakes.

Novafan, I think Jeff explained it somewhat, but I think everyone on some level wants the president to succeed, just not neccessarily at the specific things he might be doing. You can want a presidency to be successful because you don't want the country to go to hell, and you don't want your own life to be hell, but that doesn't mean you just keep your complaints to yourself and support the man for doing whatever he might choose to do. When he does something you agree with, you stand by and support him. If he decides to invade China by land, well, you don't have support that too.

Slightly related, but mostly not, I am reminded of Bush's acceptance speach a few weeks back, when he said he was going to reach out to those who share his goals (in reference to the country being so partisan and divided). Well, if they already share your goals, you're not really reaching out to anyone, are you?

Alright, I'm realizing I'm over tired and in babble mode, so I'll quit now.

Monkeys.

More from Novafan: "Why do you have this fixation on the negative? Is it really that difficult for you to wish our President well? Don't you think that if he succeeds that our Country succeeds?

If you don't want every President we have, regardless if you voted for him or not, to succeed, then there's something fundamentally wrong with you. You need to take a long hard look at yourself if you want the leader of our country to fail."

Looking around in my posts...hmm, don't see anything about WANTING Bush to fail. Nope, mostly just stuff about how I don't care for the job he's doing.

Beleive me, now that he's go the job (again) I hope he proves himself to be a good leader for America. I don't WANT him to fail. I WANT him to lead this country safely and prosperously. I'm still looking for that.

Oh, and hey, would you say some guy named Hitler was successful? I mean, before the world united against him and he committed suicide?

So, I guess the answer is, no, I don't think that just because someone has a position of power, I'm obligated to support everything they do.

This, also from Novafan: "How about all of the Kerry supporters get their girls pregnant and have them get a partial birth abortion. Fair's fair right?"

Heh, there's logic for you. I could go into how this is just SO not a logical application of wanting the Bush supporters to enlist...I COULD, but I have to make myself stupider to do so...

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Kerry vote against additional funding for the troops.

Yes, you are wrong. He supported a version of the bill that included funding mechanisms for the Iraq venture. That he voted against a version he did not like should not be construed that he was against proper funding of troops in Iraq.

Um... you do realize that I specifically wrote CONSERVATIVE Christian in my response? Which would, by definition, not include a left-wing Christian?

Then please give more credit for the Christian values in the left wing. Citing it for the right wing gives the mistaken impression that Christian values are not associated with the left wing. Particularly when you term them "God excluding." (After all, they do not consider their philosophy exclusive of God).

Let one of these liberals speak up and say they want Bush to succeed at anything. I can't see them doing it.

You know, I desperately wanted the Iraq venture to succeed. To have taken down Saddam and worked with the mass population of Iraq to establish a democracy would have been a masterstroke.

But the bungling that followed, allowing the looting of the museums, the lack of attention paid to infrastructure, the wrong minded purge of the Baathists social structure (in the name of being politically correct), the severely undermanning of the military police which allowed outside terrorist elements to infiltrate, the incompetent campaign to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqui people, the lack of even bad case scenario construction....all of this, to my mind, deserves nothing but contempt and a termination of services.

I will hope for the best, but this record of incompetency is not inspiring.

Wow, somebody needs a history lesson.

Who could vote when this country was founded? It wasn't women, it wasn't non-whites.

Yep, it was wealthy, land owning white men.

So much for your Christian roots - gone to hell in a blaze of prejudice and bigotry.

I don't need a history lesson, I just need to explain my thoughts better. I agree that is where we started. But we did not stay there. Why? Because the principles used when we started laid the groundwork for women and blacks to later vote.

Christianity has not been perfect in its practice. But it has allowed a lot of movement in the right direction. Things like slavery, racism, denying women the right to vote, were concepts that were not practiced in most countries at the time. In many regards, we led the way of reformation.

Name for me a major philosophy or religion in the 1700's that actively promoted the right of blacks or women? The bigotry of the time was the standard practice. My point is that Christianity both allowed for this reformation and in fact was often the moral foundation for such a reformation. The liberation of slaves owes much to Christianity. As I said the first time, Christianity has been used to justify abuses, as has virtually any other religion or philosophy over time. But it has also been the source of charities, hospitals, caring for the poor, liberating of slaves, accepting the equality of women, etc., over time. You must understand the evolution of cultural change that happened before judging Christians as bigots by a standard that only exists today.

Jim in Iowa

Then please give more credit for the Christian values in the left wing. Citing it for the right wing gives the mistaken impression that Christian values are not associated with the left wing. Particularly when you term them "God excluding." (After all, they do not consider their philosophy exclusive of God).

Fair enough. The God excluding referred to many on the left who do actively exclude God from anything more than a nice moral tale or fairy tale. I agree that some on the left are Christian, and even evangelical Christian (Tony Campolo would somewhat fall on that side).

If you read many of the posts on this site, you will find a strong and real disdain for Christian values. Just go back and read the disdain for my belief in prayer on this site. I have been told that I am an idiot because I believe the Bible is true. So while I have no problem agreeing that some on the left do not exclude God, there is at least a very vocal group on this site who do.

Jim in Iowa

"Since I believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, then it is not disdain to tell you that you are going the wrong way and headed towards a canyon where the bridge is out (to change the metaphor), but an act of compassion."

See, whereas I see it as an act of supreme arrogance, of self-righteous, holier-than-thou, snot-faced, wrong-headed, purblind, where-the-hell-do-you-get-off-you-Bible-thumping-yahoo, biased, prejudiced, anti-Semitic chowder-headed, lame-brained jackass intolerance.

But I only say this because I care.

PAD

If you read many of the posts on this site, you will find a strong and real disdain for Christian values. Just go back and read the disdain for my belief in prayer on this site. I have been told that I am an idiot because I believe the Bible is true. So while I have no problem agreeing that some on the left do not exclude God, there is at least a very vocal group on this site who do.

That's a fair statement to make; I would not want the spiritual impulses and motivations to be excluded or them to be disrespected merely because they ARE religious or spiritual.

Jim:
Christianity has not been perfect in its practice. But it has allowed a lot of movement in the right direction. Things like slavery, racism, denying women the right to vote, were concepts that were not practiced in most countries at the time. In many regards, we led the way of reformation.

Yes, quite progressive. What happened to all that tolerance? Churches used to be leaders of social progress in this country. Now Christians in this country seem to be more interested in political power.

Jim:
Since I believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, then it is not disdain to tell you that you are going the wrong way and headed towards a canyon where the bridge is out (to change the metaphor), but an act of compassion.

I used to live in Florida where my friends were trying that compassionate stuff with me. Your "compassion" insults my religion, by telling me I am "going the wrong way." And if I compassionatly reached out to you by telling you that you are going the wrong way and should convert to Judaism? See, some of us liberals believe in God, but don't feel the need to denigrate your religion by telling you it is wrong. That is why we have a seperation of church and state, so all people can worship as they see fit, not as you see fit.

Speaking of the twins, the Oct. 17 installment of "Opus" had the president confronting an elephant seal in his anxiety closet. He confessed it didn't make him anxious ("ya know, I'm weirdly at peace with it," he said), and they both realized there'd been an address mix-up.

But the president added that he didn't have any anxieties...

Unless it involved the twins.

Meanwhile, over at Opus' residence, the twins appear out of his anxiety closet announcing that they've enlisted, and Opus, armed with a bat to ward off the elephant seal he's expecting, finds he is "weirdly at peace with this."

Hmmn, if the offspring of a sitting president did enlist and specifically requested a combat assignment, would the request be denied because of potential concerns the commander-in-chief would become a grieving father if they were captured? Or would they not be allowed to enlist at all, because of their relationship with the president?

If it's true now, it wasn't always. Just ask Robert Lincoln who was in the Union army during the Civil War.

Rick

I have a couple of questions for the consevative Christians. I am not trying to be sarcastic, I am truly interested.

1. How will you find new converts when you seem to be so exclusionary? Examples: If you are gay, and will not live a lie for your religion; or if you believe in a woman's right to choose, but get denied communion.

2. What side of the gun control issue would Jesus lean toward? By extension, while we are on the issue of violence, what would he think of going to war with Iraq?

RE: Voting

Den,

"Because that's the age of registration for selective service and the age of the coveted "youth vote" that Puff Daddy (who aparently didn't vote himself) and the media hyped as being key to this election but turned out to be nothing"

You know, I think it's really unfair the way the media and pundits have blasted the "get out the youth" vote as a failure. While the PERCENTAGE of the overall vote stayed the same for the youth demographic, that is simply because turnout was up across ALL demographic groups. Many, many, many more young people voted this time, which is encouraging.
What is really encouraging is that they seemed to be evenly split politically, putting a lie to the theory that a greater youth vote, due to their supposed more liberal/rebellious nature, fear of a draft and "give me more money" attitude about college aid is a predominantly liberal/Democratic voting group.
Puff daddy helped get more young people to vote. They seemed to do so in a thoughtful manner. Both he, those who helped him and those who voted should be commended, not put down.

Den,
"Absolutely, put their money where their mouth is. Let's start with the Bush twins. Sending them both to Iraq should make up for daddy ditching out on Vietnam."

Gee, using this brilliant line of reasoning

A.) Anyone who serves in The National Guard is not honorably serving their country

B.) Bush actually DESERVED a "pass" as you define it, since his father was a World War II hero and actually lied to enlist EARLY

C.) Clinton should have sent Chelsea to get dragged through the streets of Somalia, since he had no problem sending other soldiers to meet that fate

Den W,
"That's exactly what we do need. If Bush is too wussy to make the sacrifices he's demanding of every other family in America..."

First, every other family in America? Last I knew, there wasn't a draft and he has not even made a huge push for "recruitment". The military is still hitting all their recruitment targets because many, believe it or not, WANT to serve.

Second, if the only way one, in your opinion, can support a position is to make it affect them personally, then I would assume that if you care about the homeless, you're more than willing to take one in your home. Forget about donating to charity! I mean, Bush is FUNDING the Iraq war. Make a real difference! The first homeless person you see on a steam grate, you should take them in your home.
You should also refrain from calling yourself an environmentalist if you use paper, drive a car to work and eat red meat. If you do any of these things, then acording to your own theory, you should be quiet.

Meanwhile, back in reality, check out http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2004-11-17-kerry-nest-egg_x.htm

It seems that Kerry forgot to spend 15 million dollars in his campaign. I'm certainly not as bright as Mr Nuance but I have to wonder if 15 million MIGHT have made a difference in Ohio.

Looks like the smarter guy won. Again.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Kerry vote against additional funding for the troops.

You are incorrect.

A.) Anyone who serves in The National Guard is not honorably serving their country

Never said that. I only said that he did so to avoid going to Vietnam. Of course, I don't believe that Bush's service in the guard was honorable, but I never made a general statement about anyone else in the guard. Nice try.

B.) Bush actually DESERVED a "pass" as you define it, since his father was a World War II hero and actually lied to enlist EARLY

Nope. That's why both twins should go. One for this generation and one to make up for Bush spending Vietnam on an extended coke binge.

C.) Clinton should have sent Chelsea to get dragged through the streets of Somalia, since he had no problem sending other soldiers to meet that fate

Maybe if he had, he'd have sent the troops in with better planning and equipment. Don't assume that just because I think Bush is twat that I have a tremendous love for Clinton.

First, every other family in America? Last I knew, there wasn't a draft and he has not even made a huge push for "recruitment". The military is still hitting all their recruitment targets because many, believe it or not, WANT to serve.

Then why is the army imposing a "stop loss" rule on people whose enlistment is up?

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04319/411224.stm

I made no reference to folks who, through apathy or laziness, fail to vote. I mentioned people who choose not to vote. Some of these folks think that, when presented with the choice of a punch to the jaw or a knee to the groin, choose "none of the above."

No, you missed the point. If you choose not to vote, then you get what you deserve. If you choose to participate and make demands that politicians actually look out for our interests for a change, maybe your chooses will improve.

How about all of the Kerry supporters get their girls pregnant and have them get a partial birth abortion. Fair's fair right?

Wow. Talk about having nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I love how you and Jerome both try to change the subject instead of debating the issue.

I love how you and Jerome both try to change the subject instead of debating the issue.

When the "issues" are discussing forcible drafts and partial birth abortions from Bush/Kerry supporters, I think it's fair to say the conversation has gone off the deep end where the term "debate" isn't even relevant.

If you read many of the posts on this site, you will find a strong and real disdain for Christian values.

No, and this is where people like you continue to fail to see the arguments we are presenting.

A) Values are NOT exclusive to Christianity, contrary to popular belief. I've had to put up with this same garbage on another forum - not only have Christians "claimed" marriage, they've now claimed moral values as well.

What I despise is the notion that, while you claim to be of some higher moral value, Christianity still allows for discrimination and bigotry, only now instead of directly at women and blacks, it's at gays.
That people are so blasted hypocritical when it comes to quoting the Bible - take what you want, leave the rest behind.
That Christians are never wrong, and if you question their belives, you're some sort of Satanist who's going to hell. Why? Because you can't question Christians. Why can't you? Because. No reason, just because.

Yes, there is a special kind of arrogance behind all of this, and you fail to admit that as well.

From Den, quoting me: "`I made no reference to folks who, through apathy or laziness, fail to vote. I mentioned people who choose not to vote. Some of these folks think that, when presented with the choice of a punch to the jaw or a knee to the groin, choose "none of the above.'

No, you missed the point. If you choose not to vote, then you get what you deserve. If you choose to participate and make demands that politicians actually look out for our interests for a change, maybe your chooses will improve."

Remember, you suggested that people who don't vote should be drafted to remind them what their vote is about. My point is that, for some, not voting is in fact voicing your opinion. Basically stating that the parties are putting forth candidates that are not worthy of the office of president, and this not worth voting for.

You seem to think that voting is an obligation, not a right. Go check the Constitution: People have the RIGHT to vote. We aren't REQUIRED to. Chastising people because they choose note to vote makes no sense.

And I'm not responding to your comment about forced partial birth abortions (which was YOU changing the subject first) because there's no point. I've spent enough time trying to "debate" a subject which pretty clearly has no room for debate or conversation with a lot of people that I'm not going to continune it with you.

See, some of us liberals believe in God, but don't feel the need to denigrate your religion by telling you it is wrong.

For your point to be valid, then either there is no objective truth, or we can't know any objective truth. Any honest comparison of the major religions show contradictions on some key issues. They can't all be true at the same time. It is not being arrogant to say someone is right and someone is wrong, it is being intellectually honest. The responses to my post demonstrate this fact: PAD and others have no problem saying I am wrong.

If religion is just a nice "crutch," a nice intellectual way of looking at the world, then by all means, we should let people believe whatever works best for them. But if there is an objective spiritual reality (not saying we can "prove" it by physical means since by definition that would take it out of the spiritual realm), one that has rules and laws that are even deeper and more important than the laws of physics (which is a logical position if you accept there is an all-powerful, personal God who created everything), then you cannot treat religion as meaningless to daily life as whether you root for the Yankees or the Red Sox.

Rather than calling me names (PAD had a rather nice, long stream of them), why not deal with the content of what I am arguing? Why are some of you (not all) who are "liberal" unwilling to have a rational discussion about this? My original point was exactly this issue.

Jim in Iowa

David B spewed:

"Not everyone believes your ideology, either. I don't think it's fair to ask other people to shut up unless you're willing to do the same."

I think I'll use kingbobb's quote in response:

"Wow, there goes the point, whizzing right by you."

I'm not the one trying to pass laws forcing people to do anything or banning them from anything. You assholes are trying to legislate your religion,, you ARE the Taliban.

Jim, fuck your god.

Hmmm... I'm still alive.... score more points for me

That last part was aimed only at Jim in Iowa's hateful, bigotted prejudiced god. Not at Peter's jeish god or any intelligent person's god.

Thomas Jefferson, inventor, author of the Declaration of Independence, and 3rd President of the United States, weighs in...

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

"It is in our lives and not our words that our religion must be read."

"Difference of opinion is helpful in religion."

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

And two of my favorites:

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

"I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past."

"But if there is an objective spiritual reality (not saying we can "prove" it by physical means since by definition that would take it out of the spiritual realm)..."

And there in lies the problem. Your beliefs or PAD's beliefs or my beliefs can't be proven. Physically, or spiritually. If they could, everyone would agree. Basically, you have no proof that you are right, but you behave as if you were, which is what people like myself take issue with. I don't care about what you believe, what your morales and values are (and by the way, I am an atheist and I share many of the same values as, say, a christian, like not stealing, not killing, helping people, being nice and all that jazz.), I don't care until you try to impose your beliefs and will on me. Many religious types will claim to be respectful of everyone else's beliefs, but will "pray" for their souls so that they might find the "right path". It's essentially a slap in the face. Then they don't understand why those other people have a hard time taking them seriously or making an effort to understand them. It's one thing to say you are right about something when you have facts and proof, it's just obnoxious to say so when you have none or as much as anyone else.

And no, I'm not saying I'm right either. I don't try to convince people to give up their religions, I don't hope that they "come to their senses". Whatever gets you through the day and keeps you (in general you, not you specifically) from interfering with my life or stepping on my rights as a living being.

Monkeys.

then you cannot treat religion as meaningless to daily life as whether you root for the Yankees or the Red Sox.

What a silly statement. Everybody knows that Yankees fans worship the devil. :)

If you read many of the posts on this site, you will find a strong and real disdain for Christian values.

No, and this is where people like you continue to fail to see the arguments we are presenting.

On the contrary, there are very few "arguments" being used. Being called a "bigot" because I believe an action/behavior (engaging in sex with someone of the same gender) is wrong is not an argument, it is a judgment. Being called an idiot because I believe in prayer is not an argument, it is a judgment. There are some who have engaged me on the idea and argued their case, but I stated I was refering to those who simply dismissed me with disdain because they feel I am wrong.

A) Values are NOT exclusive to Christianity, contrary to popular belief. I've had to put up with this same garbage on another forum - not only have Christians "claimed" marriage, they've now claimed moral values as well.

I agree, which is why I specified "Christian" values. The Bible very clearly and explicitly says homosexual actions are wrong. You may disagree. You may say the Bible was wrong, out of date, didn't understand contemporary gay monogamy, whatever. But there is over 3,000 years of clear biblical teaching and understanding that having gay sex is wrong.

In regards to who is "moral," that is the essence of the debate. If you feel it is bigotry that I believe gay sexual behavior is wrong, then by definition you believe you are on the moral high ground. The same is true if I feel gay sex or gay marriage is wrong. Each side is doing the same thing: claiming their moral viewpoint is correct. This is not exclusively a Christian way of arguing. What is valid to say is that the current definition of a number of values is different than what it was in the past. Go back 100 years and you will not find the number of people openly living together rather than getting married as exist today. That is a marked change in a moral value. Go back 100 years and you will find, among some, an acceptance of racism. That has also changed (at least to some degree). In the case of living together, I would say it is immoral to do so. In the case of rascism, I would say it was wrong back then, and that we are correct today to despise racism.

What I despise is the notion that, while you claim to be of some higher moral value, Christianity still allows for discrimination and bigotry, only now instead of directly at women and blacks, it's at gays.

Here is where we strongly disagree. There is a fundamental difference in your examples. Women and blacks are that way from the point of birth. Discrimination is solely a matter of skin color or gender. Even if you believe someone is gay from birth, it is still a "trait" that is only exhibited through behavior later in life. There is a behaviorial component in homosexuality. You cannot go through a nursery and put all of the "gay" babies on one side and the "straight" babies on another.

My oposition to homosexuality is based on behavior. Furthermore, it is an established fact that it is possible for at least some who have a gay orientation to change and be very happily married to someone of the opposite sex.

We discriminate against behavior all of the time. That is an expression of moral values, not a sign of a lack of values.

That people are so blasted hypocritical when it comes to quoting the Bible - take what you want, leave the rest behind.

That was the case for some in the case of slavery and racism. However, you can find very strong and vocal opponents of both throughout Christian history. It is an historical fact that many Christians opposed slavery since the time of the Roman Empire. It is an historical fact that the abolition of slavery in England was driven by a large number of Christians. It is an historical fact that many Christians have opposed racism. You do not find that kind of record for gay marriage or for engaging in homosexual acts. Christianity has been overwhelmingly clear in its opposition to gay actions, at least until the liberal churches in the last century. My point? There is NOTHING in the Bible that says gay sex is ok. We are not leaving part of the Bible behind to say gay marriage is wrong. You can disagree with what the Bible teaches, but you cannot find any support for the idea when you honestly look at what the Bible actually says about the issue.

Jim in Iowa

Remember, you suggested that people who don't vote should be drafted to remind them what their vote is about. My point is that, for some, not voting is in fact voicing your opinion. Basically stating that the parties are putting forth candidates that are not worthy of the office of president, and this not worth voting for.

Go back and read my entire comment. I said that it doesn't matter what people who choose not to vote think because they've given up the one point where there voice really counts.

You seem to think that voting is an obligation, not a right. Go check the Constitution: People have the RIGHT to vote. We aren't REQUIRED to.

Wow. We're just making things up now, aren't we? I never said that voting was a requirement, only that I THOUGHT it SHOULD be.

Reading comprehension, look into it.

Chastising people because they choose note to vote makes no sense.

I only chastise people who whine and complain about the government and yet can't get off their asses to vote.

And I'm not responding to your comment about forced partial birth abortions (which was YOU changing the subject first) because there's no point.

Again, you're rewriting history. I made my initial comment in response to others who were debating whether or not people who didn't vote supported the president or not. Again, my opinion is, it doesn't matter since they refused to make their voices known.

I've spent enough time trying to "debate" a subject which pretty clearly has no room for debate or conversation with a lot of people that I'm not going to continune it with you.

I see. After throwing up a couple of strawmen, you're taking your bat and ball home?

Buh-bye.

Jim, I appreciate the attempt to put forth your reasons for opposing homosexuality, being that it is a behavior not condoned by your religion (can I assume that means that it is alright to be gay, as long as you don't show it or practice it?). I guess my question, or point, would be to wonder, since no one can prove your religion is "right", what basis do you or other Christians have for imposing that belief on other people, especially non-christians? If gays were running around trying to have sex with straights, or maybe with christians, I suppose you could say they were violating others' rights. But that isn't the case.

How is your life, or anyone's life so negatively impacted by something like homosexuality that you (again, general you)(and not General You) feel there should be enforcible laws concerning it? (and if you don't feel that way, I apologize for assuming and ask you to disregard the question).

Monkeys.

And there in lies the problem. Your beliefs or PAD's beliefs or my beliefs can't be proven. Physically, or spiritually. If they could, everyone would agree. Basically, you have no proof that you are right, but you behave as if you were, which is what people like myself take issue with. I don't care about what you believe, what your morales and values are (and by the way, I am an atheist and I share many of the same values as, say, a christian, like not stealing, not killing, helping people, being nice and all that jazz.), I don't care until you try to impose your beliefs and will on me. Many religious types will claim to be respectful of everyone else's beliefs, but will "pray" for their souls so that they might find the "right path". It's essentially a slap in the face. Then they don't understand why those other people have a hard time taking them seriously or making an effort to understand them. It's one thing to say you are right about something when you have facts and proof, it's just obnoxious to say so when you have none or as much as anyone else.

You raise a very good point. Can anything supernatural be proven? If, as you suggest, you cannot, then your point if valid.

I would suggest that while there is faith involved, it is not blind faith. If you come on a crime scene, one of the things you do is dust for fingerprints. It is evidence that someone was there. I would suggest that while the spiritual realm is not "proveable" since (by definition) it is not something we can touch, taste, see, hear, or smell with our 5 senses, we can see the "fingerprints" that it exists. There is evidence for God and for the spiritual realm, but we must add up that evidence to see where it leads us.

Here are some of the fingerprints that I see:

Creation -- I believe nature strongly suggests and intelligent designer, not just random chance. That is not just the idea of Christians. There are people who see a designer who belong to no particular faith.

Morality -- Whether you agree or disagree with traditional Christian morality, the very fact that morals exist suggests something. Evolutionary theory falls short in explaining how we developed morality.

The human mind -- I find this particularly compelling. We are not just "computers" made out of flesh and blood. The mind is more than just the working of the brain. If someone has an operation and 1/4 of their brain is removed, they don't become 1/4 of a person. Evolutionary theory has no adequate explanation of how the human mind with its ability to reason and think outside of itself came about. That is not just my opinion. That is the belief of evolutionists who admit they are still trying to figure it out.

The Bible -- Whether you agree with it or not, it is a remarkable piece of literature. The stories it contains give many examples of where the supernatural intersected with the natural. If the miracles it records are true, then there is reason to believe in the supernatural. If they are true, then it gives me reason to believe the other teachings are true as well.

Jesus Christ -- No other historical figure has had the impact of Jesus Christ. The evidence for his existence is quite strong. If he did indeed die and rise again, then I have the clearest proof of my beliefs.

My beliefs are not based on a flight of fancy or on mere tradition. I have spent time studying the evidence. My faith rests not on wishful thinking but on the conviction that the evidence points towards the existence of the God of the Bible.

You may disagree, but try for a second to look at life through the worldview of a Christian. It is not a "slap in the face" to try to persuade you to my position. I do have facts and evidence, you just choose to reject it. I am not arguing for the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. I am arguing for something that does have a historical basis and reality.

I don't care until you try to impose your beliefs and will on me.

One last thought: It is impossible to have any laws without someone imposing their morality on someone else. More importantly, no one person is imposing their morality on someone else. No one religion is doing so. As a democratic country, it is done by a vote. And in a democratic country, all views (even religiously held ones) have the freedom to try to persuade others to agree with them.

Jim in Iowa

Bladestar,

You've reached the point of diminishing returns.

This thread has actually devolved into a fairly solid reason why PAD should consider posting LOTS of political entries; without some new topic it ends up getting really lame really fast, someone strats preaching, Bladestar loses his mind, and it all ends up like a sad group therapy session.

Some of the folks here must have had some real interesting childhoods.

Karen wrote: I have a couple of questions for the consevative Christians. I am not trying to be sarcastic, I am truly interested.

Here are my thoughts.

1. How will you find new converts when you seem to be so exclusionary? Examples: If you are gay, and will not live a lie for your religion; or if you believe in a woman's right to choose, but get denied communion.

Good question. Bottom line, I don't try to convince people of either issue. I don't mean this arrogantly, but that is God's job.

In conservative Christianity, there is one central issue that we try to "convert" people to believe: That Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead. If they put their faith in Christ, they are a Christian (a convert).

Once someone is a Christian, her or she is encouraged to live according to what the Bible teaches. More imporantly, we teach that God's Spirit is at work transforming someone from the inside out. I know very personally of 3 people who were actively gay. It was a process, not an overnight change, but they now are very happily married. They are not living a lie. They believe they have found something greater and better in their current state of being married.

I have "conservative Christian" friends who voted for Kerry and who are more liberal on other issues. We debate those issues. But the basis for being a Christian is not whether someone is a Republican (or Democrat) but whether they have put their faith in Jesus alone as their Savior.

2. What side of the gun control issue would Jesus lean toward? By extension, while we are on the issue of violence, what would he think of going to war with Iraq?

I would offer a few ideas in response. First, Jesus never told Roman soldiers to give up their sword, nor told them to quit their profession. Furthermore, Jesus gave some of his harshest words in warning to those who harmed children. Jesus did preach turning the other cheek, but in the context of serving others.

I would suggest, too, that Jesus endorsed the Old Testament. In it, God clearly said some wars are justified.

Now to your question: In regards to gun control, I would suggest that Jesus would not even deal with the issue itself, but would deal with why people carry guns. I think there are some circumstances where it is justified. I think in others it is a sign of ego or false security. For anyone to leave a gun where a child could shoot herself or someone else would be worthy of harsh judgment.

Jesus would say that the problem is not the gun, it is the person who has the gun. Gun control does not change human nature. People will just use knives, bats, etc., to harm someone else. I don't think he would back gun control, but I also don't think he would argue we have a "right" to bear arms. Not because he was being a good "politician" but because he sees things from a much bigger picture.

In regards to Iraq, that is a harder topic. As God, he would know the truth of whether Saddam had WMD's, and he would also know the truth of how many died due to Saddam's brutality. He would know the true motives of Bush and his cabinet, as well as the motives of countries who opposed the war. Since I don't know all of those things, I freely admit I can't say with certainty.

I do think it is safe to say that Jesus would not condemn all war. There are times when war is justified. The teaching of the Bible as a whole makes this clear. I personally feel the war with Iraq was justified, but respect those who say it was not -- as long as they are honest about the evidence (as I attempt to be).

Let me take just one issue: Current evidence points to Saddam stealing over $20 billion dollars while a number of his people suffered and starved or were brutally tortured and killed. It does not matter if this was a reason Bush gave for going to war, since we are talking here about Jesus and what he would have done. Saddam was clearly an evil person, and would have been under the wrath and condemnation of God. Of course, as God, he had the abililty to strike Saddam down directly. But the Bible records the fact that God frequently chooses to work through human choices. For example, God did not strike down Pharoah in the story in Exodus. The whole nation of Egypt suffered and many died due to Pharaoh's disobedience and unwillingness to release the Israelites. In the same way, it is possible that innoncent people could suffer in a war to remove Saddam.

Is that fair? Perhaps that is the wrong question. If God directly judged each person immediately for his or her "sins," then at least by Christian tradition, we all would be judged. If God is to allow us the opportunity to make moral choices and the opportunity to repent of wrong choices, then it opens the door that others will suffer due to those choices. You can't have it both ways.

Because of these factors, my personal feeling is that the war in Iraq was justified. I can't claim with certainty that Jesus would approve, but neither is it clear that he would not provided the war was done for justifiable reasons.

Jim in Iowa

Ok, now my turn to ask a question. I am not interested in debating you on why you believe it or whether or not you are right. I just would like to hear what you think. Here is my question:

A couple of you have made the valid point that the "left" also has moral values. There are some that both sides might include (such as to not lie, not kill, not steal, etc.). Leaving aside the common ground morals, I would be curious to see a list of 5 or 10 of the most important moral values that those of you on the left hold as important. It would help if you were more specific than just saying "love for others" since both sides might say the same thing.

As I said, I am just curious and will not respond to debate what you believe. I am curious to see what you all would list.

Jim in Iowa

But Jim, America is NOT a democracy, it it s a representative republic. (I'm sick of Bush and his idiot friends touting how America has sucha great "democracy")

When less than 1/3 of the eligible populaion votes for Bush, he is NOT representing a majority of Americans, same with the congress critters, of whom are elected by a MUCH smaller percentage of the population over all.

Besides LAWS have absolutely NOTHING to do with "convincing" anyone. LAWS deal with limiting rights and freedoms. LAWS FORCE beliefs on the whole nation. Not very democratic or free...

Jim,
That's the thing about morals. They are not "Christian", but have a basis in all religions and governments since the begining of those things. The only differences in our world-views on morals that I can think of would be that I think it is a moral value to allow freedom to choose and live your life without violating others rights to do the same. You think it is important that you spread your ideal lifestyle and religion to others. I think the death penalty is morally wrong, while abortion is not, as I do not believe at that point it is taking life. I believe war is not moral. Self defense and defense of others IS moral, which covers Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Guns used for hunting, as long as the hunters use their kills for food not just trophys are fine. Any other use, besides law enforcement, is wrong. You bring up other weapons that can't do as much damage as quickly. The primary purpose for those other weapons is not to inflict harm on another. The gun has no purpose except to do as much harm as possible.

Oh, and you say he did not tell the Romans to get rid of their swords, but wasn't there something about turning swords into plowshares? (Not very conversant on the New Testament)

But Jim, America is NOT a democracy, it it s a representative republic. (I'm sick of Bush and his idiot friends touting how America has sucha great "democracy")

I agree, we are a representative republic. But that does not mean we are not a democracy. This is just the "form" of democracy we have chosen. Within that form, there are many things we DO vote on directly. For example, whether you are agree or not, the ammendment banning gay marriage is being voted on directly by people, not just by our representatives. California as individuals just voted to allow funding for embryonic stem cell research. So while your statement is basically true, it is not complete. We do offer ways to vote directly if we so choose.

When less than 1/3 of the eligible populaion votes for Bush, he is NOT representing a majority of Americans, same with the congress critters, of whom are elected by a MUCH smaller percentage of the population over all.

The problem with your logic is that most of the 2/3 who do not vote are making a choice not to vote. Even if you accept that there is some voter intimidation, etc., it does not account for so few going to the polls in the first place. Whether 50% of those eligible to vote actually vote for a person in office, at least 99.9% have the opportunity to do so.

As you noted, we are a representative republic. As such, by definition, Bush (and members of congress) DO represent 100% of the population. That is how the system works. Because of that fact, there are checks and balances put in place. Even with full control of both houses by Republicans, Bush cannot do anything he wants. But whatever Congress writes as law and Bush approves applies to everyone.

According to the rules of the game, Clinton was my president for 8 years. He did represent me, even though he won by less than 50% of even those who did bother to vote. The same is true now with Bush. That does not mean we are not a democracy. That is just the rules we set up to run our democracy. In another 4 years, because of the term limits the PEOPLE put in place, Bush is done. We are a democracy, just not a perfect one (since a perfect one does not exist).

What would you suggest as an alternative? How would yous suggest changing the rules to make it more fair? What should we have done 12 years ago when Clinton barely got something like 42% of the vote? What should we do now?

Besides LAWS have absolutely NOTHING to do with "convincing" anyone. LAWS deal with limiting rights and freedoms. LAWS FORCE beliefs on the whole nation. Not very democratic or free...

You make a good point as far as it goes. I would add that laws are there to protect everyone one. That is why they limit certain freedom and rights. While the process may not seem very "free," that does not mean it is not democratic.

If we were truly "free," then we could not stop Bill Gates from truly being a monopoly and taking over the entire software industry. If we were truly "free," then if someone could afford to buy up a forest, they could cut down a whole rain forest if they desired. Good laws seek to protect the community. There will be times when we will disagree on what that means (as the debate on gay marriage demonstrates -- both sides are convinced they are trying to protect the community as a whole).

My premise goes a step further. Take racism. Is it enough to have a law protecting black people? Or is it even better to convince people that racism is wrong? Is it enough to ban slavery? Or is it better to convince people that slavery is wrong? Let's suggest, for the sake of argument, that gay marriage should be allowed. It is clear from many on this site that it would be even better if people like me agreed that it was right, not just that it was "legal." And that is fine. That is the battle for ideas. Making a law is pointless if people's convictions cause them to do something different when the law is not there to stop them. Should we not steal because it is against the law, or because it is morally wrong? As some would say about another topic, we would just be "living a lie" if we merely did it because we were forced to do so.

Jim in Iowa

See, whereas I see it as an act of supreme arrogance, of self-righteous, holier-than-thou, snot-faced, wrong-headed, purblind, where-the-hell-do-you-get-off-you-Bible-thumping-yahoo, biased, prejudiced, anti-Semitic chowder-headed, lame-brained jackass intolerance.

But I only say this because I care.

And I really appreciate the fact that you care. :-)

Jim in Iowa

Oh, and you say he did not tell the Romans to get rid of their swords, but wasn't there something about turning swords into plowshares? (Not very conversant on the New Testament)

Isaiah wrote about that as a prophecy of a coming time of peace. It followed a prediction of a time when plowshares are turned into swords.

Jesus in Matthew 10 said: ""Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

In Luke 22, he said: "He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. "

He later also said: ""Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." in Matthew 26

As with everything, it depends on the context. There is neither an endorsement that the sword is always right to use, while there is neither a condemnation that the sword is always wrong. As Ecclesiastes says, there is an appropriate time and place for everything.

Jim in Iowa

But Jim, America is NOT a democracy, it it s a representative republic. (I'm sick of Bush and his idiot friends touting how America has sucha great "democracy")

This is hardly just Bush-43. Every President in recent memory does this. Here's a sampling just from the various State of the Union addresses:

"We are the world's most diverse democracy", Bill Clinton

"Again we are here in the sanctuary of democracy, and once again, our democracy has spoken.", Bill Clinton

"The strength of a democracy is not in bureaucracy, it is in the people and their communities", George Bush (41)

"And our challenge today is to take this democratic system of ours, a system second to none, and make it better", George Bush (41)

"Let's prove to them and to ourselves that democracy works even in an election year", Ronald Reagan

"Our mission is to nourish and defend freedom and democracy, and to communicate these ideals everywhere we can", Ronald Reagan

"...to proclaim in our great democracy our constant faith in the liberty and dignity of human beings everywhere," Jimmy Carter

"The truth is we are the world's greatest democracy", Gerald Ford

And why does this make you sick, anyway? It's something to be proud of.

"Morality -- Whether you agree or disagree with traditional Christian morality, the very fact that morals exist suggests something. Evolutionary theory falls short in explaining how we developed morality."

Okay, I've gotta throw the bullstuff flag on this one.

Meerkats are small, weasel-like creatures native to South Africa, who live in large underground colonies. Posted outside the colony entrance is a watcher, whose duty is to sit there, and sound the alarm when a predator approaches. The rest of the colony then runs inside. This behavior was long thought inexplicable in evolutionary terms, as the watcher cannot hunt for seeds and insects, and must wait outside until the rest of the colony is safe. Closer examination over the last couple of centuries, though, has shown that the watcher is fed by the others, and those who have recently had watch duty are actually preferred by mating females - thus spreading their genes more rapidly. In other words, among meerkats, seemingly selfless, moral behavior is rewarded evolutionarily.

Similarly, it is easier for a human male to attract a mate if he displays qualities which, at base, indicate that he will help care for the young. Courage, self-sacrifice, honor - all come into play in shared child care. Therefore, those with "morality" will tend to father more children than those without, and will tend to teach even those who don't carry their genes, thus perpetuating the meme. As we can see, then, evolution does indeed favor "morailty", with or without deity involved.

This point is now moot. Next evidence, please...

If we were truly free, Bill Gates would be penniless as there'd be no copyright laws either...

Besides LAWS have absolutely NOTHING to do with "convincing" anyone. LAWS deal with limiting rights and freedoms. LAWS FORCE beliefs on the whole nation. Not very democratic or free...

I think we've actually reached a breakthrough in explaining Bladestar. He is an anarchist, which makes a lot of his political statements much more internally consistent than I would have expected. I actually believe Bladestar now when he "spews" (as he called my last post) "I'm not the one trying to pass laws forcing people to do anything or banning them from anything. You assholes are trying to legislate your religion,, you ARE the Taliban." If he’s an anarchist that’s an intellectually honest response to any act of government. It doesn’t explain why he’s persistently rude, though.

My problem with some of the arguments here has been that they've accepted pluralism only superficially. That is to say, most people are in favor of pluralism when it comes to having their own views aired without interference from opposing groups. Most people are in favor of pluralism when it comes to prohibiting other groups from taking actions... but they aren't so crazy about restraint when it comes to prohibiting their own policy decisions. I don't think I'm inventing a straw man here. Specifically, I noted Karen write, "The only differences in our world-views on morals that I can think of would be that I think it is a moral value to allow freedom to choose and live your life without violating others rights to do the same. You think it is important that you spread your ideal lifestyle and religion to others." Karen, do you consider yourself a libertarian? That statement, if taken literally, precludes you from supporting anti-discrimination, minimum wage, and environmental protection laws. And someone else wrote, "It's one thing to say you are right about something when you have facts and proof, it's just obnoxious to say so when you have none or as much as anyone else." Well, as noted by other posters, it's impossible to "prove" by any rational standard a philosophical, ethical or religious viewpoint. You cannot prove that "all men are created equal" any more than you can prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God. That poster just precluded himself from ever taking the moral high ground on anything. And yet people who espouse philosophical views similar to the ones I just cited continue to have political opinions as well.

A case in point is abortion funding. Recall that in the second Presidential debate, an "undecided voter" (anyone else notice that every single question was really a softball for one side or another?) asked how she could be sure her tax dollars wouldn't fund abortions. Kerry said that he respected her opinion, being a devout Catholic himself, but then proceeded to shoot her down. (Not the only time he did that, either. When asked about stem cells, he replied "You know, Elizabeth, I really respect your -- the feeling that's in your question. I understand it. I know the morality that's prompting that question, and I respect it enormously. But...") He believes that abortion is a right, and since a right is basically useless if you can't afford it, he supported public funding for abortions. Bush on the other hand flatly said that public money would not fund abortion. The thing worth noting from this exchange is that both candidates did EXACTLY THE SAME THING. Each candidate intended to make his political (and in this case moral) preference into public policy. Kerry favors public funding of abortions for indigent people; he would make that the policy of the United States. Bush is opposed to abortion generally and definitely opposed to paying for them, and he would not make that the policy of the United States. This is what politicians do all of the time; they try to give their own policy preferences the force of law. The only way to avoid that would be not to have government; our public policy would be to not have a public policy. In short, anarchy.

Should we do that? Is, God help us, Bladestar right? I have to say no. I have to believe that it is not merely acceptable for us to try to bring about a more moral government, but in some cases it is morally imperative for us to do so. The largest expansion of governmental intrusion into private life in the last fifty years was not the USA PATRIOT act-- it was civil rights legislation. The Federal government now penetrates into every nook and cranny of economic and public life in this country, and IT IS PERFECTLY RIGHT THAT IT SHOULD DO SO. Republicans were responsible for abolishing slavery; we should be completely embarrassed that we left it to the Democrats to do in the 1960s what we should have done during Reconstruction, and some members of our party should be utterly ashamed for opposing the Civil Rights Act. But the Civil Rights Act is entirely a moral issue. It is against Federal law for an employer, literally minding his own business, to discriminate against a customer or an employee based on race, and that law was passed because it is immoral for the employer to do so. Our notions of morality impact our policy decisions constantly, and that's what keeps us from the Lord of the Flies on one hand (because we have morals and government) and Nazi Germany on the other (because our morals and government aren't completely insane). I defer to Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." I will always vote my conscience. I expect everyone else will do the same. With any luck we'll end up with some Hegelian mishmash of "the right thing to do."

Karen asked, And if I compassionatly reached out to you by telling you that you are going the wrong way and should convert to Judaism?

Go for it. In my opinion you have every right to do that, and depending on the specific content of your religious beliefs, you might have a moral imperative to at least try to get the message out to save people. I may not like it; Lord knows I find evangelical Christians annoying at times. But essentially I see it as an expression of good faith; if you have access to insider information that I lack, whether it be religious truth or the fact that Soylent Green is people, I am reassured that you feel the urge to save me. It necessarily implies that you feel I'm worth saving. (I think we can all agree that Bladestar is a lost cause, however.) And if it turns out you're right I could use the tip. Just don't let PAD see you do it; he might "see it as an act of supreme arrogance, of self-righteous, holier-than-thou, snot-faced, wrong-headed, purblind, where-the-hell-do-you-get-off-you-Bible-thumping-yahoo, biased, prejudiced, anti-Semitic chowder-headed, lame-brained jackass intolerance." Well, maybe not the anti-Semitic part.

Mark, it makes me sick because it's a LIE!

America is not a democracy. If we were, there would be no president, no congress. The people would vote on everything, not on representatives crafted by extreme gerrymandering and the ridiculous electoral college. Not to mention that the entire process is bought and owned by the rich....

Because David,

I fucking hate these religious fascists!

I see no reaon not to be rude to them. They are Nazis, The Taliban, The Ayatollah, Osama Bin Laden, and Jim Jones all rolled into one.

"Give us the power we need to "Protect" you. You aren't smart enough to handle your lives, so let us, god's frontmen & the government take care of everything. You don't need rights and freedom, let us guide and protect you. You safety is more important than your rights, right?"

Fucking fascists... they don't deserve respect because they are sub-human...

Blade,

I agree with you. I wish our politicians would remind us more about our republic, not our "democracy". The reason I was curious was that you singled out Bush-43. If you're telling me that you dislike all the politicians doing it, I understand it.

Fucking fascists... they don't deserve respect because they are sub-human...

That's odd, usually the fascists are the one saying people are actually sub-human.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Jim, I don't seek to change your mind about your faith. Whatever gets you through your day is cool with me. But I have to admit your "fingerprints" aren't something I'd be comfortable using for a reason to believe anything. I'm seriously not trying to be rude (so I wonder why I'm saying anything at all), but I think you don't fully understand evolution. Many of your other reasonings contain quite a few "ifs". You choose to see intelligent design, which is fine. That's cool.

"You may disagree, but try for a second to look at life through the worldview of a Christian. It is not a "slap in the face" to try to persuade you to my position."-

Just because you don't think I should see it as a slap in the face to completely disregard my own beliefs in an attempt to pursuade me of yours doesn't mean it isn't a slap in the face. Just because you think you are doing the right thing, or want to be doing the right thing, doesn't mean you are.

"I do have facts and evidence, you just choose to reject it."

You did not present facts or evidence, just your rationalizations, and how you interpret the world. Again, which is fine, you can believe what you want to believe.

"I am not arguing for the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. I am arguing for something that does have a historical basis and reality."

Religion, belief, and faith have an historical basis. The existence of god does not.

I hope I didn't come off as snippy. If I did, I apologize and chalk it up to the frustrations and exhaustion of stay-at-home-dad-dom.

Monkeys.

David,
Specifically, I noted Karen write, "The only differences in our world-views on morals that I can think of would be that I think it is a moral value to allow freedom to choose and live your life without violating others rights to do the same. You think it is important that you spread your ideal lifestyle and religion to others." Karen, do you consider yourself a libertarian? That statement, if taken literally, precludes you from supporting anti-discrimination, minimum wage, and environmental protection laws.

I actually did look into the libertarian party at one time and rejected it because of my belief that we need rules and the government is there to fill in the gaps of our society. My statement doesn't preclude the laws you cite because each protect all of our rights to live and choose. Which is what government should be for. If one is discriminated against it violates his rights, not being able to feed, clothe, and house your family because the minimum wage is too low violates ones ability to live life in freedom from want, and environmental laws keep those who would destroy nature from allowing us to enjoy it.
Far from libertarian views, I think we absolutly need government to step in. It is human nature for those with power to abuse it, so government should be a check and balance. I bought into the Reagan policy of smaller government for quite awhile until I realized that it meant giving up some of the programs that give aid and dignity to those in need. Government should not be run like a business, but like a government. Your post was very thoughtful, though. In the example of trying to convert someone to my religion; the religious person I admire most on a local level is a friend who lives a very Christian life. He and I had many long discussions about religion. His view is to be an example and show how fulfilling his life is based on his religion. Showing people instead of trying to push his views on me. I respect him more than I can say because he truly tried to live a Christian life every day, but did not feel the need to force others to his way of thinking. So I won't be trying to convert anyone, I just wanted Jim to understand the flip side of his proselytizing. How would he feel if we were doing the same to him?

"Karen asked, And if I compassionatly reached out to you by telling you that you are going the wrong way and should convert to Judaism?"

"Go for it. In my opinion you have every right to do that, and depending on the specific content of your religious beliefs, you might have a moral imperative to at least try to get the message out to save people."

Actually, if Karen is Jewish, then not only does she NOT have that moral imperative, but she would in fact be acting in violation of Jewish law.

See, that's what separates Judaism from the zealots, the yahoos, the Bible thumpers and the schmucks who believe they must, absolutely MUST tell you that you are on the wrong path for your own good, dammit...and are oblivious to the sheer arrogant condescension that point of view entails.

Judaism specifically prohibits prostel...prostyli...pros...trying to convert someone to our religion. As a matter of fact, would-be converts are supposed to be actively discouraged from doing so. Part of it stems from feeling it's not our place to foist our beliefs on others, and part of it stems from the awareness that Jews are despised and targeted by...well, condescending yahoos, for one...and figure that anyone who wants in should really have some idea of what they're letting themselves in for.

That's why, if you've ever been approached by one of the Lubuvitch with their Mitzvah Mobile, the first thing they'll say is, "Excuse me, are you Jewish?" If you say "No," they will simply say "Thank you" and turn away.

That's the great divide between the smug bible-thumper mentality, with its blinkered "We are absolutely right and everyone else is absolutely wrong and it's our obligation to help those poor idiots who just don't get it" attitude, and any other religion (such as mine) which just says, "I have my religion, you have yours, let's just leave it at that."

It's a mindset that informs all aspects of the zealot. It's probably why Bush is so determined in his international dealings: He desires to foist Democracy on others, whether they want it or not, with the same singleminded "I"m right, you're wrong, and I'm going to hammer that home to you no matter what it takes" attitude that informs everything from missionairies to the Spanish Inquisition to...well...Jim from Iowa.

PAD

I'm seriously not trying to be rude (so I wonder why I'm saying anything at all), but I think you don't fully understand evolution. Many of your other reasonings contain quite a few "ifs". You choose to see intelligent design, which is fine. That's cool.

I have read quite extensively on evolution. I just am lazy and have not gone to do research to present my ideas as clearly as I should. Which is my fault, and I will do some research to better state my point in the future.

I am trying to not tie up this site with whole chapters of my beliefs. To do it justice would take more space than most here want to read. So I hear the objections to my arguments but choose not to prolong the discussion. They were summaries, not well defended points, so I will bow out of the debate.

Religion, belief, and faith have an historical basis. The existence of god does not.

Actually, I would disagree, at least according to the Christian world view. Creation itself is an historical basis. Even if you think evolution explains the process, it does not explain the "big bang" in the first place. Did something really come from nothing?

Second, the life and death and resurrection of Jesus would be an historical basis. It is a historical event which can be researched and studied. Disproving it does not conclusively prove God does not exist, since I could be wrong and another god or gods could exist. But if it is true, then it is strong evidence that the God of the Bible is real. It is a way to know God exists.

For what it is worth, Chuck Colson and others suggest that it is this historical fact that keeps Christianity from being a circular argument. God does not exist just because the Bible says so. I believe God exists because he actually entered into human history in a way that is unique and tangible and subject to verification. Obviously I am not an eyewitness, but there is a lot of evidence to consider before quickly dismissing it as a myth or legend.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I find it challenging.

Jim in Iowa

PAD wrote: Judaism specifically prohibits prostel...prostyli...pros...trying to convert someone to our religion.

PAD, I have heard this before, but don't understand the source of this belief. Is it based in the Jewish (Old Testament) scriptures or a tradition or what? I agree that the command to "go and make disciples" found in the New Testament is not stated as such in the Jewish Scriptures. I am not trying to debate you on this, just honestly want to know the source for this belief.

Jim in Iowa

Mark L, not just Bush and not just the president, but yes, I disagree when anyone touts America as a democracy, because we are FAR from it...

Dave Boring, how typical, but I'm not the one trying to pass laws restricting anyone's rights or freedom. Enjoy your fascist ways...

PAD... so it's not just selective memory or my mind playing tricks on me. I've never had Jewish people make the total asses of themselves that Jim and his ilk do...

I actually did look into the libertarian party at one time and rejected it because of my belief that we need rules and the government is there to fill in the gaps of our society. My statement doesn't preclude the laws you cite because each protect all of our rights to live and choose. Which is what government should be for. If one is discriminated against it violates his rights, not being able to feed, clothe, and house your family because the minimum wage is too low violates ones ability to live life in freedom from want, and environmental laws keep those who would destroy nature from allowing us to enjoy it.

All of those are moral judgments, though. You're making the judgment that a person's right to not be the subject of discrimination trumps the right of the bigot to associate with and do business with the people of his choice. You are making the judgment that a person has a right to material support, which trumps the employee and employer's exclusive rights to negotiate the terms of their arrangement. (There were actual cases debating that in the early part of the last century, e.g. Lochner.) And you're making the judgment that your right to enjoy nature trumps the right of Brazilian landowners to slash and burn their property. For you to act on your judgments, you HAVE to accept that it is morally valid to try to give your judgments the force of law. I think you're right about that, even if I don't always agree on your specific judgments. But I think we should all be clear on the point. Legislation ALWAYS involves the majority forcing its will on a minority. The Constitution is designed to prevent a majority from enforcing its will unjustly, not to prohibit the practice altogether. It would be all but impossible to have any sort of government that really, genuinely, embraced moral relativism.

Karen said 1. How will you find new converts when you seem to be so exclusionary? Examples: If you are gay, and will not live a lie for your religion; or if you believe in a woman's right to choose, but get denied communion.

If you believe that the Bible comes from God's word, then I would say look to the Bible. If it says it's OK to be gay in the Bible, then so be it. If it says a woman has the right to choose if her baby lives or dies in the Bible, then so be it.

and 2. What side of the gun control issue would Jesus lean toward? By extension, while we are on the issue of violence, what would he think of going to war with Iraq?

Who are we to say what Jesus would or wouldn't do?

You can debate Big Bang, evolution, creation, Genesis, the World Tree all day long. However, at some point people have to try to come to a conclusion: was there an intent in the creation of the Universe, or was it all a big cosmic accident? If it was an accident, then you're stuck with evolution as your means of growth. If there was intent, then evolution can still be a part of the means of creation, but so can intervention and design - they are not mutually exclusive. Many people take the either/or approach without realizing the middle ground.

Marvel obviously believes in Evolution. Look at what happened to Peter Parker recently. He gave birth to himself (spiders now produce a-sexually ~ another evolutionary spike), gets enhanced perceptions, and organic web shooters that amazingly come out of the same place that his mechanical web shooters used to come from instead of his arse. Talk about coincidence.

Thank goodness that John Kerry wasn't writing the book. Peter Parker probably would have given himself a partial birth abortion, thus killing his self, or his baby whichever way you want to look at it. Then, Marvel would have to bring back Peter's clone again.

See, that's what separates Judaism from the zealots, the yahoos, the Bible thumpers and the schmucks who believe they must, absolutely MUST tell you that you are on the wrong path for your own good, dammit...and are oblivious to the sheer arrogant condescension that point of view entails.

Whereas, if hypothetically someone were to spend hours trying to explain to such people that they are in fact zealots, schmucks, yahoos, that wouldn't involve arrogant condescension at all. Seriously, what makes your contempt for them superior to their self-righteous but well-intentioned efforts? I'm neither an evangelical Christian nor, obviously, you. From my perspective, all I see is two factions trying to convince others that they're right, and the only difference is you're being a lot ruder than Jim in Iowa. He thinks he's trying to save souls. I have no idea what you think you're doing, if not engaging in "an act of supreme arrogance, of self-righteous, holier-than-thou, snot-faced, wrong-headed, purblind... biased, prejudiced... chowder-headed, lame-brained jackass intolerance." Do you tolerate everyone but evangelicals? Is Christianity OK as long as you keep it to yourself, and don't frighten the children and horses? How about if the Gideons just hand out Bibles? Must they wear gags as they do it? Or are we to allow the Nazis to march in Skokie, but disallow nonviolent ministries entirely? I know, Bladestar maintains they're the same thing, but he maintains that everyone who disagrees with his form of anarchism is a fascist ("You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.") so I don't really care what he thinks, either.

But I'm befuddled to see you, PAD, being so irrationally abusive. You are taking the precise position you decry: you are proclaiming the superiority of your faith, when by your own logic you should be taking a page from the other team and turning the other cheek. You are certainly not saying "I have my religion, you have yours, let's just leave it at that." You're lambasting someone who DARED to state his beliefs, and claim that he believes his beliefs to be true (which should be axiomatic; who claims false beliefs?) and suggesting that such truth is universal. That is his only crime: claiming that his belief is empirically true. For all that you're comparing him to the Spanish Inquisition (or at least claiming he shares their attitude), he attacked no one, employed no instruments of torture, did nothing but state his beliefs in a public forum and claim that he's right. For some reason you're attacking Jim, who has done absolutely nothing to you.

Bladestar: PAD... so it's not just selective memory or my mind playing tricks on me. I've never had Jewish people make the total asses of themselves that Jim and his ilk do...

Give him time. He's working on it.

I said Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Kerry vote against additional funding for the troops.

to which Roger Tang said Yes, you are wrong. He supported a version of the bill that included funding mechanisms for the Iraq venture. That he voted against a version he did not like should not be construed that he was against proper funding of troops in Iraq.

You have a Yeah or Nay vote in the Senate. He chose Nay when it came down to supplying extra funding needed for our troops. So, no, I was not wrong in my assertion. You are wrong as was Kerry.

No means no. You can psychoanalyze it all night long if you want. The fact is, he voted NO to funding the troops. So if the troops are missing anything, he was as much responsible for it as Bush was. In fact, he was more responsible for it since he voted NO.

There is no Maybe vote in the Senate is there? I don't care if his version of the bill didn't pass. He stated himself on TV that it would be irresponsible for anyone in the Senate to vote No for supporting the troops with extra funding. Then he votes NO. Good grief man. If you tell someone you're going to do something, especially if you tell a live tv audience, then you better darned well do it or you lose face with the public.

David said For some reason you're attacking Jim, who has done absolutely nothing to you.

Christian's are always persecuted for expressing their beliefs.

Great post David. I for one am glad that Jim posts here. I enjoy reading what he has to say.

kingbobb said Looking around in my posts...hmm, don't see anything about WANTING Bush to fail. Nope, mostly just stuff about how I don't care for the job he's doing.

I specifically remember saying that the post you are replying to was intended for liberals in general, not you specifically. I never said you personally wanted Bush to fail.

Additionally, kingbobb said This, also from Novafan: "How about all of the Kerry supporters get their girls pregnant and have them get a partial birth abortion. Fair's fair right?" Heh, there's logic for you. I could go into how this is just SO not a logical application of wanting the Bush supporters to enlist...I COULD, but I have to make myself stupider to do so...

Obviously you missed the intent of my response to yours. I was trying to show you by example how rediculous your post was by using your logic on people who voted for Kerry. It's called reverse Psychology.

Do you get it now?

Bladestar said Because David, I fucking hate these religious fascists! I see no reaon not to be rude to them. They are Nazis, The Taliban, The Ayatollah, Osama Bin Laden, and Jim Jones all rolled into one.

Serious Issues, meet Bladestar. Bladestar, meet Serious Issues.

Now that you've met each other, lay down and get some counseling please.

Novafan, first of all... WHAT? (I stopped reading comics back in 2001, but Spidey-titles were always my favorites, they've done WHAT to the character?)

2nd. Voting yeah or Nay in congress isn't that simple, theanks to the stupid practice of putting riders on bills. Each bill voted on should deal with only one thing, no riders. None of this "Well, the primary bill is for funding troops, but by voting for it, you also are accepting the rider that makes cannabalism legal."

3rd.. BULLSHIT, just the facts. Anyone who wants their religious ignorance made law is a fascist, bent on depriving others of their beliefs and rights. Pure and simple.

Sorry you can't see that.

Anyone who wants their religious ignorance made law is a fascist, bent on depriving others of their beliefs and rights. Pure and simple.

But isn't that what the ACLU is doing? They insist that all references to God be purged from public places. Isn't that just as fascist towards those who have a belief?

We walk a very fine line in the US. Our founders and Declaration of Independence acknowledged that our rights come not from man, but from God. Our Constitution makes no such claim, and is the framework of our laws. The Constitution does not say that government cannot acknowledge religion, just that it cannot establish one.

At what point is the forcing of non-religion in schools, currency, public buildings an infringement on those who hold those beliefs? 90%+ of Americans belief in some sort of God/Creator/Goddess/Spirit that is beyond ourselves. How does "In God We Trust" on the currency or an acknowledgement of God in a city logo infringe on a right? No one is forced into any state-run religious activity by these things.

Anyway, I'm rambling a bit off-topic, because the issues like gay marriage that people are discussing have a bit more direct impact than mottos. I just don't think this issue is as black-and-white as it is sometimes portrayed.

Republicans were responsible for abolishing slavery

Yeah, and if Republicans of 150 years ago had any resemblence to Republicans of today, that might actually be a valid statement.

Even if you think evolution explains the process, it does not explain the "big bang" in the first place.

Ahh, so, now, god didn't just create the Earth in six days, he created the Universe in six days as well?

I'd love to see the Biblical rewrite on that.

Religion has no place in the public/government eye exactly because it's so strictly personal.

A school is there to teach read, writing, and arithmetic (notice how only 1 of "the 3 R's" starts with "R", rinign endorsement of the american education system). NOT religion. There are too many religious beliefs out theere, many extremely contradictory to allow it in schools and the like. Keep your religion to yourself, the rest of us don't want or need to hear about it. If we're interested in ignoring reality, we'll go to your church and ask for the blinders to be put on...

By having all that "G"od shit on money & the like, the governement IS endorsing a religion. What about "In Allah we Trust"? "In Buddha we trust"? "In Zues we Trust"?

And why do they swear you in ON A BIBLE in court and at the presidential inaugaration ceremonies?

Back around Lincoln's time, the Democrats were the Republicans and vice versa....

"Even if you think evolution explains the process, it does not explain the "big bang" in the first place."
The big bang is more realistic and believable than an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful controls-all-matter-and-energey supposedly-intelligent life form who created the world in 6 days and aged all the dinosaur bones...

The bible (and the equivalents of other faiths) was written to help the greedy control the weak-willed and weak-minded and keep them under the way of the "interpreters" and "priests" of "god's" word...

You have a Yeah or Nay vote in the Senate. He chose Nay when it came down to supplying extra funding needed for our troops. So, no, I was not wrong in my assertion. You are wrong as was Kerry.

Nope.

You can debate Big Bang, evolution, creation, Genesis, the World Tree all day long. However, at some point people have to try to come to a conclusion: was there an intent in the creation of the Universe, or was it all a big cosmic accident?

Well, not quite. If you do that, you're mixing mechanisms and purpose/intent.

That's not the point of studies into evolution and cosmology (which are separate scientific disciplines; one should not try to mix them together). Those areas of science are inquiries into mechanisms (i.e., the "hows"). Trying to make them into moral or spiritual justifications is just confused; that's the province of philosophy and religion (the "whys" and "should bes").

"But I'm befuddled to see you, PAD, being so irrationally abusive."

I disagree. I'm not being irrationally abusive. I'm being quite rational in my abuse.

This business that "Christians are always being persecuted for their beliefs" is bullshit on a gargantuan scale. JEWS are persecuted for their beliefs. By contrast, Jesus has had more people killed in his name than possibly any other religious figure in the history of mankind.

And I am sick of it. I am sick of the people who come to my door trying to foist their beliefs upon me. I am sick of the people coming here explaining to me why I'm going to Hell, and it's only because they care that they're telling me this. Here's an idea. How about they go up to every morbidly obese person they see and say, "You're eating yourself into an early grave. I'm only telling you this because I'm concerned." How about they walk up to every pair of men they see holding hands and tell them they're hellbound as well...oh. Wait. They do that. It's called "gay bashing." But I'm sure they only beat the crap out of them because they care.

Understand, I really, really don't care about people's individual religions. As others noted, whatever gets you through the day. I do not remotely feel it's my place to say there's something wrong with someone else because they do not share my worldview. What infuriates me is that not only do Bible-thumpers feel it's their place to tell me there's something WRONG with ME in not sharing THEIRS, but their viewpoint is in the process of informing every aspect of American decision making, from a woman's right to choose to a gay's right to marry, and they're just helped re-elect a leader who approaches world politics with the sort of narrow-minded, blinkered religious zeal that those who shove "Embrace Jesus or burn" pamphlets in my face approach me.

Misplaced zeal ruins lives (just ask the victims of McCarthyism, in pursuit of the "godless communists.) Misplaced zeal destroys lives (just ask any of the families of the thousand-plus soldiers dead in Iraq.) This is the mindset that we have running our country. This is the mindset that we have allowing it to happen.

This self-image that some Christians have of benevolent shepherds in a land of sinners, and oh, how they're just misunderstood, is delusional. They're not misunderstood. We understand it perfectly. And our response is, "We get it. You think we're going to hell. We think we're not. Now shut up about it." And when we say "shut up about it," the response isn't, "Gee, maybe we should rethink our point of view because people find us personally offensive," it's "Woe is me, it's our lot in life to have people take offense against our good works."

Honest sentiment is not an excuse. Fourteen hijackers, none of them Iraqis (despite what the current administration led people to think) honestly felt that killing thousands of people was in the best interests of the commonweal and was what their god wanted them to do. Didn't make it right.

The only place I've seen anyone fervently saying, "We must do as Moses would want us to do" was on "South Park," and even then all they did was make macaroni pictures.

Short answer to Jim: Talmud.

PAD

Well said Peter, well said...

Well, not quite. If you do that, you're mixing mechanisms and purpose/intent.

You're right, the scientific study of evolution makes no analysis of the cause of it, just the effect.

However, to my mind the evolution/creation discussion hinges on the cause as well. Pure science and logic makes no judgement about it, but as emotional humans, we must discuss it. To paraphrase Spock: logic and reason are not enough.

You're right, the scientific study of evolution makes no analysis of the cause of it, just the effect.

However, to my mind the evolution/creation discussion hinges on the cause as well. Pure science and logic makes no judgement about it, but as emotional humans, we must discuss it. To paraphrase Spock: logic and reason are not enough.

That really muddies the water, if you're not careful. I can perfectly well accept that you can't discuss origins wihout purpose and intent, but you have to make crystal clear that science (as an enterprise, as opposed to scientists) is only concerned with mechanisms and the how. Far too many people naturally assume that evolution is intimately concerned with they why, when it is far from the case it is.

I hear "Evolution is Godless"...which is true--but it's in the same way that "quantum mechanics is Godless". And it would be extremely silly to challenge quantum mechanics in textbooks.

Not that it's stopping some people...

By having all that "G"od shit on money & the like, the governement IS endorsing a religion.

You know, I had read that "In God we trust" was added to our currency in 1957.

Wasn't that the same year those crazy wankers added "Under god" to the Pledge?

I was just thinking about this reply, and then PAD brought up McCarthy, who had a direct impact upon all the anti-Communist BS that lead to forcing religion back into government.

Some general thoughts on religion.

How did the universe begin, and how did it get to its present state? Was some intelligence (i.e. God) behind it, or is its “birth” the result of happenstance, and its current state the result of billions of years of evolution?

Personally, I accept the theory of evolution, but that doesn’t preclude some intelligence setting things in motion in the first place. Whether this was deliberate and intentional, or accidental (with this intelligence possibly also unaware of it) is a matter of faith and philosophy. For myself, I do not accept the Bible as literally true. I do not believe the universe was created in one week.

For one thing, there are lots of creation stories out there. There’s no reason (other than faith) to accept the Judeo-Christian God creating the universe in seven days “origin story” as any more valid than the others.

But, just for the sake of discussion, let’s say that is the correct version. That God did this over seven days. Who says it has to be seven _consecutive_ days? Or, for that matter, what a “day” is from God’s point of view? God and evolution can co-exist. God gets things started (day 1); sits back for a few million years to see what develops as a result; then does a bit more, to see where _that_ new input leads (day 2) and so on.

Is God active in the world today?

I’ve seen no evidence of it, but if there is a God, God could very well work through others, behind the scenes, as it were. To my way of thinking the absence of definitive evidence of God’s active role in the world either means God doesn’t exist (or has “died”) or that God has _faith in us_, faith that we don’t need Him to hold our collective hand.

Which leads to the next question. Does prayer actually work? Jim from Iowa would say yes, others would say no. I say it depends on your point of view. Let’s say we have a guy named Ben (to choose a name at random) who is faced with a difficult decision that would have a long-term impact on himself and his family. He prays for guidance as to which is the right path to choose, and eventually comes to a decision. Did God (metaphorically) whisper the answer in his ear, or did his subconscious mull over the problem and present him with a solution? I’d go with the latter option, myself.

But then, if there is a God, one could argue God exists within us at a subconscious level. It’s all a matter of faith.

And speaking of faith, I was educated in a Jesuit high school and a Jesuit university. One question I like to ask religious people, such as the priests and brothers I know, is this: If absolutely incontrovertible evidence was presented showing that Jesus died and stayed dead— that he did not rise again— would that negate the importance of his message of love and peace?

For myself, no it wouldn’t. Which is probably one reason many Jews and Muslims can respect him as an important prophet without believing in his divinity.

Finally, proselytizing. Don’t like it. I find it intrusive and offensive. It’s one thing to ask someone if they’ve accepted Christ (or whomever they worship) into your life, but another to insist that you do. Sometime last year, I was at Borders, doing some writing in the cafe, and someone getting ready to leave asked about the AlphaSmart laptop I write with. I answered his questions; he thanked me, and before leaving, invited me to visit his church, handing me a card. I thanked him, and once he had gone, put the card down and proceeded to ignore it. I wasn’t interested in attending his church.

But under different circumstances (such as a mood to compare and contrast how different denominations celebrate mass) I might’ve done so, just to satisfy my curiosity. He didn’t press the issue of his faith. If he had, he would’ve guaranteed that I wouldn’t have even considered it.

Of course, either way, he had zero chance of converting me to his belief system. That doesn’t necessarily mean, however, that I would not have gotten something out of a visit to his church, say a few minutes of philosophical discussion on the nature of God with his pastor (or whatever his title) after the mass? Or perhaps just the opportunity to listen to an interesting homily?

By the way, PAD, just curious, when Jews go to the synagogue, does the Rabbi give the equivalent of the Catholic priest’s homily, where he or she discusses a particular passage from the Torah and its meaning in one’s life today?

For that matter, do Jews call the hour or so (or whatever length) they go to the synagogue on Saturday a mass, or is there another term?

Rick

"One question I like to ask religious people, such as the priests and brothers I know, is this: If absolutely incontrovertible evidence was presented showing that Jesus died and stayed dead— that he did not rise again— would that negate the importance of his message of love and peace?"

Actually, you may have just put your finger on the difference between religious thought and scientific thought.

Scientific thought dictates that, when presented with incontrovertible evidence that contradicts earlier information, the theories must be rethought and reformed to accommodate them. It's called the "Scientific Method." (Ex: Dinosaurs and the changing thought as to their being warm blooded and ancestors of birds rather than cold blooded and ancestors of lizards).

Religious thought dictates that the evidence must be rejected in order to maintain the previously existing thought. It's called "Faith." (Ex: Pretty much anything that contradicts those parts of the Bible that support a moralistic argument).

So basically, your question proceeds from a false premise. It presupposed the notion of incontrovertible truth that would be accepted as such to those operating purely on faith. Any evidence can be considered controvertible (is that a word?) if it flies in the face of Biblical teaching. Such evidence can be ascribed to anything from intentional fraud to a test contrived by Satan to test the faithful.

In answer to your other questions, we tend simply to call it "services" rather than "mass." The Rabbi will usually give a sermon, but it can be based on anything from observations on that day's Torah portion and how it relates to modern life, to stuff that's going on in the world and how modern Jewish thought relates to it.

An hour for services? Hah. It can be two or even three, and that doesn't begin to count High Holy Days. On the other hand, at least we don't have the whole kneeling thing.

PAD

PAD,

I don't agree that my question proceeds from a false premise (but I get the analogy you're making) since I'm asking whether proof that Jesus was just a guy who lived and died negates his message of love and peace. I don't think it does. Whatever his birthright, much of what he had to say could still be taken to heart by those who choose to do so.

Now, questions related to whether Jesus' death absolved us, collectively of our sins _is_ a matter of faith. A Christian (in the "believes Jesus is divine" sense, not the "respects Jesus and tries to follow his teachings of loving one's neighbor, whether or not he was divine" sense) would very likely argue that the "proof" was tainted in some way. He or she is working on faith.

And, in truth, how could you definitively "prove" the identity of a 2,000 year old skeleton? It's not like they had dental records back then. The question is essentially a philosophical one, designed to spark discussion, in the Jesuit tradition.

Rick

P.S. Speaking of philosophical questions, why would God _want_ to create a boulder so heavy he couldn't lift it?

Context, Novafan style: "Additionally, kingbobb said This, also from Novafan: "How about all of the Kerry supporters get their girls pregnant and have them get a partial birth abortion. Fair's fair right?" Heh, there's logic for you. I could go into how this is just SO not a logical application of wanting the Bush supporters to enlist...I COULD, but I have to make myself stupider to do so...

Obviously you missed the intent of my response to yours. I was trying to show you by example how rediculous your post was by using your logic on people who voted for Kerry. It's called reverse Psychology.

Do you get it now?"

Sure, I understand that's what you were trying to do. here's the problem with that "logic:"

Asking Bush supporters (and I should limit that to Bush supporters who favor using aggressive tactics to pre-emptively invade another country) to essentially put their sons and daughters, or their very own bodies, where their mouths and votes are, goes like this. If you feel so strongly about it, why don't you go DO something about it, rather than sit around and watch as someone else's kids go do it for you? This position says if you're going to vote for someone to MAKE other people do something you want done, go do it yourself.

Kerry voted against a partial birth ban because it was an absolute ban. He voted against it because it allowed no consideration that the procedure may, under some circumstances, be medically required. But an absolute ban would prevent it's use in all circumstances. His vote (and the court's susequent delcaration that the ban was unconsitutional for the same reasons) doesn't force anyone to do anything. You can't say, "Kerry voted for this, now someone else has to go do his work."

So, your logic of trying to show me how ridiculous my statement was doesn't carry through. All supporters of Kerry have to do is fall back to the position they had before. Which is, don't tell other people what they can and can't do unless you have a compelling state interest that overrides the private interest, and when you do impose the state interest, don't do so in such a way that you trample private rights.

don't tell other people what they can and can't do unless you have a compelling state interest that overrides the private interest, and when you do impose the state interest, don't do so in such a way that you trample private rights.

Folks DO realize that this is a legal principle that underlies much of American law, right? And I don't mean recently, but from the 19th Century onward....

Is God active in the world today?

I’ve seen no evidence of it, but if there is a God, God could very well work through others, behind the scenes, as it were. To my way of thinking the absence of definitive evidence of God’s active role in the world either means God doesn’t exist (or has “died”) or that God has _faith in us_, faith that we don’t need Him to hold our collective hand.

I have no doubt that God exists and that He/She/It/Them is working behind the scenes. Can I prove it? No. Has God ever spoken to me? No. However, I know several people who have had contact with something Divine. My wife, my mother and some of my closest friends among them. Frankly, it makes me jealous of them that they have been so blessed, because as someone who has struggled with faith off and on, I'd love to have that sort of experience. :)

Rick:

P.S. Speaking of philosophical questions, why would God _want_ to create a boulder so heavy he couldn't lift it?

To piss off pop psychologists.

Travis

Religious thought dictates that the evidence must be rejected in order to maintain the previously existing thought. It's called "Faith." (Ex: Pretty much anything that contradicts those parts of the Bible that support a moralistic argument).

PAD, I expect better of you. First of all, I did not come here bashing you, telling you that you were going to hell, etc. I did state my view that gay marriage was wrong. I gave arguments that included far more than just religion. I noted that some people who have no particular faith believe gay marriage is a bad idea. I did not come here to proselytize, but I did seek to explain my viewpoint on an issue. I did not come here quoting scripture, but giving what I feel are universal reasons for my position. Many of you disagree. That is fine.

In the process of answering questions, some other issues have come up (particularly because of the assumption that my views can only have a religious basis), but I challenge you to bring up a single quote where I have done what you claim I have. Others on this site may have done so, but I have simply explained my views when questioned.

Second, your definition of faith is the epitome of a straw man. That is NOT how I, or any Christian I know, would define faith. It is not what we mean by faith. It is not how we practice faith. Christian faith understands that, by definition, if a supernatural world (including God) exists, it is impossible to fully prove or demonstrate it by rational means. Faith picks up where it is impossible for humah logic, reason, etc., to take us any farther.

Christian faith is based in a historical reality. If you could prove to me that Jesus did not really live, die, and rise again, I would immediately cease to be a Christian. That is the heart and soul of the Christian faith (at least for conservative Christians). I realize you have already stated that people like me are idiots, so spare me your response that I would refuse to look at the evidence. People far smarter than me have studied the facts and have come to the conclusion that the Bible is true -- and yes, people far smarter than me have come to the opposite conclusion. It is a hollow argument, however, to claim that Christians are ignorant imbeciles who can't even add 2 plus 2. History demonstrates that is not the case.

There are, without doubt, questions to which I do not have the answer. There are parts of Christianity that do not make sense. But that has been true of every other religion and philosophy I have studied. You have to add everything up together and see what hypothesis best fits the facts. I have done so, and am therefore a Christian.

As I said, I honestly expect better of you. I have no doubt some Christians have been as obnoxious as you claim. But you would be the first to say not all liberals are the same, not everyone who votes for Kerry is the same, not everyone who is gay is the same, etc. The same is true with Christians.

Jim in Iowa

Yeah, and if Republicans of 150 years ago had any resemblence to Republicans of today, that might actually be a valid statement.

Which part of an incontrovertible statement of historical fact is invalid again?

Me: "But I'm befuddled to see you, PAD, being so irrationally abusive."

I disagree. I'm not being irrationally abusive. I'm being quite rational in my abuse.

No. You're being quite rational in your opposition to Jim's position. Your abuse is a completely different issue-- and I note the irony that this is the first post you've made in two days that didn't call someone a chowder-head, a yahoo, or both. It's entirely possible to keep ad hominem attacks completely separate from your discussions of philosophical positions. I do it all the time. I argue with you on 2/3 of the political issues that have been discussed on this blog, but I thought you were really nice when I met you. Like PAD, dislike PAD's philisophy. I do it at work with all of the defense lawyers I have to deal with. Like Lisa, hate Lisa's criminal clients. On the substantive issue, I agree with you. I grew up Methodist; I don't like evangelicals either. But my solution is to not answer the door when I see someone approaching the front stoop with a stack of Watchtowers. There's no excuse for comparing Jim in Iowa to the Spanish Inquisition, without proof that he wars a funny red robe and an aviation helmet. It's also no defense to observe that the "same attitude" "informs" them both, because Christian missionary zeal also informed Albert Schweitzer, and he turned out okay.

(Now let's see who writes a post contrasting Jim in Iowa's conservative Christianity with Schweitzer's liberal Christianity, and then see who writes the follow-up post quoting the earlier comment about watching a point whiz right by. Or can we just skip that wild goose chase?)

Yeah, and if Republicans of 150 years ago had any resemblence to Republicans of today, that might actually be a valid statement.

David: Which part of an incontrovertible statement of historical fact is invalid again?

Okay, how about this? Lincoln was a Republican, granted. So was Teddy Roosevelt.
But saying they were the same type of Republicans we have today is like saying that Coca-Cola is the same as it started. Not even close (in fact, the Coca stands for Cocaine, which was a main ingredient... not anymore of course)... name is the same, what's changed is the makeup of the party.
And if you wish to argue that, I'll remind everyone that the so-called "weak" democrats were war presidents in WWII. And one actually authorized the bombing of Japan.
Totalllly different animals today.

Travis

It was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress. In December 1863, the Director of the Mint submitted designs for new one-cent coin, two-cent coin, and three-cent coin to Secretary Chase for approval. He proposed that upon the designs either OUR COUNTRY; OUR GOD or GOD, OUR TRUST should appear as a motto on the coins. In a letter to the Mint Director on December 9, 1863, Secretary Chase stated:
I approve your mottoes, only suggesting that on that with the Washington obverse the motto should begin with the word OUR, so as to read OUR GOD AND OUR COUNTRY. And on that with the shield, it should be changed so as to read: IN GOD WE TRUST.
The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864. This legislation changed the composition of the one-cent coin and authorized the minting of the two-cent coin. The Mint Director was directed to develop the designs for these coins for final approval of the Secretary. IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

Another Act of Congress passed on March 3, 1865. It allowed the Mint Director, with the Secretary's approval, to place the motto on all gold and silver coins that "shall admit the inscription thereon." Under the Act, the motto was placed on the gold double-eagle coin, the gold eagle coin, and the gold half-eagle coin. It was also placed on the silver dollar coin, the half-dollar coin and the quarter-dollar coin, and on the nickel three-cent coin beginning in 1866. Later, Congress passed the Coinage Act of February 12, 1873. It also said that the Secretary "may cause the motto IN GOD WE TRUST to be inscribed on such coins as shall admit of such motto."

The use of IN GOD WE TRUST has not been uninterrupted. The motto disappeared from the five-cent coin in 1883, and did not reappear until production of the Jefferson nickel began in 1938. Since 1938, all United States coins bear the inscription. Later, the motto was found missing from the new design of the double-eagle gold coin and the eagle gold coin shortly after they appeared in 1907. In response to a general demand, Congress ordered it restored, and the Act of May 18, 1908, made it mandatory on all coins upon which it had previously appeared. IN GOD WE TRUST was not mandatory on the one-cent coin and five-cent coin. It could be placed on them by the Secretary or the Mint Director with the Secretary's approval.

The motto has been in continuous use on the one-cent coin since 1909, and on the ten-cent coin since 1916. It also has appeared on all gold coins and silver dollar coins, half-dollar coins, and quarter-dollar coins struck since July 1, 1908.

A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate. The first paper currency bearing the motto entered circulation on October 1, 1957. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) was converting to the dry intaglio printing process. During this conversion, it gradually included IN GOD WE TRUST in the back design of all classes and denominations of currency.

As a part of a comprehensive modernization program the BEP successfully developed and installed new high-speed rotary intaglio printing presses in 1957. These allowed BEP to print currency by the dry intaglio process, 32 notes to the sheet. One-dollar silver certificates were the first denomination printed on the new high-speed presses. They included IN GOD WE TRUST as part of the reverse design as BEP adopted new dies according to the law. The motto also appeared on one-dollar silver certificates of the 1957-A and 1957-B series.

BEP prints United States paper currency by an intaglio process from engraved plates. It was necessary, therefore, to engrave the motto into the printing plates as a part of the basic engraved design to give it the prominence it deserved.

One-dollar silver certificates series 1935, 1935-A, 1935-B, 1935-C, 1935-D, 1935-E, 1935-F, 1935-G, and 1935-H were all printed on the older flat-bed presses by the wet intaglio process. P.L. 84-140 recognized that an enormous expense would be associated with immediately replacing the costly printing plates. The law allowed BEP to gradually convert to the inclusion of IN GOD WE TRUST on the currency. Accordingly, the motto is not found on series 1935-E and 1935-F one-dollar notes. By September 1961, IN GOD WE TRUST had been added to the back design of the Series 1935-G notes. Some early printings of this series do not bear the motto. IN GOD WE TRUST appears on all series 1935-H one-dollar silver certificates.

Below is a listing by denomination of the first production and delivery dates for currency bearing IN GOD WE TRUST:

DENOMINATION PRODUCTION DELIVERY
$1 Federal Reserve Note February 12, 1964 March 11, 1964
$5 United States Note January 23, 1964 March 2, 1964
$5 Federal Reserve Note July 31, 1964 September 16, 1964
$10 Federal Reserve Note February 24, 1964 April 24, 1964
$20 Federal Reserve Note October 7, 1964 October 7, 1964
$50 Federal Reserve Note August 24, 1966 September 28, 1966
$100 Federal Reserve Note August 18, 1966 September 27, 1966

So, it has been on our coins since 1864.

The above info came from:

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html

I am shocked that some Christians are so vulgar that they would insist that money contain an oath to GOD. :-)

Two points I'd like to address:
The big bang is more realistic and believable than an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful controls-all-matter-and-energey supposedly-intelligent life form who created the world in 6 days and aged all the dinosaur bones...

I find it just a tad confusing that people who question the existence of God often ask "Where did God come from?" yet have no problem believing that one day a bunch of nothing blew up and created everything in the Universe. Doesn't science dictate that would be impossible? Further more, at best we've been able to determine the Universe is only about 20 billion years old. Assuming that is true, then how old is the matter that makes up the Universe? You know, the stuff that didn't exist before the Big Bang.

2nd Point:

So far I've heard the people who voted for Bush called, bigoted, homophobic, vulgar, stupid, intolerant, gay bashers, religious zealots, Crypto-Fascists, sheep-lovers who have sex with their first cousins.

Why do you think this is tolerant behavior? What, are you holding back how you REALLY feel to spare our feelings? and judging from what you say about us now, why should we listen in four years when you ask us to consider voting for your candidate?

I'm asking a serious question, because despite my defense of Bush, I really am an independent, and in four years, I don't see anyone on the Republican side that I might consider voting for. (Actually, there is one person, but I'm keeping mum) Assuming the Democratic candiate is a true moderate, or better, a conservative, like Lieberman, I couldn't rule out voting Democrat.

I find it just a tad confusing that people who question the existence of God often ask "Where did God come from?" yet have no problem believing that one day a bunch of nothing blew up and created everything in the Universe. Doesn't science dictate that would be impossible?

No. Mainly because science is honest enough to say WE DON'T KNOW. Yet. Some of it is due to the existence of virtual particles, which MAY give us clues one day to find out (or may not) (and look up things like virtual particles and quantum electrodynamics...this stuff is pretty established, everyday stuff, yet it's pretty wild for non-scientists to get their heads around; you can imagine the stuff that's really cutting edge....)

BBBZZTTTT!!! Wrong answer, but thanks for playing.

THe "Where did god come from?" question is the basic response to the religious idiots that ask "Well if there's no god, where did the universe come from?"

Since these fucking religious idiots know everythingcertainly answering where god came from can't be difficult... oh wait, the bible doesn't say so because that would disrupt their brain-washing operations that let them control so many weak people by prompting them to question authority and its decisions....

Bladestar:

If you don't know the answer don't try to bluff. You just look foolish.

Roger:

Science does basically the same thing that religion does. It comes up with an explanation tor try and account for what it doesn't know or understand. Example: Black holes, they're basically just a theory. We think we might have seen a few but we don't know for certain, and in fact the theory was just recently revised to try and explain what tthey call "particle fountains" which seem to be escaping those same inescapable black holes just fine. Can science prove or disprove the existence of God? In truth I doubt it. After all, if there IS a God and He doesn't WANT to be found...

Bladestar, I find no reason for you to mouth off the way you do. Why can't you make your points without cursing?

Peter said This business that "Christians are always being persecuted for their beliefs" is bullshit on a gargantuan scale. JEWS are persecuted for their beliefs. By contrast, Jesus has had more people killed in his name than possibly any other religious figure in the history of mankind.

One could argue that more people have been killed for professing Jesus's name as lord in the history of mankind also.

I'm curious about your situation Peter. Are you Jewish and your wife a Christian? I've always wondered what a Jewish person thinks of Jesus. Did he or didn't he fulfill the prophecies in the Old Testament? If he didn't, then when is the messiah going to come for the first time? And how would you know it's the messiah you've been waiting for?

Roger said Nope.

Novafan responds:

:0)

Bladestar, I find no reason for you to mouth off the way you do. Why can't you make your points without cursing?

Bladestar makes points? Really?

Bladestar said Novafan, first of all... WHAT? (I stopped reading comics back in 2001, but Spidey-titles were always my favorites, they've done WHAT to the character?)

In Spectacular Spiderman, they teamed Captain America with Spiderman against a character nobody's ever seen before. This character could control things like spiders (thus she controlled Spiderman). She mutated him into a full fledged spider, he gave birth to himself, and now he has enhanced perceptions, organic web shooters that come out of his wrists (imagine that), and enhanced strength. I personally thought it was a sorry story that was contrived to make Spiderman more in line with the Movie version.

and ... 2nd. Voting yeah or Nay in congress isn't that simple, theanks to the stupid practice of putting riders on bills. Each bill voted on should deal with only one thing, no riders. None of this "Well, the primary bill is for funding troops, but by voting for it, you also are accepting the rider that makes cannabalism legal."

I agree that they shouldn't have riders on bills. However, you should note that when a User conducts research to find out what a Senate member voted on,9 times out of 10, they will only find the Yeah or Nay vote and not the reason for the vote.

To many people, it doesn't matter why Kerry voted Nay to fund the troops. They are concerned with the fact that he personally said no Senator would do that and then he turned around and voted Nay anyways. What does that say about him? It appears that if Kerry doesn't get what he wants, he makes a political statement by using his vote.

And, on a lighter note, the best Kerry quote I could find on the Internet:

"Congratulations, Mr. President"

Granted, there are many front runners, but that one really takes the cake.

Novafan,
Listen carefully:
There were 2 bills to fund the troops.
One bill paid for the additional funds by rolling back the tax cuts. (Which Bush threatened to veto)
They other bill did not pay for the funds and ran up the deficit more.
Kerry voted Yea on the bill that FUNDED the troops but would roll back the tax cuts to pay for it.
He voted Nay on the other bill.

TWO BILLS TO FUND THE TROOPS

Kerry did not vote against funding the troops. He simply wanted to be able to pay for it.

"I'm curious about your situation Peter. Are you Jewish and your wife a Christian? I've always wondered what a Jewish person thinks of Jesus. Did he or didn't he fulfill the prophecies in the Old Testament? If he didn't, then when is the messiah going to come for the first time? And how would you know it's the messiah you've been waiting for?"

Asking what "a" Jewish person thinks is kind of hopeless, because different Jews will tell you different things. Me? I think, if Jesus existed, he was probably a decent and thoughtful rabbi who had a lot of good ideas, had a lot of followers, and died. The miracles? Things he actually did that were magnified in the retelling. Why not? Happens all the time even to this day. Stories get told, retold, and when they get written down, what do we say they are? Gospel.

I say this with absolutely no disrespect intended, but let's say...I dunno...that Jesus had never existed, that Christianity never happened. Let's move it to present day. And there's this guy, Joshua Ben Joseph who speaks calmly to a man who is suffering from hysterical blindness, and the man recovers his sight, and wow, did you hear about this guy, Joshua Ben Joseph, who cured a blind man? Dude, that's nothing, my brother Jacob told me he turned water into wine. Big deal, my cousin Eli heard from Crazy Achmed the rug dealer that he brought a dead guy back to life! Guy's, like, the son of God or something!

Putting aside all matters of faith...honestly, does that sound remotely unreasonable? And that's not even considering the inevitable counterprogramming from the Swift Camel Shiites for Jihad who didn't actually witness any of the miracles, but are willing to swear that none of them happened and that Joshua Ben Joseph is a world class liar.

Yes, I'm Jewish, my wife is Catholic, and we're detectives (okay, not really.) She believes the basic doctrine involving Jesus. She does not, however, believe that I'm going to hell because I don't share that belief, because she feels that whatever beings weigh such things in the afterlife wouldn't consign a fundamentally good person who's led a decent life to the pits of damnation simply because I was inculcated from birth into a different religion.

For that matter, I've assured her that, in my lifetime, should the skies split open, trumpets sound, and Jesus comes riding down in a chariot while a heavenly choir sings hosannas, I will turn to her and say, "Okay, I'm ready to accept Jesus as my lord now" because, y'know, how stupid would you have to be NOT to under those circumstances?

But Torah is specific as to what the result of the coming of the Messiah would be, and the complete cessation of persecution of the Jews is pretty high on the list. So if nothing else, it's safe to say that as long as people are strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up our children in Tel Aviv pizza parlors, the Messiah hasn't come.

You won't know the Messiah from miracles he is said to have performed, or even coming back from the dead. You'll know him because a man will come who will inspire mankind to reach its ultimate potential. No more war, no more persecution, no poverty and hunger. Man will live in an idealized state thanks to this individual's efforts. Because that hasn't happened, it's defacto proof that the Messiah hasn't come.

As for the Messiah I'm waiting for, you know what? If someone comes along and is able to accomplish all that, and then says, "By the way, just FYI, I am not in fact the Jewish Messiah but actually the Shinto Messiah," I'm not really gonna care. I'll be busy enjoying a war-free world of peace, and I'm perfectly cool with whoever's Messiah is able to pull that puppy off.

PAD

Yeah, and if Republicans of 150 years ago had any resemblence to Republicans of today, that might actually be a valid statement.

David: Which part of an incontrovertible statement of historical fact is invalid again?

Okay, how about this? Lincoln was a Republican, granted. So was Teddy Roosevelt.
But saying they were the same type of Republicans we have today is like saying that Coca-Cola is the same as it started. Not even close (in fact, the Coca stands for Cocaine, which was a main ingredient... not anymore of course)... name is the same, what's changed is the makeup of the party.

You know, I get that. I really do. And anyone with reading comprehension skills should have gathered that I understand this point, since the comment I was being "called on" reads IN ITS ENTIRETY as follows:

Republicans were responsible for abolishing slavery; we should be completely embarrassed that we left it to the Democrats to do in the 1960s what we should have done during Reconstruction, and some members of our party should be utterly ashamed for opposing the Civil Rights Act.

This sort of cretinous nitpicking is not helpful for any purpose. You might make an analytically identical point that modern Americans really shouldn't take credit for the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, because the people who wrote those documents were part of a very different nation from the one that we inhabit today. Personally, I think that a continuity of organization is at least a relevant consideration. In this case, however, the accusation that the Republicans have been sleeping on the job for about 100 years, with regard to a field in which there is a moral imperative to act, was actually fairly central to my original point. So "saying they're the same type of Republicans we have today" is something I didn't really do, except in the context of criticizing the party's follow-through over most of its existence.

And for what it's worth, Bush's foreign policy is more like Teddy Roosevelt's than any other President's in the last century. Unilateral use of force? Check. Implicit endorsement of imperialism? Check. He even has a ranch out West.

And if you wish to argue that, I'll remind everyone that the so-called "weak" democrats were war presidents in WWII. And one actually authorized the bombing of Japan.
Totalllly different animals today.

Actually, two Democrats authorized the bombing of Japan. Curtis "Bombs away" LeMay was firebombing Tokyo before Roosevelt died and long before the A-bomb prototype was finished, and the firestorms over Tokyo killed far more people than the fallout ever did, and that's not mentioning the saturation bombing of Germany, which started even earlier. Since we're being picky.

I apologize in advance for the snottiness of some of this post, but it's a little annoying to be "corrected" on points that I didn't get wrong.

"I say this with absolutely no disrespect intended, but let's say...I dunno...that Jesus had never existed, that Christianity never happened. Let's move it to present day. And there's this guy, Joshua Ben Joseph who speaks calmly to a man who is suffering from hysterical blindness, and the man recovers his sight, and wow, did you hear about this guy, Joshua Ben Joseph, who cured a blind man? Dude, that's nothing, my brother Jacob told me he turned water into wine. Big deal, my cousin Eli heard from Crazy Achmed the rug dealer that he brought a dead guy back to life! Guy's, like, the son of God or something!

Putting aside all matters of faith...honestly, does that sound remotely unreasonable? And that's not even considering the inevitable counterprogramming from the Swift Camel Shiites for Jihad who didn't actually witness any of the miracles, but are willing to swear that none of them happened and that Joshua Ben Joseph is a world class liar."

Speaking as a Christian, Peter - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

I loved it! Especially the "Swift Camel Shiites for Jihad"! LMMFAO!!

(And if anybody here doesn't think that God, Whoever you think He might be, doesn't have a good sense of humor - look around you, for goodness' sake!)

Novafan,
Listen carefully:
There were 2 bills to fund the troops.
One bill paid for the additional funds by rolling back the tax cuts. (Which Bush threatened to veto)
They other bill did not pay for the funds and ran up the deficit more.
Kerry voted Yea on the bill that FUNDED the troops but would roll back the tax cuts to pay for it.
He voted Nay on the other bill.

TWO BILLS TO FUND THE TROOPS

Kerry did not vote against funding the troops. He simply wanted to be able to pay for it.

He knows this. He just doesn't care. He's cherry picking the facts to support the conclusion he wants.

Oughta have a future in intelligence.

Jim Farrand: If we allow a very small minority, the gay community, to dictate how their deviant behavior is treated, whats to stop other groups from trying the same behavior?
Luigi Novi: What exactly do you mean by “treated”? All homosexuals want is what you and I want: To be left alone and not have government intrusion into their pursuit of happiness.

Jim Farrand: If gays can get gay marriage legitimized, what is to stop another fringe group, like NAMBLA or polygamists, from rising in popularity and influence and fighting for marriage rights?
Luigi Novi: The fact that sex with minors presents a danger to minors, and is not typically consensual. The same does not hold true with gay marriage.

Jim Farrand: Now right now, most of you are probably opposed to men sleeping with little boys, or marrying 10 women, our culture is against it. But with time, and continued moral decline, and the passage of things like gay marriage, eventually it'll be fine to sleep with little boys, animals, or marry as many as you want at once.
Luigi Novi: Typical cretinous reductio ad absurdum argument. “If this thing is done, then this other thing will also be happen.” Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.

Jim Farrand: America, and other countries, legislate morality all the time, like the polygamy example and NAMBLA example, as well as drugs and alcohol, and mebbe you disagree with the government stepping in at all, then you are a liberatarian, and i doubt most of you here are. But if you believe that the government can restrict drug use, and stop sex with little children, and animals, and stop polygamy, then you should also accept that it is not innappropriate for the government to legislate against allowing gays to marry.
Luigi Novi: No, and I don’t need you telling me what I should accept, particularly when I base my positions on fact and reason, whereas you don’t. Sex with children is a crime, and rightfully so for good reasons. There are also legitimate reasons for outlawing certain drugs, particularly the hard ones with no medicinal use. Sex with animals constitutes cruelty to animals. None of these apply to two consenting adults of the same gender who are in love and want to marry.

Jim Farrand: You may disagree, but currently, you seem to be in the minority, like polygamists were and drug users are, and the government, and the majority of the public and society can legislate against your position.
Luigi Novi: So were slaves and the abolitionists. Next?

Jim Farrand: Yes, at the time, that was acceptable at the time, and it was "right" according to those people. But as time went by, the ideas changed, and eventually, a large enough group decided that slavery was wrong and it was abolished. When a large enough group decides that gay marriage is correct and fine, it'll happen. Now by your understanding, and my understanding, and almost all now today believe that slavery is wrong, but AT THE TIME it was judged fine by A MAJORITY of society.
Luigi Novi: Which goes to show that the majority is often wrong. Let us clue you guys in Jim: You’re already wrong now. Why prolong the inevitable? Why not speak to the future and show how enlightened you are by taking a stand and admitting that arguments against gay marriage lack any internal consistency or logic (much as that which you used above)?

Jim Farrand: Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Luigi Novi: Marriage can be defined however we want to define it. This statement of yours is opinion. Nothing more.

Jim Farrand: And the tax breaks given to married couples are largely because of the fact that married couples make better parents and can bring up children better, according to conventional wisdom, and some psychologists. …
Luigi Novi: This link: http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html indicates that gays make perfectly fine parents.

Jim Farrand: There is evidence that children of gays are more likely to turn out gay themselves, or to experiment more…
Luigi Novi: A lie. All the current evidence shows that sexual orientation and gender identity is innate, and that human homosexuality is just as natural as homosexuality found in bonobos, monkeys, orangutans, dolphins, antelopes, elephants, goats and guinea pigs.

Jim Farrand: Sorry i rambled some, and i'm sorry if i offend, but you have to think outside the box a bit.
Luigi Novi: That phrase is generally used to connote unconventional thinking that breaks with an accepted paradigm. Of the two sides in the gay marriage debate, it is those who support it that are characterized thus, not those who oppose it.

Jim Farrand: And again, every one who is for gay marriage, why not drop all statuatory rape laws, and allow marriage at 12 or 10 or 5, for those NAMBLA members out there. Its really not much different, you just gotta think about it, and i know most don't want to.
Luigi Novi: Because 5-year olds do not possess the maturity to handle sex, let alone marriage. By ignoring this point, as those bigots who bring up pedophilia often do, it is you who display a reluctance to “think,” not those who point it out.

Peter David: The Goring quote is relevant to Iraq. Bush and Company mentioned Saddam, threats, and 9/11 so often and so frequently together that they managed to falsely convince 71% of Americans that Saddam was behind, or connected to, 9/11. He wasn't. Doesn't matter. Americans became convinced that America was attacked by Saddam, and thus gave him his war. When historians look for examples of "the Big Lie," they will have Bush's picture right up there with other spewers of big lies.

Peter David: This is the second time you've called me a liar. Read the following and write an apology for both insults, with your real name attached, if you're man enough to. Otherwise you're shrouded. I will ignore all further posts from you, and will suggest that others do likewise. (Documentation by Peter followed.)
Luigi Novi: By now I think we know that Novafan’s stock response to documentation proving his opponent’s point is to stonewall on it and change positions on the need for debate, so I wouldn’t hold your breath, Peter.

Novafan: I don't think I'll get into the whole "gay marriage" debate right now. I don't want to be shrouded, whatever the heck that means. Is that like being black-balled?
Luigi Novi: Shrouding refers to deliberately ignoring everything a person says. Essentially, that person is dead in the eyes of the listener, and when others join in, it’s kinda like being shunned, I guess. Peter attempted this a while back with one poster who posted vicious flames toward him and his family, personal comments, profanity, etc. It was an alternative to outright banning, which Peter at first tried to avoid, but when the poster in question didn’t back down, Peter was forced to do just that, hence the TypeKey registration system the blog has now.

James Tichy at November 6, 2004 03:17 AM

From the Washington Post:

...The Clinton administration had defined its enemy as narrowly as its military instruments. Bin Laden and his aides were targets, but not the Talbian regime that gave them sanctuary.

..... For the next two years, Clinton pursued a policy of economic sanctions against the Taliban and sent numerous messages to the de facto government of Afghanistan requesting bin Laden's delivery for trial. Frustrated by the Taliban's lack of cooperation, Clinton's emissaries took on a more menacing tone in the spring of 2000. But though the administration deliberately raised the specter of military confrontation, it chose in the end to step back.

..... In Washington, however, Clinton's national security cabinet stopped short. "There were verbal scoldings, but that was about it," Shelton said. "There never was any consideration of going after the Taliban.

Novafan: Here's a question for you. Why didn't Kerry throw his medals away along with everyone else? He saved his medals and threw away his ribbons. Didn't he wear his medals to the Congressional hearing? Hmmmm.
Luigi Novi: No. He only had his ribbons with him. Because that fence was constructed on short notice, only when they showed up and discovered it did they decide to throw their military awards over it.

Novafan: I think it's amazing how everytime I turned on the tv, there was a story blasting Bush and nothing on Kerry except for praises, etc. He never had to answer for anything.
Luigi Novi: I never saw that. Up until the debates, the media seemed pro-Bush. Kerry was excoriated because of the controversy generated by the SBVT, while Bush’s AWOL was dropped shortly after it hit.

Novafan: Thank goodness for the internet, which was developed by Gore, right? :0)
Luigi Novi: Since Gore never said that he developed the Internet, I’ll interpret that smiley as an indication that you’re joking. :-)

Jim Farrand: America discriminates against groups all the time, like polygamists, and necrophiliacs, and drug abusers, and NAMBLA members, there doesn't have to be a reason better than protection of the status quo, it happens. And though you may disagree, unless you are prepared to be rid of all social and moral legislation which exists, which i highly doubt even most gay marriage advocates are prepared to do.
Luigi Novi: What part of “those laws exist because those things harm people, whereas gay marriage does not” are you not quite comprehending? Have you not read the posts above by others who pointed this out to you, or are you just stonewalling by ignoring them?

The idea that gay marriage is at all comparable with pedophilia or beastiality, or that legalizing it means getting “rid of all social and moral legislation” is a logical fallacy so blatant that it functions virtually as a LIE.

Novafan: And your point of view would be that Bush didn't win the 2000 election I take it. If that was the case, then why didn't Gore run against him again in 2004. If the election was stolen from him, why didn't he prove it this year?
Luigi Novi: What the hell does one have to do with the other? What does proving the election was stolen (which it was—mostly by the Supreme Court) have to do with running again?

Novafan: How exactly did Bush not win the first election again? Is it the 'popular vote' argument? Or do you think Gore was robbed in Florida? That the recount was not corect?
Luigi Novi: First, thousands of black voters were denied the right to vote, many others inadvertently voted incorrectly because of the confusing ballots, and the Supreme Court stopped the recount without any legal basis.

Novafan: I've said before that I didn't care who won the 2000 election because both candidates were acceptable to me. But for someone to say he didn't win the 1st election really bothers me since it isn't true.
Luigi Novi: It’s entirely true. Do the research. Read The Betrayal of America by Vincent Bugliosi.

Novafan: Did you know that the person you voted for voted against the ban on partial birth abortion 6 times? Have you ever seen this procedure done?
Luigi Novi: There is no specific procedure known by that name. “Partial birth abortion” is a political term. Not a medical one.

Jim in Iowa: Bush and Powell and others DID talk about the human rights abuses. I agree that WMD's were at the top of the list, but the human rights issues were very clearly a part.
Luigi Novi: Rationalization. What was “at the top of the list” is clearly what they sold the war on. Not things that they merely “did talk about” or were “clearly a part.”

Bill Mulligan: Well, he sent big bucks to the families of people who murdered jews in Israel by blowing themselves up...if that's not supporting terrorism what is?
Luigi Novi: You mean Israel is considered part of the U.S.? Wow, I didn’t know that! :-)

Novafan: Even if, God forbid, Kerry would have been elected President, I would have swallowed my pride and supported him 100% as long as he was in office.
Luigi Novi: Which means what, agreeing with everything he says and does?

Novafan: I don't understand how anyone could do any less for any President we have. I just can't fathom it.
Luigi Novi: Because dissent is a right and a responsibility. Marching in lockstep with everything he says and does is not.

Craig J. Ries: Are you aware that the CEO of Diebold, a Republican, the company that, iirc, provided the machines to that precinct in Ohio, said that he was going to "deliver" Ohio to Bush?

Ken: Please show a source for this with an actual quote. I find it hard to believe that someone would risk millions of dollars of business by admitting that they are rigging an election.
Luigi Novi: What, Googling “Ceo of Diebold” was too difficult for you? Okay, let’s see the first on the list of search results………………

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm

Satisfied?

Novafan: I wonder if anyone has any idea the reaction Bush and Blair had when no WMD's were found. If it was me, I would say "oh s*#@" or something to that effect. I think heads did roll. It almost cost Bush his re-election bid.
Luigi Novi: Almost.

But it didn’t.

Jeff: Really. You "can't fathom" why it's a good thing to question the government. To speak out against perceived injustices. Funny, I was under the impression that that is one of your country's founding principles.

Novafan: Maybe I missed that in print somewhere. Where does it say that is one of our countries founding principles?
Luigi Novi: Um, in the Declaration of Independence, when it says “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,” which certainly sounds like an endorsement of the right of the people to disagree with their government? Or in the First Amendment, where it guarantees the right to speech, petition, press, religion, and assembly? Perhaps in any NUMBER of the speeches of the Founding Fathers, who were essentially committing treason when they spoke out against the Crown, like when Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death!”? If we can vote against an official to remove him from office (or hell, even impeach him), then doesn’t it stand to reason that we’re allowed to criticize him?

Just what country have YOU been living in Nova? One in which we’re not allowed to publicly disagree with our government, and should agree with everything they say and do?

Ken: There is a big difference between 'questioning the government and speaking out against perceived injustices' and constant attacking and insulting the personal character of a person and organization that you don't like.
Luigi N0vi: And what exactly is the difference between “questioning the government” and attacking his character? If I think Bush is a lying war evader who lied to the country, that IS an attack on his character, and is perfectly legit. Republicans certainly did not abstain from attacking Clinton.

Ken: And before anyone says anything about Clinton, I followed orders in the military under his presidency and I showed him the respect and honor of the position even though I entirely disagreed with the man.
Luigi Novi: Because you had to. His political opponents did not, and reveled in attacking him personally. By comparing the apple of concerned citizens and political opponents to the orange of soliders FORCED THROUGH RULES not to question their Commander in Chief (when no solider has attacked Bush thus, nor been accused of it, and I doubt you’re talking about soldiers’ statements about Bush), your argument is blown out of the water.

Novafan: Does anyone know why Gore didn't run in 2004, especially since some here believe Bush stole the election from him just like they believe Bush stole the election from Kerry?
Luigi Novi: Because one has nothing to do with the other.

The stigma of having lost (even if he really didn’t) makes it a naturally better idea for the Democrats to try and put up some fresh blood.

Novafan: He had a chance to be the man in 2004 if he stood by his friend, John Kerry. Why would he toe the line to be the man in 2008 when he could have been an extremely powerful man now? With McCain by his side, Kerry wouldn't have lost. Why did he choose to side with Bush?
Luigi Novi: A. He wouldn’t have been President under Kerry. B. He didn’t want to switch parties.

Novafan: So we've come to the conclusion that abridging the freedom of speech allows people to say whatever they want about the Commander in Chief, regardless if it's true or not. Is that the general consensus?
Luigi Novi: Straw Man argument. The question is whether we have the right to make the accusation, not whether they’re true or not. Whether they’re true or not is a different argument, and since you’ve challenged people to provide evidence of lies before, only to chicken out when they’ve done so, I wouldn’t advise you to go down that track again. Bush’s lies, inconsistencies, hypocrisies and flip-flops have been documented and mentioned in detail here, and yes, the law DOES allow us to do so. The law also allows the target to sue for libel, defamation or slander, but he has to meet the burden of proof to show that the accusation is not only not true, but indicates a reckless disregard for the truth. If you want to argue that, do so. Don’t just say we don’t have the RIGHT to make the accusation, and THEN switch it to a question of whether it’s true.

Novafan: I'll believe it when I see it Peter. Btw, I bet if it were to happen, many people would protest and tear up their draft papers instead of fighting for their country in a time of need.
Luigi Novi: And probably make the point that they don’t believeit is a time of need because this particular war is not just.

Novafan: What a bunch of wooses I say.
Luigi Novi: So people who disagree with you on the merits of a certain war are wusses, huh? So much for not calling people names.

Novafan: Not noble enough? Are you aware that Mrs. Cheney writes children's books? That shows high moral character and generosity doesn't it? What has Edwards wife or Kerry's wife done for the world?

Roger Tang: Stop being partisan and, at least, do some homework. Jeezus.

Novafan: I have no reason to.
Luigi Novi: And with that, you have just pretty much summed up your approach to discussion. Do not research, do not check your facts, and by gosh, do NOT respond when people provide evidence that supports their position by finding info of your own to refute it, because that, after all, would be the intelligent, educated thing to do, and we can’t have that, can we? Recommend doing some homework? Why, how DARE Roger suggest such a scandalous thing! Doesn’t he know that openly asking what Edward’s or Kerry’s wives have done for the world in a rhetorical manner only, without actually trying to sincerely find out the answer yourself, even though you’re the one who asked the question, is the way it’ should be done? Where the hell does Roger get off pretending that one should do some research into the very questions he or she has about something, when it’s far more preferable to just be lazy and anti-intellectual and make other people do it for you? Hell, just look at his choice for President!

You da man, Nova. :-)

Novafan: I didn't know [Madonna] wrote children's books. Very interesting.
Luigi Novi: She’s written four. So much for all that news and reading you told us about, Novafan.

Novafan: Because I don't think we should turn the other cheek when it comes to dealing with the scumbags of this Earth, that means I haven't read nor understood the founding documents of this country?
Luigi Novi: No, the fact that you seem unaware that dissent and criticism of our public officials is a right and a responsibility is what indicates that.

Novafan: You've just captured Osama's second in command. You stopped him from executing his latest scheme to murder thousands of innocents. You know they have another major plan in place that will dwarf the 9/11 attacks hundred fold but you can't figure out when the attack will occur or where the target is.
Luigi Novi: And how exactly, then, would you even know about another attack?

Novafan: You undertand that these people want to destroy everything we believe in, including our way of life, and you still think they should be treated the same way as everyone else?
Luigi Novi: Do you understand that that does not mitigate the basic principle on which prohibition of torture rests? There is no “these people” or “that people.” Of course they should treated as everyone else! The whole flaw of torture is that it doesn’t work, and the whole point of its prohibition is that it’s wrong, period. It’s not that it’s somehow a “privilege” that some are spared it and others who are in a different class are not. There is a basic fundamental principle at the heart of recognizing that it is wrong, and that principle cannot be upheld unless it’s upheld universally and consistently. If not, then what’s the point of it for those who are spared it? Human rights means just that: human rights. Not “special privileges” for some people accused of crimes, but not others. Indeed, if authorities have sufficient evidence to convict someone of a crime, then they shouldn’t need torture. But then again, with your stated ignorance of founding American ideals, you’ve already demonstrated that you’re not really literate when it comes to those principles, so I guess this is to be expected from you.

Jerome Maida: Sure it does. Not everything, mind you. But if you look at the majority of successful children's authors, they have empathy for, compassion for and yes, love for children.
Luigi Novi: Non sequitur. John Wayne Gacy worked was a children’s party clown. So what’s your point?

Novafan: Are you telling me that if you were in the same room as Osama Bin Laden that you would care about basic human rights?
Luigi Novi: I’d want him tried in a court, convicted and executed. But I wouldn’t take any physical action against him myself.

Novafan: You know what the problem with liberals is? Well, let me tell you what a major problem is. You cry foul if a mass murderer such as Osama Bin Laden has his rights taken away from him, and yet you do nothing as the rights of someone who isn't even born yet has his/her rights taken away from them. Don't you see a fundamental problem here? It's OK to murder an innocent life in the womb of a mother because it's her choice (as you say), but it's not OK to take away the liberties of a mass murderer.
Luigi Novi: What part of “pro-choicers do not consider embryos and fetuses to be lives” do people like you having trouble wrapping your heads around? Disagree with it all you want, but why must you insist on the Straw Man of murdering an innocent life when we don’t consider it murdering an innocent life? And as far as bin Laden, I don’t recall anyone “crying foul” over bin Laden having his rights taken away.

Novafan: If a woman voluntarily has sex with a man and gets pregant, then they are committing murder when that child is aborted. How you can't see it this way, and yet cry foul when a deviant gets his/her rights taken away is hypocritical to say the least.
Luigi Novi: It is not hypocritical. It is simply cognitive dissonance on your part by which you fail to understand that where life begins is a fundamentally divisive question in our society to which pro-choicers and pro-lifers simply have a different answer based on personal feeling and perception, and the arrogance by which you refuse to acknowledge this.

Novafan: The only time abortion should be legal is if the woman was raped or if there is a problem that could result in the death of the woman and/or the baby if the pregnancy continues.
Luigi Novi: So rape justifies murder in your eyes? And you talk of hypocrisy.

Novafan: How can you care about the rights of criminals when you care nothing about the rights of the unborn?
Luigi Novi: I don’t believe the unborn should have rights, at least until a significant point in the pregnancy, and I do not believe criminals who are convicted should have all the same rights as the rest of us.

Mark L: One important difference between Rush and Michael Moore is that Rush doesn't present his show as a "news" show the way Michael Moore presents his films as "documentaries". Rush says point blank that his primary intent is to entertain.
Luigi Novi: And Moore has rationalized the falsehoods in his films by invoking satire, and asking how comedy can be untrue. The point is, both men present information as factually true that is not.

Craig J. Ries: Btw, does anybody else think it's pathetic on the part of the right that they literally spit on Michael Moore, yet defend ultra-bitch Ann Coulter as if she's the Second Coming?
Luigi Novi: Someone literally spit on Michael Moore? Where and when was this?

Novafan: about all of the Kerry supporters get their girls pregnant and have them get a partial birth abortion. Fair's fair right?
Luigi Novi: LOL!!!!!!

Well, if they got pregnant, wouldn’ t they just get an abortion early in the term? Why a pba?

Peter David: And Jim...just an observation: The liberal left believes the country is metaphorically going to hell because we don't believe in Bush. The religious right believes I, and others like me, are literally going to hell because we don't believe in Jesus. When it comes to arrogance and disdain, we can't come close to you guys.

Jim in Iowa: is it disdain if I tell someone he is infected with AIDS but he refuses to accept the diagnosis? Since you believe I am wrong, then I understand you will see it as arrogance and disdain. Since I believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, then it is not disdain to tell you that you are going the wrong way and headed towards a canyon where the bridge is out (to change the metaphor), but an act of compassion.
Luigi Novi: First of all, there is no such thing as being infected with AIDS. One is infected with HIV. Not AIDS. AIDS is the syndrome you develop as a result of the virus.

Second, the virus theory of infection is an empirical fact. The existence of magical places like Heaven, Hell, Narnia, Wonderland, etc, are not. To compare the two is asinine, and to deny that the this entirely mythical belief empowers members of the religious right (whom Peter was talking about) to hate those they believe it applies to (as opposed to express compassionate concern for them, as your wording describes) is to ignore reality.

Novafan: I think you're wrong here Jeff. Let one of these liberals speak up and say they want Bush to succeed at anything. I can't see them doing it.
Luigi Novi: I was initially for the war when I thought that the evidence of WMD’s was legit, and I’m sure I stated as much here at the time.

Peter David: See, whereas I see it as an act of supreme arrogance, of self-righteous, holier-than-thou, snot-faced, wrong-headed, purblind, where-the-hell-do-you-get-off-you-Bible-thumping-yahoo, biased, prejudiced, anti-Semitic chowder-headed, lame-brained jackass intolerance.

But I only say this because I care.
Luigi Novi: LOL!!!!! C’mon, Peter, stop beating around the Bush (no pun intended)! Tell us what you REALLY think!

Jim in Iowa: There is a fundamental difference in your examples. Women and blacks are that way from the point of birth. Discrimination is solely a matter of skin color or gender. Even if you believe someone is gay from birth, it is still a "trait" that is only exhibited through behavior later in life.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. Homosexual behavior often is exhibited before puberty. Try researching the evidence.

Jim in Iowa: My oposition to homosexuality is based on behavior. Furthermore, it is an established fact that it is possible for at least some who have a gay orientation to change and be very happily married to someone of the opposite sex.
Luigi Novi: And many of those men who tried that so-called “therapy” have gone back to homosexual lifestyles, which despite the existence of some who didn’t, is enough to indicate that sexual preference cannot be steered.

Jim in Iowa: There is NOTHING in the Bible that says gay sex is ok. We are not leaving part of the Bible behind to say gay marriage is wrong.
Luigi Novi: If that’s your reasoning, does that mean I can have sex with my daughters like Lot did?

Jim in Iowa: Can anything supernatural be proven? If, as you suggest, you cannot, then your point if valid. I would suggest that while there is faith involved, it is not blind faith. If you come on a crime scene, one of the things you do is dust for fingerprints. It is evidence that someone was there. I would suggest that while the spiritual realm is not "proveable" since (by definition) it is not something we can touch, taste, see, hear, or smell with our 5 senses, we can see the "fingerprints" that it exists. There is evidence for God and for the spiritual realm, but we must add up that evidence to see where it leads us.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. Fingerprints as a phenomenon and a technique are a matter of empirical fact that have survived the the Scientific Method and the peer review process. What you refer to as “evidence” for spiritual matters, on the other hand, does not. That is simply a matte of arbitrarily labeling, whereby you point to things and “decide” that this is evidence, when there is nothing in nature that does not have some rational, natural explanation.

Here are some of the fingerprints that I see:

Jim in Iowa: Creation -- I believe nature strongly suggests and intelligent designer, not just random chance. That is not just the idea of Christians. There are people who see a designer who belong to no particular faith.
Luigi Novi: Although there is nothing to discount the possibility of a creator, there is nothing about the creation of the universe that requires it, and the universe appears exactly as it would if there were not one.

Jim in Iowa: Morality -- Whether you agree or disagree with traditional Christian morality, the very fact that morals exist suggests something. Evolutionary theory falls short in explaining how we developed morality.
Luigi Novi: Two points.

First, evolution’s validity does not hinge on the silly little idea—frequently parroted by creationists—that it must explain every single thing. It explains only the mechanism by which organisms adapt to their environments.

Second, it is an empty statement to say that any theory falls short in explaining something if you don’t seek out the explanation. Have you done so? Have you read Michael Shermer’s The Science of Good and Evil? Try it.

Jim in Iowa: The human mind -- I find this particularly compelling. We are not just "computers" made out of flesh and blood. The mind is more than just the working of the brain. If someone has an operation and 1/4 of their brain is removed, they don't become 1/4 of a person. Evolutionary theory has no adequate explanation of how the human mind with its ability to reason and think outside of itself came about.
Luigi Novi: It doesn’t have to. See above.

Jim in Iowa: That is not just my opinion. That is the belief of evolutionists who admit they are still trying to figure it out.
Luigi Novi: None of whom conclude that this calls evolution’s validity into question, a point you conveniently leave out.

Jim in Iowa: The Bible -- Whether you agree with it or not, it is a remarkable piece of literature. The stories it contains give many examples of where the supernatural intersected with the natural.
Luigi Novi: So do the Harry Potter books. So do ancient texts of other religions you likely do not believe in. What’s your point?

Jim in Iowa: If the miracles it records are true, then there is reason to believe in the supernatural. If they are true, then it gives me reason to believe the other teachings are true as well.
Luigi Novi: The key word being “if.”

Jim in Iowa: If they are true, then it gives me reason to believe the other teachings are true as well.
Luigi Novi: Teachings are true if supernatural miracles are? Where the hell do you get this fallacy from? Murder is only wrong if the Red Sea actually spontaneously parted?

Jim in Iowa: Jesus Christ -- No other historical figure has had the impact of Jesus Christ. The evidence for his existence is quite strong. If he did indeed die and rise again, then I have the clearest proof of my beliefs.
Luigi Novi: Why do you keep saying “if”? If what? The point is, you don’t have proof of this. “If” is irrelevant. The question is whether you do know if he indeed existed and resurrected. Not “if” he did.

Jim in Iowa: My beliefs are not based on a flight of fancy or on mere tradition. I have spent time studying the evidence. My faith rests not on wishful thinking but on the conviction that the evidence points towards the existence of the God of the Bible.
Luigi Novi: Your beliefs are most certainly based on flights of fancy, and tradition, and on wishful thinking. You have no idea what words like “evidence” mean, and when you toss them about with utter contempt for their true meaning, you show utter contempt for the concept. Evidence is not a label you arbitrarily slap on something. It is that which survives scientific scrutiny.

Jim in Iowa: You may disagree, but try for a second to look at life through the worldview of a Christian. It is not a "slap in the face" to try to persuade you to my position. I do have facts and evidence, you just choose to reject it.
Luigi Novi: You do not have facts or evidence. You have logical fallacies and a total lack of understanding of the scientific method. You attempted to provide this so-called evidence on a previous board and I debunked it, as there is no contemporaneous evidence for Christ that survives to this day.

Jim in Iowa: I am not arguing for the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. I am arguing for something that does have a historical basis and reality.
Luigi Novi: An arbitrary statement borne entirely out of your own biases. True scientific evidence is that which survives after you deliberately try to disprove it. Have you done this? I doubt it.

Jim in Iowa: It is impossible to have any laws without someone imposing their morality on someone else.
Luigi Novi: The difference being that toby was talking about laws that do not pass the Lemon Test, as opposed to those that do not.

Karen: Jim, That's the thing about morals. They are not "Christian", but have a basis in all religions and governments since the begining of those things.
Luigi Novi: Nope. Morality predates religion. Religion was merely the first institution to formally codify them. Morality even exists in animals, in which Professor Michael Shermer calls it “pre-moral” behavior.

Jim in Iowa: I have read quite extensively on evolution. I just am lazy and have not gone to do research to present my ideas as clearly as I should.
Luigi Novi: You’re in good company on this thread. Maybe you and Novafan should hook up.

Jim in Iowa: Actually, I would disagree, at least according to the Christian world view. Creation itself is an historical basis.
Luigi Novi: No, it is not. Creation is a mythological idea. It is not historical. Stop mislabeling things.

Jim in Iowa: Even if you think evolution explains the process, it does not explain the "big bang" in the first place. Did something really come from nothing?
Luigi Novi: Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. You are confusing evolution with cosmology, a common creationist misconception. Let me guess—all this “extensive” reading on evolution has been via creationist literature, right?

Jim in Iowa: Second, the life and death and resurrection of Jesus would be an historical basis. It is a historical event which can be researched and studied.
Luigi Novi: Why do you keep saying that an event is a historical “basis”? Basis for what? When we talk about “historical” events as opposed to purely mythological ones, we’re talking about whether such events are empirical in nature. There is no empirical evidence on which the Creation or the resurrection can be studied.

David Bjorlin: But I'm befuddled to see you, PAD, being so irrationally abusive. You are taking the precise position you decry: you are proclaiming the superiority of your faith, when by your own logic you should be taking a page from the other team and turning the other cheek. You are certainly not saying "I have my religion, you have yours, let's just leave it at that." You're lambasting someone who DARED to state his beliefs, and claim that he believes his beliefs to be true (which should be axiomatic; who claims false beliefs?) and suggesting that such truth is universal. That is his only crime: claiming that his belief is empirically true. For all that you're comparing him to the Spanish Inquisition (or at least claiming he shares their attitude), he attacked no one, employed no instruments of torture, did nothing but state his beliefs in a public forum and claim that he's right. For some reason you're attacking Jim, who has done absolutely nothing to you.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, because telling someone that they’re going to hell for being Jewish and not sharing one’s religion is just so reasonable, David. How dare Peter be so befuddlingly and irrationally abusive for being offended someone coming on his site to tell him this! And for telling Jim what “separates Judaism from the zealots,” why, he just MUST be talking about how Judaism is “superior” to all other religions, and not simply talking about the zealots—even though he explicitly stated that he was talking about the “zealots.” Where the hell does Peter get off?

Jim in Iowa: Christian faith is based in a historical reality. If you could prove to me that Jesus did not really live, die, and rise again, I would immediately cease to be a Christian. That is the heart and soul of the Christian faith (at least for conservative Christians). I realize you have already stated that people like me are idiots, so spare me your response that I would refuse to look at the evidence.
Luigi Novi: You do not understand what evidence even is. You think that you can just arbitrarily label something evidence if you want it to be. You think that you can just embrace that which seems to confirm what you already believe to be true, and ignore and rationalize that which does not. That is known in cognitive psychology as confirmation bias. Your conclusions seem to follow the thinking of, “I will decide that this is evidence, I will decide that this event was historical, I will decide that this is true,” etc. If this is not the case, and if this is not the method by which you formed these conclusions, then what was? What method did you use to confirm these pieces of “evidence” that pointed to the conclusion of these events being historical? I ask, because it certainly wasn’t the scientific method.

Jim in Iowa: People far smarter than me have studied the facts and have come to the conclusion that the Bible is true -- and yes, people far smarter than me have come to the opposite conclusion.
Luigi Novi: All of whom did so on an a priori basis.

eclark1849: I find it just a tad confusing that people who question the existence of God often ask "Where did God come from?" yet have no problem believing that one day a bunch of nothing blew up and created everything in the Universe.
Luigi Novi: Straw Man. The universe was not “nothing” prior to the Big Bang. It was an infinitesimally tiny and dense point of matter/energy.

Starving Writer: Here's to another landslide in 2006, and a new Republican president in 2008! (Oh, please please please nominate Hillary in 2008 -- The Republicans could put up a boiled cabbage and it would still beat Hillary in a landslide.)
Luigi Novi: Hey!

Nova, thanks for the spidey update.

as for "To many people, it doesn't matter why Kerry voted Nay to fund the troops. "

That's just more reason why the American people are amazingly stupid. They're little sheep believing the lie that everything is black white and ignoring the shades of gray. I suppose if the troop support bill had included a rider that permitted blacks/gays/women/ to be discriminated against, Bush would stand there and say how horrible Kerry is for not voting to support the troops. And the media is nothing but a goddamn accomplice to the crime that is our government....

PAD says:
Yes, I'm Jewish, my wife is Catholic, and we're detectives (okay, not really.) She believes the basic doctrine involving Jesus. She does not, however, believe that I'm going to hell because I don't share that belief, because she feels that whatever beings weigh such things in the afterlife wouldn't consign a fundamentally good person who's led a decent life to the pits of damnation simply because I was inculcated from birth into a different religion."

Your wife is a lovely person, but we already knew that.

I like the detective show idea...The Bridget Loves Bernie Mystery Hour.

LUIGI NOVi says:
"Bill Mulligan: Well, he sent big bucks to the families of people who murdered jews in Israel by blowing themselves up...if that's not supporting terrorism what is?
Luigi Novi: You mean Israel is considered part of the U.S.? Wow, I didn’t know that! :-)"

Wow, I didn't suggest that...even a little. Usually you're the one who is good at seeing the bogus straw-man arguments of others. Physician, heal thyself! (ok, ok, I know, you had a :-) there but still...)

I was responding to someone who seemed to suggest that Iraq had not supported terror prior to the war. I pointed out that they had. That the victims were not Americans was something I didn't consider overly important but others may disagree.

"Jim in Iowa: My oposition to homosexuality is based on behavior. Furthermore, it is an established fact that it is possible for at least some who have a gay orientation to change and be very happily married to someone of the opposite sex.
Luigi Novi: And many of those men who tried that so-called “therapy” have gone back to homosexual lifestyles, which despite the existence of some who didn’t, is enough to indicate that sexual preference cannot be steered."

While I think that it would be better to try to learn to deal with one's homosexuality than to attempt the far more unlikely goal of switching to another orientation, the conclusion that "sexual preference cannot be steered" seems unsuportable. Many behaviors are very very difficult to change, even with massive therapy and the failure rate is high but that does not mean that the behavior CANNOT be changed. (again though, I would suggest to any friend thinking about it that they would be better off coming to terms with what they are than to try becoming something else, at least in the case of homosexuality. Just my opinion).

"I was responding to someone who seemed to suggest that Iraq had not supported terror prior to the war. I pointed out that they had. That the victims were not Americans was something I didn't consider overly important but others may disagree."

And who helped arm the Taliban in Afghanistan back when they were fighting off the Russians? :)

Bill Mulligan: I was responding to someone who seemed to suggest that Iraq had not supported terror prior to the war.
Luigi Novi: But is that what they said, or had they simply said that he had not been proven to have had anything to do with 9/11?

As far as “treatment” for homosexuality, yes, Bill, certain “behaviors” can be suppressed or treated, but what are we talking about here? Things like self-mutilation, suicide attempts, or violence, which are destructive, and usually indicative of some fundamental personality problem or life crisis, or homosexuality, which isn’t? Yes, you could try to suppress your sexual orientation if you wanted to (as in celibacy with priests—and even that doesn’t work all the time), but for those who would promote the “gays can be treated, just like kleptomaniacs” idea, and who direct this idea towards all gays, including those who are perfectly happy being who they are and do not want to change, I will have to respectfully disagree.

Karen: Jim, That's the thing about morals. They are not "Christian", but have a basis in all religions and governments since the begining of those things.
Luigi Novi: Nope. Morality predates religion. Religion was merely the first institution to formally codify them. Morality even exists in animals, in which Professor Michael Shermer calls it “pre-moral” behavior.

Thanks, I didn't even catch that until you pointed it out. Of course I should have said that morals ARE the basis of all religions and governments.

Luigi said Luigi Novi: She’s written four. So much for all that news and reading you told us about, Novafan.

You know what? I was reading through your posts, that were way behind btw, and came across your note above. How lovely. Thanks for the attempted insult.

You can't respond to me without insulting my intelligence? Was Madonna's writing children's books posted all over the place? Even if it was, do you think maybe some people actually didn't know that? Naw, it's impossible for someone to read and follow the news and miss something as important as Madonna writing children's books. Get out of town.

You basically called me a liar for my saying I read fine literature and follow the news from a variety of sources and yet didn't know about Madonna writing children's books. Thanks for your candor.

My discussions with you are over sir because I do not lie.

Peter, thanks for responding to my questions.

Peter said But Torah is specific as to what the result of the coming of the Messiah would be, and the complete cessation of persecution of the Jews is pretty high on the list. So if nothing else, it's safe to say that as long as people are strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up our children in Tel Aviv pizza parlors, the Messiah hasn't come.

Do you know that they are now finding a connection between Saddam and the Palestinian terrorists who are doing the bombings you mention? Knowing that, do you still think he should have been left in power?

Bladestar said And who helped arm the Taliban in Afghanistan back when they were fighting off the Russians? :)

"From 1979-1989 mujahedin fighters fought Soviet rule; the Islamic students who became known as the Taliban were against the mujahedin fighters’ disorderliness and lack of inspiration."

"The Taliban movement first showed up around 1994 in Afghanistan, in the city of Kandahar. The members were former students of Islamic universities in Pakistan. In 1989, the Soviets left Afghanistan and struggles in politics soon followed. Because of this, the Taliban wanted to form a “pure Islamic government” in Afghanistan. In 1994, the group took their first step toward power."

Would you like to revise your statement Bladestar?

eclark1849: I find it just a tad confusing that people who question the existence of God often ask "Where did God come from?" yet have no problem believing that one day a bunch of nothing blew up and created everything in the Universe.
Luigi Novi: Straw Man. The universe was not “nothing” prior to the Big Bang. It was an infinitesimally tiny and dense point of matter/energy.

The point went whizzing right past you there, Luigi, ol' buddy. The point was NOT that SOMETHING had to CAUSE the Big Bang, SCIENCE will confirm that point. The question is WHERE did that something come from, be that "something" God or the "infinitesimally tiny and dense point of matter/energy"?

Can science say with any degree of certainty that it was NOT GOD that caused the Big Bang? If so, how did it devise the test for theory? Faith?

You're forgetting America helped them against the commies too...

Luigi,

The exact quote I was responding to was ""Hussein may have been a scumbag, but he doesn't fit with "the War on Terror".... well, he didn't until the definition of said war became so convoluted that it is impossible to define."

As for what you say about "treating" homosexuals--you're preaching to the choir. Read what I said.

My discussions with you are over sir because I do not lie.

Ahh, well, this would also explain why I will never have a conversation with Bush, either - he's a damn liar.

And if you catch him in a lie, he gets as defensive as Novafan.

Amusing, really.

The truth apparently hurts Novafan alot.

"Do you know that they are now finding a connection between Saddam and the Palestinian terrorists who are doing the bombings you mention? Knowing that, do you still think he should have been left in power?"

I never said "Saddam Hussein should have been left in power." Here's what I *did* say:

I said that claiming the world is a safer place with Saddam Hussein out of power is a lie. Not even Iraq is safer, much less the world. If anything, considering the invasion of Iraq has provided a recruitment ground for Al Qaeda and helped to lend credence to every negative claim bin Laden has ever made about the US, it has made the world a less safe place.

I said Bush has approached world politics with the mindset of a religious zealout. That is, of course, merely opinion, but a defensible one, I think.

I said that the assault on Iraq has not only cost us support of our allies on a global scale, but it may well have poisoned any future attempts we will make to form alliances in defending ourselves against threats who really do have WMDs.

I said that Bush claimed he would bring in bin Laden dead or alive, and then started the war in Iraq to keep the American public off balance, their eye off the ball, and maintain such a perpetual state of seige mentality that people would be afraid to vote him out of office...a strategy which worked. When Iraq first launched, I believe it was Jon Stewart who referred to it as "Operation: Re-elect Bush." And he was right.

I said if he was going to be gotten out of power, it should have been a collective, world-wide endeavor. The Founding Fathers knew the danger of splitting alliances for military undertakings...one of the reasons that the vote for independence was unanimous. When it comes to Saddam, considering the global picture, considering the vast advantage of working in concert with other nations as opposed to the cost of lives and money in flying solo, the harsh fact is this: We should have moved forward against Saddam together with our allies, or together we should have stayed where we were.

Bottom line, when it came to presenting proof of Saddam's WMDs, we didn't have the goods, and it's come back to bite us big time.

PAD

Novafan: My discussions with you are over sir because I do not lie.
Luigi Novi: Your “discussions” with me were over the minute you showed us on the Fonzie board and the board after that what your m.o. is when someone supplies you with detailed information refuting your position:

Retreat.

So spare me your false victimhood. If you really are so sensitive about a minor jab (what you call an “insult”), and you want me to speak to you in a more intellectual manner, then give me a motive to do so. Stop stonewalling when people give you the info that you challenge them to.

Bill and EClark, so if I missed the points in your posts. :-)

"Can science say with any degree of certainty that it was NOT GOD that caused the Big Bang?"

It is a basic axiom of logic that one cannot disprove a negative proposition. After all, a single point in contradiction would invalidate such a proof; therefore, it would be necessary to possess every datum in the Universe regarding such a proposition - a daunting task, to say the least.

However, Science, that monolithic entity that is so often propped against Faith by those who like their worlds excessively simplified, is not in the business of proving or disproving the existence of God or gods. It is merely in the business of describing the physical Universe as best our minds can understand it. What came before the Big Bang (or, as Calvin would have it, the Horrendous Space Kablooie)? That is not within the purview of modern physics, as the state of such existence cannot be described with our maths, nor comprehended by our minds.

Similarly, the fact (demonstrated and observable) of evolution does not deny the existence of God or gods; it says that this process happens. Whether it happens with supernatural guidance, or merely in response to the conditions of the Universe, or some amalgam thereof, is not germane to the question of its happening.

Personally, I believe that the God of my faith created this Universe, by setting up the Big Bang. I believe that he has directed the progress of the Universe on occasion, for His own purposes, which I could probably not comprehend. I further believe that it doesn't really matter to Him whether you have the exact same faith I do, so long as you behave as a decent, honorable human being. I acknowledge that my belief may be incorrect; it is, however, what I hold. Your mileage may vary. (There are further details to what I believe, but they are of no import here.)

Anybody happen to see on BBC that the heroin production in Afghanistan is up to pre Taliban levels?Im not in anyway saying that the Taliban should be back, but since we have a war on drugs and a war on terrorism going on , and we have been told that drug money funds terrorists would it not make sense to somehow ....I dont know,slow down the heroin production??????87% of the worlds heroin comes from there for pete's sake.We knew this going in right ?Would it not have made sense to wipe out some poppy fields while we are hunting Taliban enclaves?By the way ,i still see women rights are just as sucky as ever in some regions over there.:(

I dont know,slow down the heroin production?

What else are they going to do?

What rebuilding/building have we done to guarantee that they'll do something other than return to their opium crops? Not a whole helluva lot.

Jim in Iowa: There is a fundamental difference in your examples. Women and blacks are that way from the point of birth. Discrimination is solely a matter of skin color or gender. Even if you believe someone is gay from birth, it is still a "trait" that is only exhibited through behavior later in life.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. Homosexual behavior often is exhibited before puberty. Try researching the evidence.

Luigi, did you even bother to read my point? Your very response makes by point: homosexual "behavior" is an action. I did not say it was not exhibited until puberty. I said it was not a visible trait in a nursery.

If you were to take a group of people, remove all make up, etc., and put them in identical jumpsuits, you could, with a very high degree of accuracy, say which one was white, which one was black, which one was male, etc. Those are characteristics that are evident from the moment of birth. Those are characteristics that are evident based on external appearance.

If you were to take the same group of people, you could not determine which one was Catholic, which one was Muslim, which one was hot tempered, which one was argumentative, which one was married, which one was single, or which one was straight and which one was gay. All of those traits are exhibited through BEHAVIOR. And that was my point.

Jim in Iowa: My oposition to homosexuality is based on behavior. Furthermore, it is an established fact that it is possible for at least some who have a gay orientation to change and be very happily married to someone of the opposite sex.
Luigi Novi: And many of those men who tried that so-called “therapy” have gone back to homosexual lifestyles, which despite the existence of some who didn’t, is enough to indicate that sexual preference cannot be steered.

Your statement is illogical. The fact that some HAVE changed means sexual preference CAN be steered in at least some cases. The fact that some do not succeed is another issue. The fact that some drug addicts are able to quit and some do not does not mean that all drug addicts cannot change.

Jim in Iowa: There is NOTHING in the Bible that says gay sex is ok. We are not leaving part of the Bible behind to say gay marriage is wrong.
Luigi Novi: If that’s your reasoning, does that mean I can have sex with my daughters like Lot did?

Your reasoning is flawed. The story about Lot is a record of something that happened, not a command. Parts of the Bible are an historical narrative recording an event. That does not mean we should do the same, anymore than reading a modern historical textbook talking about slavery means we should have slaves. The Bible condemned having sex with a daughter. And if you read the story, it is clear that what Lot did is portrayed in a negative light.

Jim in Iowa: Jesus Christ -- No other historical figure has had the impact of Jesus Christ. The evidence for his existence is quite strong. If he did indeed die and rise again, then I have the clearest proof of my beliefs.
Luigi Novi: Why do you keep saying “if”? If what? The point is, you don’t have proof of this. “If” is irrelevant. The question is whether you do know if he indeed existed and resurrected. Not “if” he did.

Luigi, I don't understand why you chose to not give the author the benefit of the doubt. The "if" is simply a conditional statement. It is a way of saying if the premise is true, then the conclusion is also. It does not imply I don't think it is true, and most people would understand that is what I meant.

You attempted to provide this so-called evidence on a previous board and I debunked it, as there is no contemporaneous evidence for Christ that survives to this day.

On the contrary, I responded to your post and listed the evidence and my sources. Just because you so quickly dismiss them does not mean they do not exist. (And to be accurate, your statement should say that, "other than the Gospels, no contemporaneous evidence for Christ has survived." The Gospel record is far more contemporaneous to the original events than a lot of other historical sources which we do depend upon today.)

Jim in Iowa: People far smarter than me have studied the facts and have come to the conclusion that the Bible is true -- and yes, people far smarter than me have come to the opposite conclusion.
Luigi Novi: All of whom did so on an a priori basis.

This is why discussions with you are so difficult. You dismiss my statement by using fancy words without even dealing with the statement. You yourself have made an assumption in your statement. You have dismissed my argument based on your own pressuposition without looking at any evidence.

Jim in Iowa

Actually, Deano, from what I'd read and seen on various documentaries (lovingly provided through the multitude of Discovery channels available on digital cable), opium cultivation remained strong in many parts of Afghanistan that never fully succumbed to Taliban control. A number of local warlords who maintained their autonomy from the Taliban (through whatever means were at their disposal) continued protecting poppy farmers as long as the fields were productive. Also, it was noted that immediately following the fall of the Taliban, many farmers replanted their poppy fields as a source of quick income (to show how quickly this was done, one report can be read at http://www.poppiesinternational.com/opium_poppies/opium_poppies.html; the article is dated December 4, 2001, by which time the Taliban controlled only the city of Kandahar).
As for women's rights in Afghanistan, they are just barely better than under Taliban rule. Prior to the fall of the Soviet-backed regime, Afghani women were guaranteed full equality under the Afghan Constitution (which, in fact, was written by a group of men AND women). Of course, this equality was not absolute as many remote areas remained under traditional tribal laws, but even those women were generally freer than their sisters in Saudi Arabia--traditional Afghani cultures tended to give women more of an equal standing with men in many respects; it wasn't until the Taliban students opted for an incredibly strict interpretation of Islam (moreso than even the Wahhabist view in Saudi Arabia) that women's rights turned into the nightmare they became. The Qu'ran maintains women dress modestly so as not to inflame men's desires (which is, of course, punishing the wrong party, but that's another topic) while the Taliban chose to interpret that much too strictly (hence, the burqa, and the Taliban police's authority to beat a woman whose foot might show while walking or whose hair might slip from its cover). However, even today, many women in Afghanistan-OK (Outside Kabul) find themselves still required to maintain the burqa or face possible abuse, even torture, if they venture outside without "sufficient" clothing. Many women still suffer from medical problems in Afghanistan-OK as they're not allowed to be examined by male doctors--and there aren't a sufficient number of female doctors (or even nurses) to treat the women. There have been stories of women who flee their homes to escape domestic abuse, but invariably the women are returned to their abusers by the mostly-male police forces throughout the country (as women are, for the most part, not allowed to travel on their own--for their own "safety", of course) and, to add to the fun, many Afghani men maintain their "right" under Islamic law to more than one wife (I use the quotation marks since that particular right has some very serious limitations which are mostly ignored), and if the man's current wife chooses to voice her objection to his decision to add a new wife, she's liable to face a serious beating (or broken arm, or broken leg, or knife-slash to the face, etc) with virtually no legal recourse. One could actually compare the plight of Afghanistan's women with American Blacks--despite Constitutional guarantees allowing Blacks to vote, many Southern states found ways to get around those guarantees for more than half a century. Afghani women may have Constitutional guarantees of equal treatment, but that doesn't necessarily mean they enjoy those guarantees at this time in Afghanistan-OK.

Jim in Iowa: Actually, I would disagree, at least according to the Christian world view. Creation itself is an historical basis.
Luigi Novi: No, it is not. Creation is a mythological idea. It is not historical. Stop mislabeling things.

Actually, Luigi, he's right and you're confused. Creation is a point of fact. No one's disputing that. After all, you're here to have the argument.
What you should have said though was that Creationism is a mythological idea. Even so, you can't completely dismiss the idea that Creationism is real. Technically, Genesis agrees with many of the scientific theories. Genesis 1:3 "And God said let there be light" could easily be the Big Bang. And the order of creation, with life evoling in the ocean and moving onto land and man being the last creation. If you think about it, if not for the timeline, atheists would be arguing that you can't teach evolution because it's in the Bible, Torah, and Qu'ran

Craig,

DEANO: I don't know, slow down heroin production?
CRAIG: What rebuilding/building have we done to guarantee they'll do something other than return to their opium crops? Not a helluva lot.

You have proof of this, of course.
No, of course not. Just another opinion gaven with no facts to back it up. Anything to keep your "Everything Bush/the military/ the troops have done is wrong" mentality.
No matter what anyone says, you just basically repeat the same things.
A poster says, in reference to the troops, "spitting is in order". I respond. You then say, basically, that he didn't say what he said and was instead bashing the administration/the military, basically shoehorning your personal views into a statement that did not fit.
And I recall that you never rebuked the statement, but a few posts later, in your ever eloquent style stated that "only an idiot" would say you don't care about the troops.
Gee, why would anyone think that when, not only do you portray everything in Iraq as being a failure but you fail to rebuke someone who specificaly DID say something vile against the troops because you were more intent on spouting one of your talking points and interpreting words to fit your point of view, when they specifically stated something that had nothing to do with the point you were determined to make.
To use your own words.
"Amusing, really."

Luigi, you never cease to amaze me. You said Retreat. So spare me your false victimhood. If you really are so sensitive about a minor jab (what you call an “insult”), and you want me to speak to you in a more intellectual manner, then give me a motive to do so. Stop stonewalling when people give you the info that you challenge them to.

I said I didn't want to discuss the topic anymore and gave you the victory. Would you like to rub it in my face again?

Maybe you can learn to speak to others in a respectful manner some day and they will want to continue discussing things with you. Go ahead, call it a retreat. I do not care.

'nuff said

Peter, just so you're clear on this, I never said that you said "Saddam Hussein should have been left in power." Here's what I *did* say:

I just asked you a question.

Craig said The truth apparently hurts Novafan alot.

So what are you trying to say Craig? Why don't you just spit it out and stop beating around the Bush?

And try and say something in your post that doesn't involve slamming Bush, if it's not that difficult for you, that is.

Didn't we discuss this before? I think you have a fixation with Bush.

Not only that, you decide to get a jab in whenever anyone else makes a comment. Do you come up with anything on your own or do you just wait for someone else to make a jab so you can get yours in too?

Curious.

I have to say, Bush might be on the verge of doing something I approve of...apparently he's willing to commit to reopening the border to Canadian beef products within four months.

If he comes through, I will be forced to tip my hat to him for the first time in four years.

Luigi Novi wrote, "...as there is no contemporaneous evidence for Christ that survives to this day."

Do you read the Bible Luigi??? The evidence for Christ is found in the pages of God's word. One can only get faith in Christ by reading and responding to the gospel of Christ. (Romans 10:17, Romans 1:16).

Luigi Novi: Yeah, because telling someone that they’re going to hell for being Jewish and not sharing one’s religion is just so reasonable, David. How dare Peter be so befuddlingly and irrationally abusive for being offended someone coming on his site to tell him this! And for telling Jim what “separates Judaism from the zealots,” why, he just MUST be talking about how Judaism is “superior” to all other religions, and not simply talking about the zealots—even though he explicitly stated that he was talking about the “zealots.” Where the hell does Peter get off?

Which part of this justifies calling Jim a chowder-head, comparable to the Spanish Inquisition, a yahoo, snot-faced, or lame-brained? I never claimed Peter should be happy to be targeted for conversion, but how does name-calling help? Point to one sentence I wrote criticizing PAD for being offended. Seriously, even one. I didn't criticize PAD for not wanting to be converted. I criticized him for being inexcusably rude. Do you not actually read the posts you respond to-- or even the portions that you QUOTE?

As for the superiority issue, the argument "We're tolerant and you're not" certainly does suggest that his faction is morally superior. To the extent that we, as a society, value tolerance, on that issue he's right. There's nothing wrong with claiming you're right when you think you are. Unless of course Jim in Iowa makes that claim, in which case he's a chowder-head.

"Peter, just so you're clear on this, I never said that you said "Saddam Hussein should have been left in power." Here's what I *did* say:

I just asked you a question."

Yes, but the question you asked was, "Do you still think Saddam Hussein should have been left in power." That phrasing means only one thing: That at some earlier point, I contended that he should have been left in power. And that's what I responded to.

PAD

"I never claimed Peter should be happy to be targeted for conversion, but how does name-calling help?"

To quote Rupert Giles, It doesn't; it's more of an end unto itself.

PAD

No matter what anyone says, you just basically repeat the same things.

If you want a broken record, go watch Bush during the debates.

I have made many points, along with many other folks here, and people such as Novafan and yourself would rather dismiss us on a whim.

Apparently some folks can't handle a debate with facts and truths. Apparently some, such as Novafan, would rather just huddle in a corner when they find that their points are not holding up.

The whole conservative argument is to say "you're full of shit, you have no proof", and then provide no proof of your own.

Fine, you say I have no proof that we're doing nothing in Afghanistan. We have 15k or so troops? We aren't very active in the hunt for bin Laden (or, at least, not publically, since Bush has forgotten he exists). Opium production in the country is back to what it was under the Taliban. Women still have no rights. Warlords still control much of the country.

What the hell do you want for proof, Jerome? What damn proof do YOU have that we've actually accomplished something over there?

So what are you trying to say Craig?

I've had better conversations with brick walls. That, and you might as well not bother trying to use simple English with a conservative - they probably won't understand.

Do you read the Bible Luigi??? The evidence for Christ is found in the pages of God's word.

*chuckle*

Yes, and Middle-Earth existed because Tolkien wrote that down on paper, too.

Quite frankly, I'd rather base evidence of Christ's existance on sources OTHER than the Bible. I'd hope the reasons are self-evidence (see: "God's word).

To Jim in Iowa:

Hello! It did occur to me that you may have been reading literature on evolution as written by creationists (is it ok to use that term??), which was suggested by someone a bit back (I can't find the reference just now, though). I came across some of them myself during my first year of college at a Jesuit university. :) BTW, try reading the latest edition of National Geographic, the one with the "Was Darwin Wrong?" cover. It's a great article, and the only one so far I've come across that tackles the issue head-on, in my opinion.

My comments and questions on some of your previous posts:

1. The theory of evolution cannnot explain morality, how the human mind came to be so complex and adaptive, or the big bang because it does not seek to explain those things. It only seeks to explain the phenomenon of evolution.

2. So you firmly believe, with all your heart, in the Bible's story with Creation?

3. "My oposition to homosexuality is based on behavior." --Ok. Why are you (conservative Christians) against homosexual behaviour? As a challenge, can you explain this without citing the Bible? Or if you do want to cite the Bible, how do you know that the anti-homosexual passages in the Bible are not to be interpreted/understood in the same manner as the passages regarding Lot and his daughter? That is, that being anti-homosexual is something that some people did in the past and was recorded in the Bible but is something that should not be emulated?

4. "Furthermore, it is an established fact that it is possible for at least some who have a gay orientation to change and be very happily married to someone of the opposite sex." --But how can anyone tell what they really feel?? I mean, what if these 'converted' homosexuals just say that so people will stop bothering them, and that there really are no converted homosexuals?

5. "Christian faith is based in a historical reality. If you could prove to me that Jesus did not really live, die, and rise again, I would immediately cease to be a Christian." --Does this mean, by extension, that you would cease to believe in the 10 Commandments, in loving your neighbor, and in all the other wonderful things the Bible says?

5. Do conservative Christians believe in a Triune God? I'm sorry if this counts as a stupid question but I am Catholic and I live in a predominantly Catholic country, so I really have no idea.

wow, how things have turned in the past few days. From eclark 1849:

"Jim in Iowa: 'Actually, I would disagree, at least according to the Christian world view. Creation itself is an historical basis.'
Luigi Novi: 'No, it is not. Creation is a mythological idea. It is not historical. Stop mislabeling things. '

Actually, Luigi, he's right and you're confused. Creation is a point of fact. No one's disputing that. After all, you're here to have the argument.
What you should have said though was that Creationism is a mythological idea. Even so, you can't completely dismiss the idea that Creationism is real. Technically, Genesis agrees with many of the scientific theories. Genesis 1:3 "And God said let there be light" could easily be the Big Bang. And the order of creation, with life evoling in the ocean and moving onto land and man being the last creation. If you think about it, if not for the timeline, atheists would be arguing that you can't teach evolution because it's in the Bible, Torah, and Qu'ran"

Creation is not a point of fact. It's a point of faith and assumption. At best, it is a theory supported by observations and circumstantial evidence.

Here's the theory: We're here today, so the act of creation must have occurred somewhere in the past. Why is it only a theory? Because it's totally based only on present day observations. And it pretty much always will be, since we're not very likely to ever get a first hand account of the initial act of creation. That's not to say that we don't accept the idea of creation as fact, but if we're going to be using words, we may as well use them correctly.

I'm still trying to understand why people spend time arguing about whether evolution or creationism is "right." It's not even apples to oranges, it's fruit to rock. Totally different things.

From what I've read, the main sticking point is that science, including anthropology, archeaology, and the theory of evolution, support observations that tell us that the Earth is billions of years old. Strict Creationists have to oppose this idea because, according to most strict biblical scholars, the Earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old. Maybe 20,000, if you push it. So, to allow the ideas put forth by science, Creationists would have to allow that the Bible is not the end all and be all source of information they claim it to be. It simply comes down to a credibility issue. Strict, faith based Creationism is usually paired with the view that the Bible was divinely inspired, and thus free from flaws. Their view cannot tolerate being wrong.

Which, of course, has lead to some pretty incredible explanations. Like half-life dating being wrong because half-lives change over time. Or that the speed of light decreases over time (at least this theory isn't widely supported any longer). That fossils are just fancy rocks put together by creative imaginations, and that dinosaurs and ancient mammals never existed.

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths people will go to to avoid having to consider that the story of Genesis is not a literal account of the creation of the Earth and the Universe. Man, according to Genesis, wasn't even created until the 6th day. So who was around watching the clock on days 1-5?

Maybe someone can explain to me why days 1-5 of Genesis actually only lasted 5 days, and not billions of years. Or why, if God can just create man from thin air, do we have to deal with the mess and blood and pain and danger of birth.

Or why, if you can believe that God can create Adam and Eve without birth, but then later implement birth as means for creating people, why can't you believe that he could create the universe in a Big Bang event, then let the rest of reality proceed according to the laws of physics and theory of evolution? If you can accept change in one theory, why not the other?

kingbobb,

I've don't have the stomach to read this entire topic, but I like some of the your arguments. They match my lines of thinking when I'm in my more religious mindset.

Personally, I'm surprised that noone's presented the argument that the Universe was created c10,000 years ago...and that it was created OLD. That the Universe was 10 (or 12 or 20 or whatever) Billion years old when it was Created. In my opinion it makes more sense than trying to argue with scientific experts in their own field about how their methods for determining age don't work the way they think they do.

Personally, I'm surprised that noone's presented the argument that the Universe was created c10,000 years ago...and that it was created OLD. That the Universe was 10 (or 12 or 20 or whatever) Billion years old when it was Created. In my opinion it makes more sense than trying to argue with scientific experts in their own field about how their methods for determining age don't work the way they think they do.

That's called Omphalos (or the the Church of Last Tuesday-ism, with Mauve the Cat as Supreme Creator).

Doesn't really pass muster, as it casts God as a trickster god at best, and outright liar at worst...as you can imagine, a lot of Christians can't stomach this interpretation...

Craig:
Yes, and Middle-Earth existed because Tolkien wrote that down on paper, too.

To be fair, Craig, you did ask for a contemporary source, so unless you have concrete proof that it wasn't written when most scholars say it was, it counts.

Chrissie:
I think both you and (I believe) Craig are using the story of Lot out of context. Way out. One : the bible condemns incest. Two: Lot's two daughters thought they and their father were the last three beings on the planet. Lot was too grief stricken at the loss of his wife to tell them otherwise, nor did he knowingly consent to have sex with his daughters. They got him drunk, and then took advantage of him.

For you to use that story as you do, as an attempt to validate homosexuality, means that you also could use the same story to validate incest and rape.

Why are you (conservative Christians) against homosexual behaviour?

I'm against it pretty much for the same reason I'm against incest. It's just not right. True, you can argue that it's consensual behaviour between adults, but then you'd also have to say that ANY consensual behaviour between adults, including incest is okay. as well as simultaneous multiple partners., and sado- masochism. I don't really have a problem with some of the lighter stuff, but people have died doing some the more freaky stuff.

And yes, I know that people who say incest is wrong also cite biological reasons such as birth defects as a reason for it's prohibition, but the truth is that there is only about a 25% higher chance of birth defects among siblings than between strangers, such as sickle cell anemia among blacks? Did you know that 1 out of every 400 African- Americans have sickle cell anemia, or that sickle cell affects 8 out of every 100,000 people on the planet? Feeling lucky today?

eclark1849 (I hope you don't think I'm picking on you, you just have some unteresting things going on) said "And yes, I know that people who say incest is wrong also cite biological reasons such as birth defects as a reason for it's prohibition, but the truth is that there is only about a 25% higher chance of birth defects among siblings than between strangers, such as sickle cell anemia among blacks? Did you know that 1 out of every 400 African- Americans have sickle cell anemia, or that sickle cell affects 8 out of every 100,000 people on the planet? Feeling lucky today?"

The biological reasons against incest aren't really concerned with the immediate impacts of such unions. As you've pointed out, a single incident isn't a big statistical risk over non-incest pairings (for the math challenged, like me, a 25% greater risk would mean that, if say 1 in 100 non-incest babies are born with birth defects, 1.25 babies out of a hundred born from incest pairings would have birth defects...I think...)

Anyway, it's the long term impacts of inbreeding that biology tells us can spell the doom for a population.

David Hunt wrote: Personally, I'm surprised that noone's presented the argument that the Universe was created c10,000 years ago...and that it was created OLD. That the Universe was 10 (or 12 or 20 or whatever) Billion years old when it was Created. In my opinion it makes more sense than trying to argue with scientific experts in their own field about how their methods for determining age don't work the way they think they do.

There is a variation on your idea that has been suggested, at least for the age of the cosmos. Let me set up the premise: Einstein established that time is relative based on the location of the observer. While any of us sci-fi junkies know that traveling at the speed of light changes the "relative" time, few realize that gravity is also a source of change. For example, it is a proven fact that an atomic clock at sea level runs at a slower rate than an identical clock located on top of Mount Everest. The difference is small because the variation of gravity is small, but it is real.

Ok, with those facts established, let us move to the theory: It is scientifically possible for the age of the earth to be younger than the age of the universe. I am not saying we can yet prove it, but there are theories that can give some very scientific (not sci-fi) ways it could occur.

Most theories involve. As anyone who has watched Stargate 1 or other sci-fi with black holes know, time becomes severely distorted at the center of a black hole. If the universe started with a "big bang," it is not hard to theorize the big bang as being in part from a black hole and a white hole interacting.

There is a short book written on this topic called "Starlight and Time" I believe by an expert in the area. My point is that there are assumptions that guide the suggested age of the universe. (The age of the earth also has assumptions, but some are different.) There are some very scientific ways to theorize how the earth could be 20,000 years old and be receiving light from stars billions of "light years" away. Whether you agree with this theory or not, it is important to remember that time is relative, particularly when you get into issues pertaining to the universe.

Jim in Iowa

Jim, a while ago you posted a comment explaining how biblical authors would think a rabbit was a cud-chewing animal because they lacked our modern understandings of biological and simply classified rabbits as such based on their observations of mouth-movements.

So, if we can accept that, is it not then possible to assume that the accounts in Genesis of a literal six days to create the Earth and an Earth that's only 20,000 years old was simply written so that people who lived 3,000 years ago and lacked our modern understanding of biology, geology, paleontology, archeology, and cosmology could grasp it?

The way I view it, the Genesis story is simply an allegory to put the big bang (let there be light) and formation of the earth's atmorsphere and oceans (separated the waters from the land) and evolution (describing the living creatures in the waters first, then moving onto land) into terms that people during the bronze age could grasp.

There is a variation on your idea that has been suggested, at least for the age of the cosmos. Let me set up the premise: Einstein established that time is relative based on the location of the observer. While any of us sci-fi junkies know that traveling at the speed of light changes the "relative" time, few realize that gravity is also a source of change. For example, it is a proven fact that an atomic clock at sea level runs at a slower rate than an identical clock located on top of Mount Everest. The difference is small because the variation of gravity is small, but it is real.

Ok, with those facts established, let us move to the theory: It is scientifically possible for the age of the earth to be younger than the age of the universe. I am not saying we can yet prove it, but there are theories that can give some very scientific (not sci-fi) ways it could occur.

Most theories involve. As anyone who has watched Stargate 1 or other sci-fi with black holes know, time becomes severely distorted at the center of a black hole. If the universe started with a "big bang," it is not hard to theorize the big bang as being in part from a black hole and a white hole interacting.

There is a short book written on this topic called "Starlight and Time" I believe by an expert in the area. My point is that there are assumptions that guide the suggested age of the universe. (The age of the earth also has assumptions, but some are different.) There are some very scientific ways to theorize how the earth could be 20,000 years old and be receiving light from stars billions of "light years" away. Whether you agree with this theory or not, it is important to remember that time is relative, particularly when you get into issues pertaining to the universe.

Well, I wouldn't put much hope in that. I think you very much misunderstand the science involved here; you're not going to get an age much less than billions of years for the age of the earth given the way that the strong force, radioactive decay and the speed of light all interact--change one, and you don't even get the universe you know, let alone such more subtle things as solid planets and life-as-we-know-it.

By the way, STARLIGHT AND TIME is by Russell Humphreys. He is far from being an expert in his field, as he is netiher a cosmologist nor particularly expert in general relativity (he admits to not having studied general relativity since his college days since he was primarily a nuclear engineer). Basically, he relies on divine intervention to make the numbers add up, which sorta defeats his scientific purpose.

Oh, man, I just looked up what a white hole is, and now does my head hurt....

David: but it's a little annoying to be "corrected" on points that I didn't get wrong.

Apologies. I just get irritated with several people (not on this board) who keep telling me that Abe and Teddy were republicans, as if that means anything today. So I jumped the gun.
Oh, and Teddy was a huge conservationist (created Yellowstone, ya know)... which more or less is not what Dubya is about (he maybe a personal conservationist, but he really, really doesn't show a good national conservational policy).

Onto other things, religion and evidence of creation, etc.

I grew up religious. Very religious in a very conservative sect (heh, heh, I said sect)...
With any piece of literature, if you go looking for justification of a belief, you can find it. Especially with the Bible.

Example? The sect I grew up in believes that since there was no references in the New Testament that when people came together to worship they used instrumental music, the sect sings a capella.
Even though, in truth, the reason they do this is a historical one. The 'pianna' was most likely found in bars and saloons, so it was tied to that concept, and so they did not use them in church.

Another Example:
I could easily explain that slavery is biblical because of Philemon. And I could easily say that re-incarnation is biblical:
"John the Baptist was the spirit of Elijah reborn."

Another problem with religion, is that people misunderstand words:
Most people think that the Prophets where prophetic (see the future), but what the concept was is that Prophets were those who spoke for God/YHWH. They were foretelling sometimes, but not constantly. Jonah was a prophet. God told him to go to Ninevah and tell them to change. Then there was something about a rebellion, a fish and a few other things.
The majority of the Revelations are re-treads of the Old Testament prophets. And a lot of it dealt with what was happening AT THAT TIME. Yet somehow we have people taking it literally, even though it clearly was written in a code for the churches.

The word Worship means "to kneel and kiss," which comes from when you genuflected to royalty. Yet now it's become a noun, an adverb, an adjective and a money making music industry.

A lot of what people believe is based on the concepts of what they have been told.
Example: The Pentatuch was written by Moses.
Neat trick, since this is almost impossible. Moses' death is recorded in the Pentatuch. Now that's Ghost Writing.

And finally, like a lot of literature, the Bible contains metaphors and the like.
Genesis can be seen as absolute, but it could also be seen as a metaphor. I've been called many a name because I've said this.
The same with Job. In fact, in the book of Job, the name YHWH is not found at all. Experts are not even sure that Job was jewish. But it's a great metaphor of what people can bear.

Anyway, that's my three cents.
Do I believe in the bible? Not really. I'm more of a naturalist. On creationism, it's useless to argue something you cannot prove. Unless you have poloroids of the fact.
My opinion as always,

Travis

Well, I wouldn't put much hope in that. I think you very much misunderstand the science involved here; you're not going to get an age much less than billions of years for the age of the earth given the way that the strong force, radioactive decay and the speed of light all interact--change one, and you don't even get the universe you know, let alone such more subtle things as solid planets and life-as-we-know-it.

Good questions. I don't claim to understand all of the science involved. That is why I referred to the book. A theory this complex (as any theory for the origin of a whole universe would be) cannot be summarized adequately in a paragraph. The author, Dr. Russell Humphreys, has a Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State University and has worked for General Electric and for Sandia National Laboratories. So this theory is not the work of a creationist who just has a high school or college education. (And yes, I know, that does not make his theory true, but it does mean he has the training and experience to have an idea of what he is talking about.)

The book gives some suggestions for the answers to your questions.

However, keep in mind that my theory is given to answer a question about a biblical model for creation. I would not argue that God started a big bang in the manner described and then "walked away." I would suggest he was intimately involved along the way as a potter is in molding a piece of clay. My point is not to prove a 6 day creation is true with this theory. Instead, it is to suggest that there are some reasons, based on known physics, why stars can actually be billions of years old while the earth is only, say, 20,000 years old. I am arguing for a personal, literal, 6 day creation, from the viewpoint/perspective of someone who is standing on earth. Since it is a fact that time is always relative based on perspective, then this is not a special argument. It is simply pointing out that, from the perspective of the age of the universe, it is important to keep in mind what perspective of time you are using. Whether Humphreys mechanism is valid or not, his point (that time is relative) is an established scientific fact.

Jim in Iowa

Jim, a while ago you posted a comment explaining how biblical authors would think a rabbit was a cud-chewing animal because they lacked our modern understandings of biological and simply classified rabbits as such based on their observations of mouth-movements.

So, if we can accept that, is it not then possible to assume that the accounts in Genesis of a literal six days to create the Earth and an Earth that's only 20,000 years old was simply written so that people who lived 3,000 years ago and lacked our modern understanding of biology, geology, paleontology, archeology, and cosmology could grasp it?

The way I view it, the Genesis story is simply an allegory to put the big bang (let there be light) and formation of the earth's atmorsphere and oceans (separated the waters from the land) and evolution (describing the living creatures in the waters first, then moving onto land) into terms that people during the bronze age could grasp.

Short answer: Neither most evolutionists nor most who take the Bible literally are comfortable with your alternative. There are some who suggest it, but they generally get pounded on from both sides! I speak from experience, since I mentioned this viewpoint on this site and got pounded myself!!

My answer: I am very careful to not make Genesis say more than it has to say. It was written for a different purpose than providing a detailed, scientific explanation. That does not mean I think it is not accurate, just that it is a statement that something happened, without giving virtually any details for HOW God did it. I think it is wrong to expect the Bible to have given a detailed scientific description in terms we use today. At the same time, I think it is wrong to just say it was poetry and that it is not meant to be accurate and true in what it does say.

There are plenty of good books out there that give some good explanations of how a reasonable literal interpretation does not violate known science by people who know far more than I do. If someone really wants to know, they can do their own research as I have. For most of you who reject the idea of a God having created the heavens and the earth, I will be curious to get the names of books you would recommend that give a strong defense of the idea of evolution.

(I just bought the National Geographic with the cover story, "Was Darwin Wrong," and found it to be a joke. It glosses over any objections, and compeltely confuses microevolution (changes within a species, such as the varities of cats) -- that most "literal" creationsists accept -- with macro-evolution (the change of a fish into a bird, for example). But I will keep reading on the issue on all sides.)

Jim in Iowa

On creationism, it's useless to argue something you cannot prove. Unless you have poloroids of the fact.

Do you require the same level of evidence from evolution? Do you require polaroids of the fact?

Literal creationism does have to be taken largely by faith since it is, by definition, a non-repeatable event. You must look at whether the evidence since the event supports the theory, but ultimately, you are right, you had to be there. There is no way I could have written Genesis 1 if I was not there. So there is some truth to your argument.

Evolution, on the other hand, is not strictly a one time event. The big-bang is (at least for the life of this universe), but the evolution of life should be an ongoing event. I have looked at the evidence given, and have yet to see proof of macro-evolution (the change from one species to another, or the addition of an organ that never existed before, etc.) that is at all convincing. Evolution should be able to give us at least snapshots of it still being at work. But there is no clear, overwhelming evidence that this is the case.

So I, too, am waiting for the polaroids.

Jim in Iowa

Do you require the same level of evidence from evolution? Do you require polaroids of the fact?

Good question.
And truthfully, I don't argue for evolution. I think it exists and it has happend. But in the end, I find it futile to argue the facts of something that cannot be proved.
Sorta like me arguing the facts of political ethics.

Travis

By the way, STARLIGHT AND TIME is by Russell Humphreys. He is far from being an expert in his field, as he is netiher a cosmologist nor particularly expert in general relativity (he admits to not having studied general relativity since his college days since he was primarily a nuclear engineer). Basically, he relies on divine intervention to make the numbers add up, which sorta defeats his scientific purpose.

You are right, he is not an expert in cosmology. I would love to see a fair peer-review of his ideas to see if he has made any errors in his use of the laws of physics. However, he is not a fly by night scientist. He has done cutting edge work in his field, has published other words in standard scientific journals, and has won an award for his work in the area of light ion-fusion target theory. So while it is valid to note he is not an expert in cosmology, he has shown himself to be a very capable scientist.

Your last comment is not how he ends his book (which I finally found). He states that he is proposing a theory to best understand the facts. Where did you get your quote, or is it based on the fact that, as I suggested above, he believes God was actively at work shaping the process (which is the point of creationism)? It does not defeat his scientific purpose IF his purpose is strictly related to the question of how the earth could be young and at the same time we be receiving light from stars billions of light years away. He is giving some scientific reasons that fit the story in Genesis, rather than just an arbitrary, "God made it that way."

That's my perspective on it, anyways.

Jim in Iowa

P.S. -- I would rather debate this somewhere else than on PAD's site since it really has little to do with either the purpose of this thread or even this site. Is there another place this running debate could continue? Most here could care less about the perspective of a creationist. Just wondering.

Short answer: Neither most evolutionists nor most who take the Bible literally are comfortable with your alternative. There are some who suggest it, but they generally get pounded on from both sides! I speak from experience, since I mentioned this viewpoint on this site and got pounded myself!!

True. My interpretation tends towards the arena of "intelligent design" which strict evolutionists deride as "backdoor creationism" while creationists like yourself dislike a less than literal interpretation of the timelines involved.

I didn't mention it in the hopes of the idea being popular here, so I really don't care who pummels me for it. I only offer it as a logical interpretation of how I have resolved my own dual scientist/spiritualist nature.

BTW, I sort of agree with you about the National Geographic story. Behind the sensationalist "Was Darwin Wrong" headline, it was just a retread of the existing evolutionary theories and offered nothing really new to the field.

My problem with the creationist viewpoint is that it gives stories written for the understanding of bronze age shepherds more weight than our own modern ability to observe and collect data and use our rational powers of deduction tells us. Either all of our accumulated knowledge of geology, physics, biology, chemistry, and archeology is wrong, or the earth was created in a literal six days and is only 20,000 years old instead of 5 billion years old. Based on my own reading of the subject, there is no other way to look it at. If Humphreys is right and Einstein is wrong, then we might as well say that our nuclear reactors work on magic because then our entire understanding of relativity and quantum mechanics is wrong.

PAD wrote: Short answer to Jim: Talmud.

I forgot to say thanks for the info.

Jim in Iowa

True. My interpretation tends towards the arena of "intelligent design" which strict evolutionists deride as "backdoor creationism" while creationists like yourself dislike a less than literal interpretation of the timelines involved.

I actually appreciate all sides of the debate. I personally think the "ID" movement has a lot to commend it. I welcome their input and do not feel they are the enemy (nor are evolutionists). My "faith" is not built in spite of the facts, and I am humble enough to admit that my interpretation of the Bible may be in error. So I welcome all input and am continually thinking through the alternatives. My "presupposition" or belief, based on some evidence, is that the Bible is reliable, so I do start with it as my grid of reference. So I do favor a literal, 6 day creation.

Jim in Iowa

Couple things Jim in Iowa said: "For most of you who reject the idea of a God having created the heavens and the earth, I will be curious to get the names of books you would recommend that give a strong defense of the idea of evolution."

This is what I was trying to describe in the debate between creationism and evolution. Evolution doesn't seek to identify the underlying source of biological change: it observes, describes, and makes predictions. Evolution neither attempts to, nor can it, define the impetus for genetic evolution. Evolution can observe species A and B compete for the same food source. Species A develops the ability to climb trees, thus avoiding predators. Species B does not, and is hunted to extinction. Species A goes on to thrive, eventually spending all of their lives in trees. Evolution theory then stops. It doesn't seek to understand if there is a divine hand at work. It simply observes and understands what happens, how it happens, but not why. Evolution simply doesn't CARE whether God put the idea to climb trees into Species A's head. I've always thought that, where evolution theory ended, faith based creationism began. Creationism attempts to answer the question of what's behind the forces of evolution.

Also from Jim in Iowa: "I have looked at the evidence given, and have yet to see proof of macro-evolution (the change from one species to another, or the addition of an organ that never existed before, etc.) that is at all convincing. Evolution should be able to give us at least snapshots of it still being at work. But there is no clear, overwhelming evidence that this is the case."

We have such snapshots. Not that I'm advocating Hollywood movies as sources of education, but check out the scene where they visit the Galapogos, and they see swimming iguanas. The Doctor says Iguanas don't swim...yet these do. They have developed an ability that members of their species in other areas do no have. Or flightless cormorants. On an island deviod of predators, a formerly flight-ful bird species loses the ability to fly because they no longer need to. In more recent (and real) news, there was a recent dicovery of hobbit-sized human remains on some island. Species dwarfism is thought to have taken place, but it shows a macro-scale evolutionary shift to adapt to climate.

We can't get the big snapshots (ala the three eyed fish from the Simpsons...oohhhhgh, fish...) because evolutionary changes occur over thousands of years, or longer. Hundreds of thousands. We have fossil remains only.

Here's the thing: You can accept that God can create the heavans and the earth, plants, animals, man and woman. But you can't accept that God can change his creations? Or that God can't "program" into his creations the ability to react to their environment, to survive and overcome the natural challenges this world presents?

Jim in Iowa, if you could, please explain to me the creationist view on dinosaurs and extinct mammals (like the saber-toothed cat, mammoths, giant sloths). I really haven't had a chance to look into it. But if you don't accept macro-scale evolutionary changes, how do you explain these species?

And my apologies if you don't hold these views. I'm going based on what you say, and it seems that you're a creationism OR evolution person, siding with creationism.

If Humphreys is right and Einstein is wrong, then we might as well say that our nuclear reactors work on magic because then our entire understanding of relativity and quantum mechanics is wrong.

Humphreys is NOT saying Einstein is wrong. In fact, Humphreys actual area of expertise is in the area of nuclear physics, and he would be the first to say that reactors do not work on magic. Humphreys is simply taking physics and starting with some different presuppositions. And that is the key point. Every scientist does have to start with some presuppositions, particularly in this area. You then attempt to come up with a theory to test your presupposition, but you have to start somewhere. Humphrey's changes a few of the presuppositions (such as suggesting the universe has an actual boundary instead of being infinite -- a premise that he bases on observations of the universe) and comes to some different conclusions.

Bottom line, Humphreys is not invoking the "god of the gaps" to fix any problems with his theory about starlight and time. He is instead offering a different theory based on a different set of parameters. That is how science works. Others can then go and test or examine whether his theory holds up.

Jim in Iowa

This is what I was trying to describe in the debate between creationism and evolution. Evolution doesn't seek to identify the underlying source of biological change: it observes, describes, and makes predictions. Evolution neither attempts to, nor can it, define the impetus for genetic evolution. Evolution can observe species A and B compete for the same food source. Species A develops the ability to climb trees, thus avoiding predators. Species B does not, and is hunted to extinction. Species A goes on to thrive, eventually spending all of their lives in trees. Evolution theory then stops. It doesn't seek to understand if there is a divine hand at work. It simply observes and understands what happens, how it happens, but not why. Evolution simply doesn't CARE whether God put the idea to climb trees into Species A's head. I've always thought that, where evolution theory ended, faith based creationism began. Creationism attempts to answer the question of what's behind the forces of evolution.

You have hit on a key issue. Evlolution (or perhaps more accurately, "natural science"), is based on observing what is. However, the theory does go farther than you suggest. It attempts to show that everything that exists was inevitable, that it was the result of known (or perhaps not yet discovered) laws of nature. By definition, a "divine" intervention is not necessary, and in fact, would violate this very premise.

On this basis, your statement is incorrect. There is no place in a pure scientific system for God to be the answer behind the forces of evolution.

The issue that arises is this: What do you do if there is no clear explanation for how a fish became a reptile? What if there is no clear explanation for how one species developed into another? What if there is no clear reason for why these laws that led to evolutions existed in the first place? A "pure" scientist argues that injecting "god" into the equation is wrong. There is a natural explanation.

I suggest that when the facts are examined, there are a lot of holes in the evolutionary theory. In fact, there are enormous chasms which seem to be impossible to bridge. If you start with a "natural" perspective, then you insist that there is a natural explanation, even if you have not found it yet. That is ultimately just invoking the "god of the gaps" answer that evolutionist accuse creationists of using. (One example: DNA. The complexity and amount of information stored in DNA is staggering. As I understand it, there is more information stored in a strand of DNA than in all of the books in the library of congress. There is no evidence for how this level of sophisticated information could have been created randomly or by natural selection.)

We have such snapshots. Not that I'm advocating Hollywood movies as sources of education, but check out the scene where they visit the Galapogos, and they see swimming iguanas. The Doctor says Iguanas don't swim...yet these do. They have developed an ability that members of their species in other areas do no have. Or flightless cormorants. On an island deviod of predators, a formerly flight-ful bird species loses the ability to fly because they no longer need to. In more recent (and real) news, there was a recent dicovery of hobbit-sized human remains on some island. Species dwarfism is thought to have taken place, but it shows a macro-scale evolutionary shift to adapt to climate.

You are arguing for changes within a species, not for a change into a new species. Let me give you an example: If a human developed wings to fly, that would be an example of an enormous change, but wings already exist. The information is stored in DNA. But if a human developed the ability to live in space without oxygen, that would be something new (as least as far as I know). We would develop a new ability, a new organ, that does not yet exist. That is what macro-evolution aruges happens. Where did the first wings appear? The first eye? The first ear? No one disputes the fact that some birds lose the ability to fly. But if a bird suddenly developed the ability to create a force field around itself, then it would be something new. (I know, it is out there, but it is hard to imagine something that does not already exist in some animal.)

Bottom line, the evolution that can lead to a single cell organism developing a vertebrae is a huge leap. The evolution that created the human ability for spoken language is an enormous leap that has not been adequately answered. (Despite sensationalistic claims, apes and other animals will never be able to talk and communicate as we do. They lack the syntatical ability that we uniquely have as humans. Even young deaf children are able to create a sign language on their own, complete with its own rules of grammar and syntax, that allow them to communicate in full thoughts. You can take a baby born in any part of the world, remove him at birth to another, and he will learn to speak fluently in his new culture and language. We are "hard wired" with language in a way that does not exist in any animal.)

Jim in Iowa, if you could, please explain to me the creationist view on dinosaurs and extinct mammals (like the saber-toothed cat, mammoths, giant sloths). I really haven't had a chance to look into it. But if you don't accept macro-scale evolutionary changes, how do you explain these species?

Not sure what you mean? The creationist view believes God created some basic species. He designed them in a way where the would adapt to their enviroment. So from an original "prototype-cat" would come the current variations of cats.

RE: extinct animals. A literal creationist also believes in a literal flood. Such a catastrophic, world wide event would have created an enormous fossil bed as most of life was buried by the flood. It also could have had an effect on the climate, which would lead to some species not surviving after the flood.

Jim in Iowa

Well, Jim in Iowa, I must admit to having never heard of Humphreys before you mentioned him, but based on your previous descriptions of his theories, I can see a number of points where he disagrees with Einstein's own interpretations of general relativity. Maybe I'm reading your statements wrong or maybe I just need to go directly to his writings, but I just don't see anyway to use relativity to posit the creation of the earth to be compressed into a literal six days to an observer on the earth using relativity.

Well, Jim in Iowa, I must admit to having never heard of Humphreys before you mentioned him, but based on your previous descriptions of his theories, I can see a number of points where he disagrees with Einstein's own interpretations of general relativity. Maybe I'm reading your statements wrong or maybe I just need to go directly to his writings, but I just don't see anyway to use relativity to posit the creation of the earth to be compressed into a literal six days to an observer on the earth using relativity.

For what it is worth, this is a short and very readable book, if you are interested enough to read it. I apologize that I cannot summarize it clearly enough to answer your question. Humphries has written a technical version for peer review, and if it was that clearly in conflict with Einstein's theories, I am sure that would have been pointed out.

Jim in Iowa

Good points, Jim in Iowa. I'll spare everyone my usual copy/paste rehash.

I think there's some wiggle room in your application of a "pure" scientist. I think that scientists that reject the idea of God and a natural world have the bigger issue of not believing in God in the first place, and their foray into science is their attempt to prove it to the rest of us. Maybe I'm just more associated with what you might call a casual scientist, one who doesn't try to answer the questions he can't. Even presented with the statement "evolution is subject to the forces of nature: there's no divine will present in evolution" begs the question of what defines natural law? As you've said, the genetic information contained within a single strand of DNA exceeds all the combined works of man, ever, and that level of organization is literally beyond human comprehension.

But again, why do creationism and evolution have to be an either/or proposition? Why can't creationism be an allegory or metaphor for the divine act of the creation of the universe and the Earth, and what we call evolution be the observable process that God put in place to make his universe run?

Maybe we can't see the amobea turning into the hyrda turning into the simple fish turning into the lungfish turning into the frog turning into the salamandar etc etc etc because change on that scale, like the DNA strand, is beyond human comprehension. We can understand that it happens, but we can't see it, because the scale of our viewing (years as compared to eons) doesn't allow for us to observe the macro evolution.

And speaking of the lungfish, there's an example of a mid-species evolutionary change. There's a russian snakefish currently threatening the Great Lakes area that has a rudimentary lung, and the beginnings of arms/legs. It can live for hours, maybe days, out of water, and can cross short spans of land to migrate to new water.

Is that the kind of macro snapshot you are looking for?

Re:James W.
Thanks for the Afghanistan info,some of it I was aware of ,but i appreciate the history of how some
of the current situation came to be
Realistically ,someone has to convince the locals that their are other options to growing the Heroin.I recall reading an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer commmenting on how the local warlords are using the drug money in some places to provide some food and basic items for the local people.Kind of difficult to turn your back on the guy providing food and protection.
Also read a heartbreaking article about a 9 year old forced into a marriage to pay a family debt,and her rape and abuse at the hands of 52 year old man.I dont have any big solutions for these problems ,but thanks again for the information.
Jerome was your comment directed at me or Craig???I was critical of the situation,not the troops and what they may or may not be doing.

Well, my next question about Humphreys technical work would be what peer reviewed journal was it submitted to and was it accepted for publication?

Re :Jerome
Just reread what you said ,it was directed at Craig.

Kingbobb,

But again, why do creationism and evolution have to be an either/or proposition?

For "purists" on either side, that is not an option. But I think the reality is closer to what you suggest. I think it can be to some degree a both/and. Most creationists do see variations (or "evolution" / "natural selection") happening within a given species. And there are definitely some Christians who fully agree with your view (see http://www.newcreationism.org/index.html for one example). Without getting too theological, the belief in a real Adam and Eve who literally sinned and brought death to mankind is a crucial Christian belief, so any model that rejects this concept is in conflict with the entire Bible, not just Genesis.

Maybe we can't see the amobea turning into the hyrda turning into the simple fish turning into the lungfish turning into the frog turning into the salamandar etc etc etc because change on that scale, like the DNA strand, is beyond human comprehension. We can understand that it happens, but we can't see it, because the scale of our viewing (years as compared to eons) doesn't allow for us to observe the macro evolution.

Not trying to be difficult, but I thought evolutionists were trying to argue that we "could" see this happening. Darwin's original hope was that the fossil record would one day show this very progression. To date, it does not exist. There are a few suggested examples of an animal that appears to be in between, but there is absolutely no record of a progression like Darwin predicted. That is why the idea of "puncilular equilibrium" (sp?) was introduced.

Is that [the lungfishor russian snakefish] the kind of macro snapshot you are looking for?

For me? No. I admit I am looking for something bigger and clearer. The example you give is on a different level than what I would like to see.

Jim in Iowa

Well, my next question about Humphreys technical work would be what peer reviewed journal was it submitted to and was it accepted for publication?

Good questions: My understanding is that it was submitted to a creation scientific journal. I believe it was published. I know that some did disagree with the premise and his use of relativity. Others agreed with it. I don't think it has been submitted officially to a broader peer review. I would be interested to see if it has since his premise is to explain the issue based on known, estalished science.

The objections I read did not say he violated Einsteins theory, but did take issue with other parts. It is too technical for me to explain further than that.

Jim in Iowa

You are right, he is not an expert in cosmology. I would love to see a fair peer-review of his ideas to see if he has made any errors in his use of the laws of physics. However, he is not a fly by night scientist. He has done cutting edge work in his field, has published other words in standard scientific journals, and has won an award for his work in the area of light ion-fusion target theory. So while it is valid to note he is not an expert in cosmology, he has shown himself to be a very capable scientist.

Your last comment is not how he ends his book (which I finally found). He states that he is proposing a theory to best understand the facts. Where did you get your quote, or is it based on the fact that, as I suggested above, he believes God was actively at work shaping the process (which is the point of creationism)? It does not defeat his scientific purpose IF his purpose is strictly related to the question of how the earth could be young and at the same time we be receiving light from stars billions of light years away. He is giving some scientific reasons that fit the story in Genesis, rather than just an arbitrary, "God made it that way."

Actually, Humphreys PhD is not in Physics, but in engineering. Engineering is not the same as science, though research is done in both. And certainly expertise in one area does not transfer over into another.

The major problems in his book is that a) his model has real world consequences and phenomena--they'd confirm his hypothesis (and would go a long way towards building a real scientific theory)--except that these observations don't exist, and b) other people (working cosmologists) have looked at his work and have worked out the equations and found out that his premises result in a universe that's pretty much the same as what current scientists think exist (i.e., his theory doesn't do what he thinks it does).

Given that, I really don't think he should be taken seriously until his hypothesis starts fitting the real world better.

Without getting too theological, the belief in a real Adam and Eve who literally sinned and brought death to mankind is a crucial Christian belief, so any model that rejects this concept is in conflict with the entire Bible, not just Genesis.

You just hit on why I reject Christianity - even though I believe in God. Christianity puts forth the concept of original sin: that we are somehow "stained" from birth due to the choices of Adam and Eve. People are therefore "born sinners" and must be baptized and saved to receive grace. Jesus' sacrifice was supposed to help wipe away that original sin for those who believed.

However, in my opinion, the greatest gift God gave man is free will - the ability to choose our path. We are born in a neutral state since we have no ability to make choices yet - and our choices are what put us in concert/conflict with God's will. I don't accept the need for Christ's sacrifice for Adam and Eve's sins since I don't believe in the stain of them.

Or, if you want to put it in Star Trek terms:

God is not a Klingon

:)

Okay, can this discussion get any more apolitical?

We are born in a neutral state since we have no ability to make choices yet - and our choices are what put us in concert/conflict with God's will. I don't accept the need for Christ's sacrifice for Adam and Eve's sins since I don't believe in the stain of them.

Question: If your premise is true, why does evil seem to exist in every recorded culture? To put it differently, you don't have to teach a child to lie -- it comes very naturally. Why?

You state your problem well. I am curious as to how you would explain the level of evil that exists in our world. Why do so many make a moral "free" choice to do evil?

Jim in Iowa

Good questions: My understanding is that it was submitted to a creation scientific journal.

Well, that's a conflict in terms. :)

Seriously, this goes to the heart of the problem with creation. Creationists take the approach of, "We don't understand this one point, so God must have intervened here." Reali scientists when confronted with the same puzzle, say, "We don't understand this, so we must study it further until we do."

vlolution (or perhaps more accurately, "natural science"), is based on observing what is. However, the theory does go farther than you suggest. It attempts to show that everything that exists was inevitable, that it was the result of known (or perhaps not yet discovered) laws of nature. By definition, a "divine" intervention is not necessary, and in fact, would violate this very premise.

On this basis, your statement is incorrect. There is no place in a pure scientific system for God to be the answer behind the forces of evolution.

Jim, this is incorrect. You are mixing the descriptive with the prescriptive. For science, it doesn't matter who (if anyone) is behind the forces of evolution; science is just describing what's happening. And there are many scientists who are Christian who think that divine intervention isn't necessary--because it would mar the work of God (in that it's a poor workman who has to constantly fiddle with the product--and God is anything but a poor workman).

You are arguing for changes within a species, not for a change into a new species. Let me give you an example: If a human developed wings to fly, that would be an example of an enormous change, but wings already exist. The information is stored in DNA. But if a human developed the ability to live in space without oxygen, that would be something new (as least as far as I know). We would develop a new ability, a new organ, that does not yet exist. That is what macro-evolution aruges happens.

No, it doesn't. Evolution is descent with modification; it works with what's already there and adapts it to to a new function. And it would only do so if with respect to its environment. What you're talking about would DISPROVE evolution.

And by the way....the process of species changes is NOT necessarily something we can see on a human scale. It's certainly not something we'd "expect" to see.

Darwin's original hope was that the fossil record would one day show this very progression. To date, it does not exist. There are a few suggested examples of an animal that appears to be in between, but there is absolutely no record of a progression like Darwin predicted.

There are numerous examples of transitional fossils between large classes. And the fossil record actually does bear out Darwin's hopes (don't use the word progression; it has some implications that don't apply).

Maybe we should put the evolution debate into the "World is flat" file? Darwin published his Origins of Species in 1859. that's only 150 years ago. How long did people think the world was flat? Or that the stars circled the earth? That chunky was better than smooth PB?

Those that accept evolution as fact may be jumping the gun. Ditto for those that reject it. Seems like it's more a continuing scientific study that has yet to reach final conclusion.

I know I don't know nearly enough about scripture, its application, and its interpretation to hold any meaningful discussion with Jim in Iowa on that. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around white holes...

But the question comes to mind...what in the Bible do you read literally, and what as an allegory or metaphor? And why? How do you tell what is and isn't "meant" to be taken literally.

Actually, Humphreys PhD is not in Physics, but in engineering. Engineering is not the same as science, though research is done in both. And certainly expertise in one area does not transfer over into another.

Where do you find that? His book jacket states his degree is in physics, not engineering.

The major problems in his book is that a) his model has real world consequences and phenomena--they'd confirm his hypothesis (and would go a long way towards building a real scientific theory)--except that these observations don't exist, and b) other people (working cosmologists) have looked at his work and have worked out the equations and found out that his premises result in a universe that's pretty much the same as what current scientists think exist (i.e., his theory doesn't do what he thinks it does).

Can you send me your sources that have reviewed his work? I would be interested in reading them. I have found two, but they don't state what you are saying, so I am curious to get another perspective.

Given that, I really don't think he should be taken seriously until his hypothesis starts fitting the real world better.

I partially agree, which is why I was careful to simply state it was a possible explanation to the question about the age of earth vs. the age of the universe. I take a hpyothesis that seems to fit the facts seriously enough to investigate it further, as I have done with his theory. I withold accepting (or rejecting) a theory until I have at least some understanding of the theory and of the presuppositions behind the theory. Which is why I am interested in the reviews you mentioned. I am interested in seeing why the disagree.

Jim in Iowa

Seriously, this goes to the heart of the problem with creation. Creationists take the approach of, "We don't understand this one point, so God must have intervened here." Reali scientists when confronted with the same puzzle, say, "We don't understand this, so we must study it further until we do."

I agree that is a key issue. I would suggest, however, that if scientists say that there IS a natural explanation, they have excluded a supernatural explanation.

Most creationists do not go along and just plug God into any equation that is missing a piece. In fact, for hundreds of years, "creation" scientists made many discoveries in every field of science. Their belief in God did not lead them to use God as a cheat to not explain what they observed. Creation scientists are "real" scientists (at least in most cases). There are currently creation scientists in every aspect of science today doing credible research and making real developments. It is only when you get into the question of the origin of the universe or life on earth that the presupposition of a creation scientists really becomes an issue.

Which leads back to my original question: Is it possible for a "real" rational/natural scientist to come to a point where she (or he) would admit that they have no explanation, and that an outside intelligence might logically be the answer? Some evolutionists already do this when they suggest life on earth was "seeded" by another alien race, so this is a very valid question that goes beyond the confines of the debate between creation and evolution. Is there a point where if the evidence indicates an intelligence is involved, a "real scientist" can make such an hyopthesis? Why is itnecessary for a scientist to still insist that there must be a "natural law" explanation?

Jim in Iowa

King bob:
The biological reasons against incest aren't really concerned with the immediate impacts of such unions. As you've pointed out, a single incident isn't a big statistical risk over non-incest pairings (for the math challenged, like me, a 25% greater risk would mean that, if say 1 in 100 non-incest babies are born with birth defects, 1.25 babies out of a hundred born from incest pairings would have birth defects...I think...)

Anyway, it's the long term impacts of inbreeding that biology tells us can spell the doom for a population.

Well, you seem to be assuming an increase in the number of incestuous relationships as well as births. I seriously doubt that would happen as most people who have incestuous relationships are doing so despite cultural taboos and laws, and of course, there's always birth control and abortion.

But the question comes to mind...what in the Bible do you read literally, and what as an allegory or metaphor? And why? How do you tell what is and isn't "meant" to be taken literally.

Here is my answer: I try to use the same rules we use for every other piece of literature and for other human communication. I try to use the context and allow the literature to interpret itself.

This is actually easy for most of the Bible. Unless you a priori reject the supernatural such as miracles, the existence of God, etc., the text generally speaks for itself.

One important caveat: The Bible was written in another culture, at another time, in another language, from an eastern worldview. You have to do the normal work you would with any piece of ancient literature. You can't pick up an original copy of Romeo and Juliet and understand everything on first reading. But with a normal amount of study, you can gain a great degree of confidence that you understand the message Shakespeare was writing. Many of the so called mistakes people quickly point to in the Bible come from an unwillingness to do the basic work you must do for any ancient work of literature.

With such a large piece of literature, written primarily in two very different languages, over a large amount of time, there is no quick answer to your question. But there are plenty of books you can read that will help. Bottom line, most problems do not come from the Bible being difficult to understand. They come from people not agreeing with what they do understand.

Jim in Iowa

DEN
The way I view it, the Genesis story is simply an allegory to put the big bang (let there be light) and formation of the earth's atmorsphere and oceans (separated the waters from the land) and evolution (describing the living creatures in the waters first, then moving onto land) into terms that people during the bronze age could grasp.

And how do you explain that they knew enough at the time Genesis was written to know about the Big Bang thory and evolution.

I'm not claiming that they did. In fact, I'm claiming the opposite, that both the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory come from the Bible. In fact, there are scientific theories to explain not only if the Great flood or the parting of the Red Seas actually happened and if so, how.

No, it doesn't. Evolution is descent with modification; it works with what's already there and adapts it to to a new function. And it would only do so if with respect to its environment. What you're talking about would DISPROVE evolution.

What you say does not make sense, so please explain it again. How does an organism work with what is already there? How did an eye develop? It was not already there? As Michael Behe argues, there are some systems that are quite complex that need to show up in a complete form. As I mentioned, language has no true forerunner in the animal kingdom. There is no "primitive" language. The ability to language appears quite suddenly and with no explanation. (Bird calls, ape signs, etc., are signals, but they have no grammar, syntax, or any of the other key elements that allow humans to communicate -- as we are on this very site! For language to exist, it must occur in a community, since language only matters when it is shared with someone else. There is no evolutionary/environmental theory that can explain this development. There are a few attempts, but they fail to address the key issues that must be addressed.)

And by the way....the process of species changes is NOT necessarily something we can see on a human scale. It's certainly not something we'd "expect" to see.

What do you meant by this? Why can't we at least see some evidence for this?

There are numerous examples of transitional fossils between large classes. And the fossil record actually does bear out Darwin's hopes (don't use the word progression; it has some implications that don't apply).

There are some suggested transitional forms. But without evidence for progression between the forms, they don't prove anything. There are too many assumptions that must be made to use them as solid evidence. Darwin's theory was that we could see the development of these changes in the fossil record. That has not happened with over 100 years of further research.

(Why do you not like the word "progression"? What are the implications that do not apply?)

Jim in Iowa

You state your problem well. I am curious as to how you would explain the level of evil that exists in our world. Why do so many make a moral "free" choice to do evil?

You are assuming a predisposition to evil that I don't. If you look at most people in their day-to-day life, most don't make many evil choices. I would argue that most people make morally good choices most of the time. 99% of us get up, go to the office, work hard to earn for the family, go home, spend time with them, and go bed without committing evil actions. I think it's easier to argue that people make more good choices than bad ones. Children lie because of immaturity, not because they are evil.

Are there exceptions? Sure. Do we stumble sometimes? Sure. That's the beauty of free will.

You are assuming a predisposition to evil that I don't. If you look at most people in their day-to-day life, most don't make many evil choices. I would argue that most people make morally good choices most of the time. 99% of us get up, go to the office, work hard to earn for the family, go home, spend time with them, and go bed without committing evil actions. I think it's easier to argue that people make more good choices than bad ones. Children lie because of immaturity, not because they are evil.

Thanks. My use of "evil" was a poor choice of words since it does not allow for the degree of flexibility that I meant. There are degrees of selfishness, etc. I do not mean that most people go out of their way to hurt others deliberately. But neither do I see people going out of their way to help others -- it is the exception, not the rule. We tend to be selfish. (Which leads to another debate about "enlightend self interest," and we don't need to go there.)

I would suggest your last statement is a way to just rename my point. Immaturity does not really explain a child's natural tendency to be selfish, to lie, etc. But thanks for answering my question.

Jim in Iowa

Anyone want to see what Dr. Doom will look like in the Fantastic Four movie: Go to: http://superherohype.com/cgi-bin/imageFolio.cgi?action=view&link=Fantastic_Four/The_Movie/Movie_Stills&image=drdoom.jpg&img=&tt=

Jim in Iowa: Luigi, did you even bother to read my point? Your very response makes by point: homosexual "behavior" is an action.
Luigi Novi: But the orientation towards it is not. Who you’re attracted to is innate.

Jim in Iowa: Your statement is illogical. The fact that some HAVE changed means sexual preference CAN be steered in at least some cases. The fact that some do not succeed is another issue. The fact that some drug addicts are able to quit and some do not does not mean that all drug addicts cannot change.
Luigi Novi: My statement is perfectly logical. It can be argued that those who undergo such “therapy”, which is entirely unscientific, by the way, do so because they feel coerced by a society that hates them, and that they are simply suppressing their natural tendencies. It’s also possible that those who remain in such “programs” are bisexuals emphasizing the heterosexual half of their attraction. But regardless, it is wrong to try and make homosexuals feel that they are somehow sick, when the medical community does not consider it a disease or disorder.

Jim in Iowa: And if you read the story, it is clear that what Lot did is portrayed in a negative light.
Luigi Novi: I have read the story, and it was not portrayed in a negative light that I could discern.

Jim in Iowa: Luigi, I don't understand why you chose to not give the author the benefit of the doubt. The "if" is simply a conditional statement. It is a way of saying if the premise is true, then the conclusion is also.
Luigi Novi: So belief in right and wrong, belief in the wrongness of murder and lying, belief in the rightness of charity, etc. are true because of miracles? Sorry, wrong answer. Putting aside the fact that moral beliefs cannot be “proven true”, they should be held as true by the person holding them because of that person’s sense of right and wrong. Not because of magic tricks, which are totally unrelated.

Jim in Iowa: And to be accurate, your statement should say that, "other than the Gospels, no contemporaneous evidence for Christ has survived." The Gospel record is far more contemporaneous to the original events than a lot of other historical sources which we do depend upon today.)
Luigi Novi: The Gospels are not contemporaneous with the alleged Jesus the Christ at all. They were written decades after his alleged death.

Jim in Iowa: People far smarter than me have studied the facts and have come to the conclusion that the Bible is true -- and yes, people far smarter than me have come to the opposite conclusion.

Luigi Novi: All of whom did so on an a priori basis.

Jim in Iowa: This is why discussions with you are so difficult. You dismiss my statement by using fancy words without even dealing with the statement.
Luigi Novi: I did not “dismiss your statement by using fancy words.” I made a statement on the methodology and objectivity of those whose conclusions about the Bible you seem to think gives it the stamp of empirical truth, one that can be considered reasonably true. Fancy words? What fancy words? The fact of the matter is that the historical community does not have any consensus on the issue of the Bible being true as a whole, that many of its contents are disputed—which puts the lie to your statement, and that the only ones who argue that it is true are apologists who argue their case on an a priori basis. This isn’t a dismissal or a fancy word. It’

Jim in Iowa: You yourself have made an assumption in your statement. You have dismissed my argument based on your own pressuposition without looking at any evidence.
Luigi Novi: A lie. I have done quite a bit of research on the subject, spoken to historians, and presented much of this material to you on previous boards. Your statement that I base my conclusions solely on presuppositions is actually the manner in which you seem to be arguing, and by saying that I do not look at evidence, when I presented much of it, it is you who are “dismissing” my statements. Only someone who didn’t think it important to explore ideas and concepts offered to him by his opponents in a discussion would think that talk of arguments made on an a priori basis is somehow a “fancy word.” If I were to argue on presuppositions only, then I would’ve come to the same conclusion you have, since I was raised Catholic. The fact that I no longer am one is testament to the fact that I can revise my previously-held conclusions in light of evidence and information that I’m given. Can you say the same?

eclark1849: Actually, Luigi, he's right and you're confused. Creation is a point of fact. No one's disputing that. After all, you're here to have the argument. What you should have said though was that Creationism is a mythological idea.
Luigi Novi: Which we both know is what he was talking about, clark.

eclark1849: Even so, you can't completely dismiss the idea that Creationism is real.
Luigi Novi: If you insist on arguing that it is scientific or empirical, then yes, I can conclude that that is not how the universe began. It only works if you regard as a metaphorical version of the event. St. Augustine himself asserted that the six days should not be taken literally. Pope John Paul II accepts evolution as scientific fact, and sees the scriptural story as extracting the final meaning according to God. Sounds reasonable to me.

Novafan: I said I didn't want to discuss the topic anymore and gave you the victory. Would you like to rub it in my face again?
Luigi Novi: I’d like you stop challenging others to provide information, only to fail to respond to it, and then criticize others for their words here. No one put a gun to your head and forced you to make those statements. Respectful? What’s respectful about your hypocrisy? What’s respectful about accusing John Kerry of being a liar, and asserting that SBVT are not, and then failing to provide a single instance of the former (even though I asked), and running away when I provide plenty of the latter? Again, spare me the “woe is me” routine. Don’t get into a debate, and then NOT debate.

And if you really took my earlier comment so hurtfully, then I apologize. It was my attempt at a humorous comment about an inconsequential matter (Madonna writing), and perhaps if I had remembered to include a smiley as I usually do, maybe you would’ve taken it differently (then again, maybe not).

Luigi Novi: …as there is no contemporaneous evidence for Christ that survives to this day.

Kevin Walker: Do you read the Bible Luigi??? The evidence for Christ is found in the pages of God's word.
Luigi Novi: The Bible is not evidence of Christ. It was written entirely by mortal men of questionable moral character, for the purpose of religious indoctrination rather than as a historical text, the Gospels were not contemporaneous with the alleged Christ, and there is no way to know for certain at this time that they were not tampered with by early Church leaders. Outside of the Bible, no contemporaneous evidence for Christ exists at all.

Do I read the Bible, Kevin? I have. Do you read about the Bible from an objective viewpoint? Or has all of your knowledge of come from either it or apologists?

I think that’s the more important question.

Kevin Walker: One can only get faith in Christ by reading and responding to the gospel of Christ. (Romans 10:17, Romans 1:16).
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say anything about “faith” in Christ.

David Bjorlin: Which part of this justifies calling Jim a chowder-head, comparable to the Spanish Inquisition, a yahoo, snot-faced, or lame-brained? portions that you QUOTE?
Luigi Novi: Why no, David, I just sit blindfolded at the computer and let my fingers guide me. :-)

What part justifies rudeness? I think that’s up to Peter. Telling him that he’s going to hell isn’t rude? After everything Jews have been through, is it possible that he has a different perspective on the things that Jim says, and doesn’t feel the need to pretend that they’re really “compassionate,” regardless of whether Jim thinks they are? Could Peter respond without rudeness? Sure. But that’s his call, and since he’s mostly polite the rest of the time, I don’t blame him for having reached his breaking point, between the constant Straw Man arguments on this single thread, and Jim’s statements that telling him he’s going to hell is an “act of compassion.”

Jim in Iowa: (I just bought the National Geographic with the cover story, "Was Darwin Wrong," and found it to be a joke. It glosses over any objections, and compeltely confuses microevolution (changes within a species, such as the varities of cats) -- that most "literal" creationsists accept -- with macro-evolution (the change of a fish into a bird, for example). But I will keep reading on the issue on all sides.)
Luigi Novi: Please do. If you were to do so, you might come across the fact that macroevolution and microevolution are the same thing. There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).

Speciation is distinct from microevolution only in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct. The isolating factor need not be biological; a new mountain range or the changed course of a river can qualify. Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as disruptive selection (natural selection which drives two states of the same feature further apart) and polyploidy (a mutation which creates copies of the entire genome) may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution.

The idea that the origin of higher taxa, such as genera (canines versus felines, for example), requires something special is based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new phyla (lineages) arise. The two species that are the origin of canines and felines probably differed very little from their common ancestral species and each other. But once they were reproductively isolated from each other, they evolved more and more differences that they shared but the other lineages didn't. This is true of all lineages back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell. Even the changes in the Cambrian explosion are of this kind, although some (eg, Gould 1989) think that the genomes (gene structures) of these early animals were not as tightly regulated as modern animals, and therefore had more freedom to change.

By repeating the fallacy that they’re qualitatively different, you’re simply parroting long-debunked creationist propaganda.

For evidence of macroevolution, go to: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html.

Jim in Iowa: Do you require the same level of evidence from evolution?
Luigi Novi: Well, yes, and that’s why the theory of evolution is now a scientific fact.

Jim in Iowa: Evolution, on the other hand, is not strictly a one time event. The big-bang is (at least for the life of this universe), but the evolution of life should be an ongoing event. I have looked at the evidence given, and have yet to see proof of macro-evolution (the change from one species to another, or the addition of an organ that never existed before, etc.) that is at all convincing. Evolution should be able to give us at least snapshots of it still being at work. But there is no clear, overwhelming evidence that this is the case.
Luigi Novi: Evolution has been observed in nature. If you have yet to see this proof, it’s because you’re not looking for it, except perhaps, from creationist sources.

Jim in Iowa: Bottom line, the evolution that can lead to a single cell organism developing a vertebrae is a huge leap.
Luigi Novi: It might be, if anyone alleged that it did so in a single step. But because it happened over billions of years in gradual steps, it is perfectly feasible, and it is what happened.

Luigi Novi wrote...
Who you’re attracted to is innate.

I'm not going to wade too far into this debate, because I'm honestly not very interested, but I feel I should point out that there's a lot of evidence that indicates that who (or, perhaps more accurately, what you're attracted to is not completely innate.

As we all know, we live in a society that tells us what to find attractive all the time. It's so ubiquitous that we practically don't notice it at all, and it seems to work (at least in terms of general trends). It's pretty safe to say that who we are attracted to is determined at least in part by our environment.

This isn't an endorsement of Jim's overall points regarding homosexuality, because I disagree with him wholeheartedly, but your little statement jumped out at me.

Jim, you have finally stirred me to ire.

There is one belief, and one only, that is central to Christianity; and that is the proposition that Jesus Christ was born the Son of God, lived, died, and rose again, with His death as payment for all mankind's sins - the ultimate Judas goat, as it were.

The literal existence of Adam and Eve and the Garden and all the rest of it is NOT central to Christianity. Were it, many devout Jews and Moslems would be Christian, too, as they have the same tale in the Torah and the Qu'ran. The point of divergence for the Qu'ran is in the question of whether the Kingdom belongs to all the children of Abraham/Ibrahim, or only those descended through Israel. The point of divergence for the Christian Bible (besides declaring the Books of the Maccabees aprocryphal, which is amusing, considering the Maccabean Revolt is historically verifiable) lies in the birth, death, and rising of Christ. All the rest is window dressing.

As for the prohibitions in Leviticus against homosexuality, it should be noted that the same book forbids just as often the abomination of "boiling a baby goat in its mother's milk", quite aside from the prohibition against meat and milk cooked together (which is why someone earlier asked if you eat cheeseburgers). In fact, the same chapter that first mentions homosexuality also forbids trimming your hair or beard. Unless you now bear a passing resemblance to the Unibomber, you're in violation...

Look, Jim, you can't pick and choose. Either you believe that when Christ said that He came "in fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets," that meant His followers were freed from those restrictions, or you're going to Hell for eating ham and not making sure there's a parapet around your roof. Maybe you should read the Pentateuch for yourself, rather than relying on some televangelist to tell you what it says...

Luigi Novi wrote: "The Bible is not evidence of Christ. It was written entirely by mortal men of questionable moral character, for the purpose of religious indoctrination rather than as a historical text, the Gospels were not contemporaneous with the alleged Christ, and there is no way to know for certain at this time that they were not tampered with by early Church leaders."

The truth of the matter is th Bible was written over a 1500 year period by over 40 different authors. These authors spoke on hundreds of controversial subjects with agreement and unity from the first book of Genesis to the last book of Revelations and there are no contradictions. How is this possible Luigi if the Bible did not come from God??? The Bible is evidence of Christ and He even said so himself in John 5:39 whe He said, "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me."

Luigi Novi wrote: "Do I read the Bible, Kevin? I have. Do you read about the Bible from an objective viewpoint? Or has all of your knowledge of come from either it or apologists?"

Yes, I read the Bible from an "objective viewpoint" and my knowlege comes from reading and studying the Bible...

Luigi Novi wrote: "I didn?t say anything about ?faith? in Christ."

I never said that you did... :-)

Mark L wrote: "You just hit on why I reject Christianity - even though I believe in God. Christianity puts forth the concept of original sin: that we are somehow "stained" from birth due to the choices of Adam and Eve. People are therefore "born sinners" and must be baptized and saved to receive grace. Jesus' sacrifice was supposed to help wipe away that original sin for those who believed."

People who "claim" to be Christians are the ones who state that one must be "baptized" to remove the stain of "original sin". The truth of the matter is infants cannot sin and are therefore not candidates to be baptized. Sin is an act and it cannot be passed down from one generation to the next.

Mark L wrote: "However, in my opinion, the greatest gift God gave man is free will - the ability to choose our path. We are born in a neutral state since we have no ability to make choices yet - and our choices are what put us in concert/conflict with God's will. I don't accept the need for Christ's sacrifice for Adam and Eve's sins since I don't believe in the stain of them."

Yes, God did give us "free will" and the ability to choose our path. We can either choose to obey Him in obedience to the gospel of Christ and be with Him in heaven or we can reject the gospel and be lost for eternity in hell. The only thing we inherit from the sin of Adam is the consequences of his sin which is death...

Jeff Lawson: I'm not going to wade too far into this debate, because I'm honestly not very interested, but I feel I should point out that there's a lot of evidence that indicates that who (or, perhaps more accurately, what you're attracted to is not completely innate. As we all know, we live in a society that tells us what to find attractive all the time.
Luigi Novi: Jeff, what you’re talking about is things like fashion or body image.

Not gender.

You are confusing two completely different things. Madison Avenue and Hollywood tells us that dressing slutty is “sexy,” that rail-thin skinny females are supposedly attractive, that these clothes or those clothes are “in,” that expensive clothes are needed to be “cool” at school, and so forth. They do NOT tell us to find people of the same gender attractive, and two confuse these two things is completely fallacious. Only an intellectually dishonest argument would claim that because the media dictates tastes and body image that it also dictates the gender to which you’re attracted. But if you can point me towards any cases of straight people becoming gay because of TV commercials or what have you, please do so.

Kevin Walker: The truth of the matter is th Bible was written over a 1500 year period by over 40 different authors. These authors spoke on hundreds of controversial subjects with agreement and unity from the first book of Genesis to the last book of Revelations and there are no contradictions.
Luigi Novi: There are loads of contradictions in the Bible, and I listed a long list of them at the end of my October 20, 2:32am post on the Hi, what'd I miss? board at http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/002053.html. Insistence that there are no contradictions is merely cognitive dissonance.

Kevin Walker: The Bible is evidence of Christ and He even said so himself in John 5:39 whe He said, "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me."
Luigi Novi: In other words, “The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is.” Nice circular reasoning, Kevin.

Kevin Walker: Yes, I read the Bible from an "objective viewpoint" and my knowlege comes from reading and studying the Bible...
Luigi Novi: The two halves of this sentence seem to be contradictory. Does your knowledge of it come only from the Bible itself? Or did you study extra-Biblical sources that were not completely apologist in nature?

Craig said I've had better conversations with brick walls. That, and you might as well not bother trying to use simple English with a conservative - they probably won't understand.

Does the wall ever talk back to you? Never mind, I really don't want to know. It's probably a good companion for you. :0)

I'm not going to wade too far into this debate, because I'm honestly not very interested, but I feel I should point out that there's a lot of evidence that indicates that who (or, perhaps more accurately, what you're attracted to is not completely innate.

I agree with Jeff Lawson, both on the issue of this facet of the debate being relatively uninteresting, and in the likelihood that sexual orientation is at least partially acquired behavior. Exhibits A and B are classical Greece and Italy. Unless there was something in the drinking water around the Mediterranean basin that explains why bisexuality was dramatically more prevalent in those two cultures than in any other known culture, I think we have to accept that in some contexts it is not innate. That's not even addressing opportunistic homosexuality in single-sex environments, as in prison, the military, or English boarding schools.

Luigi said There are loads of contradictions in the Bible

Is that all you can come up with? I'm sure if you tried really hard you could come up with some more.

I entered "Contradictions in the New Testament" in google and there were LOTS of hits. This one looks pretty comprehensive.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html

re: Humphreys

I screwed up about his degree; I misread his vita and conflated his Duke and LSU degrees. However, his main work at Sandia HAS been in nuclear engineering.

Some of the problems in Humphreys model has been brought up by Connor and Page in their paper STARLIGHT AND TIME IS THE BIG BANG, which is available on the trueorigins sight. Also, some folks have been pointing out that the results from the 2nd Sloan Digital Deep Space Survey, which is a 3D mapping of matter (both dark and conventional) in the universe, is pretty much totally inconsistent with Humphreys model (which he hasn't updated, to the best of my knowledge, in the past 3 or four years). Sorry, I can't be more detailed, since cosmology isn't one of my specialties.

Humphreys model, however, runs up into the hard facts of geology (where I >am

Luigi Novi wrote...
what you’re talking about is things like fashion or body image.

Not gender.

This is true. I was replying to your statement as you originally made it. And of course you're right, I don't have any readily available examples of "straight people becoming gay because of TV commercials," as you put it.

But that doesn't mean that I don't believe it could conceivably happen. When it's not just TV or the movies, but a total cultural movement conditioning people to behave in certain ways, all bets are off. I couldn't have stated it than David Bjorlin when he said, "Unless there was something in the drinking water around the Mediterranean basin that explains why bisexuality was dramatically more prevalent in those two cultures than in any other known culture, I think we have to accept that in some contexts it is not innate."

In the end, I believe there are both innate and environmental factors that govern sexuality, and trying to separate those two would be futile at this time. Psychological science hasn't developed to the point where it can make such definitive claims, and in fact it might never do so.

In speaking to Jim, Luigi said The Bible states that he universe and the Earth was created in six days, and you admitted that you took this literally. In fact, the Earth was not created in six days.

You have no way of proving how long it took the Earth to be created. I offer something I found:

"The seven-day week has no basis outside of Scripture. In this Old Testament passage, God commands His people, Israel, to work for six days and rest for one—that is why He deliberately took as long as six days to create everything. He set the example for man. Our week is patterned after this principle."

Luigi said Genesis 1:24-26 says that God created Man after the animals. Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 indicate it was the reverse, which not only contradicts the first set of verses, but is incorrect, as there were many animals on Earth before homo sapiens appeared, or even the first hominids.

"Genesis 1.25-26 records animals as being created before man. It might seem to some that Genesis 2.19 has God creating animals and bringing them to an ALREADY existent Adam for naming. However, the Hebrew text of Genesis 2:19 says nothing about the relative sequence whereby God created Adam and the animals. Instead, the verse merely states two straightforward facts: (1) God made animals, and (2) God brought the animals to Adam to be named."

Does the wall ever talk back to you? Never mind, I really don't want to know. It's probably a good companion for you. :0)

Well, it doesn't talk back, for starters. It won't preach. It won't tell me I'm going to hell for thinking for myself, etc etc.

Is that all you can come up with? I'm sure if you tried really hard you could come up with some more.

Once again, you fire back, yet are shooting blanks.

As for contradictions in the Bible, I think it's pretty ridiculous to automatically assume there are none.

But then, I think it's worse that people are hypocritical in what they take (and what they leave behind) from the Bible.

Great link, btw, PAD.

"What you say does not make sense, so please explain it again. How does an organism work with what is already there? How did an eye develop? It was not already there? As Michael Behe argues, there are some systems that are quite complex that need to show up in a complete form. As I mentioned, language has no true forerunner in the animal kingdom. There is no "primitive" language. The ability to language appears quite suddenly and with no explanation. (Bird calls, ape signs, etc., are signals, but they have no grammar, syntax, or any of the other key elements that allow humans to communicate -- as we are on this very site! For language to exist, it must occur in a community, since language only matters when it is shared with someone else. There is no evolutionary/environmental theory that can explain this development. There are a few attempts, but they fail to address the key issues that must be addressed.)"

Well, I'm not terribly as well versed in evolution and such things as I'd like, but the way I have understood it, something doesn't just suddenly, say sprout a fully developed new trait. An ancient fish didn't give birth to a four legged creature with lungs. A random genetic mutation perhaps gave one fish out of a bajillion longer fins, which either didn't hinder it's ability to live and procreate, or it gave it a very slight edge. That longer finned fish had a bunch of babies, some of which had normal fins, a few of which maybe had his longer fins. Some long fins breed with other long fins, and the trait gets passed on, and maybe mutates further. Some of the mutations aren't successful and prevent those fish from surviving and procreating and passing on those genes. Others do. It's very gradual.

It comes down to random mutations (in humans, there are babies born with down syndrome, or extra fingers, or even flippers)that either prevent the individual from passing it's genes along, don't affect it one way or the other so it passes it's genes along, or gives it an edge (makes it better able to avoid predators or to catch more food or whatever) so it does pass it's genes along. Evolution doesn't have a specific goal (that's why "progression" shouldn't really be used, it implies there is some ultimate goal or form to be achieved) it's just random mutations that occasionally are beneficial in the long run.

And as far as other animals and language, I'd suggest doing a bit of reading on whales and elephants and their communication skills. I had read some studies that indicated the sounds they made had specific structures and syntax and meaning. There was actually a pretty good documentary on the Discovery Channel about elephant communication.

Besides, just because we can't understand how or what they are saying, doesn't mean they aren't saying anything. Kinda like if there is life other than on earth, we might not recognize it because of how we are looking for it, or what we are looking for (i.e. carbon based).

Monkeys.

Luigi said In Genesis 7:2-3, God instructs Noah to take seven of every clean animal (which it refers to as simply “a male and its mate”), two of every kind of unclean animal, and seven of every kind of bird. In verses 8 and 9, it refers to the animals as “pairs” (or depending on the version you have, as “two and two”). Footnotes say “or seven pairs, also in verse 3,” but verse 3 doesn’t say “seven pairs,” it just says “seven.” Not one of the available versions of the Bible available at biblegateway.com (17 of the 19 versions there have that passage) says “seven pairs,” and indeed, why would it indicate that Noah was instructed to bring them into the Ark in seven sets of pairs??

Have you ever told someone to do something and then later came back and gave them more detailed information? Same principle applies here.

See Genesis 8:20. "And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar".

Noah had to take more than 2 clean animals per species or when he made his offering, many animals would have been extinct.

Craig said Once again, you fire back, yet are shooting blanks.

I think my wife might disagree with the shooting blanks part, lol.

I beg to differ, I'm firing away on all cylinders boyo.

Luigi said In Deuteronomy 24:16, God says that individuals should be punished for their own sins, not parents for their children’s sins, nor children for their parents sins. But in Isaiah 14:21 he indicates otherwise, instructing to prepare a place to slaughter sons for the sins of their forefathers.

"In the context of Deuteronomy 24:16, God establishes a number of laws by which the people would be judged and kept. In verse 16, He acknowledges that an individual is personally responsible for what they do. If a man commits murder, his son is not to be put to death for the deed. Neither, if the son has committed adultery should the father be put to death. As is written, "...every man shall be put to death for his own sin." In Isaiah 14, we are not reading of a son being put to death for the sins of his father. Rather, as we look at the context, we understand this to be a prophecy concerning the coming destruction upon a nation. On account of the wicked leadership of their king, God pronounced destruction upon the Babylonian people. A look into history tells us that in approximately 540 B.C., Babylon was overthrown by the Medes. The city was eventually left in ruins."

To Jim in Iowa:

Not sure how much time you have on your hands, but try taking a Comparative Anatomy class (or whatever equivalent) at your University. It should be under the Biology department. If you really want to try to understand evolution, then it would be really helpful to study it from the point of view of those who believe in it as opposed to reading books on evolution written by creationists...don't you think? :)

Craig said It won't tell me I'm going to hell for thinking for myself, etc etc.

That's a good reason you have for talking to a wall.

Who told you that you would go to hell for thinking for yourself? God gave you free will to chose to do right or wrong.

If your thinking for yourself means you make the wrong choices, then that's your decision. You should know the difference between right and wrong without someone having to tell you.

Peter said I entered "Contradictions in the New Testament" in google and there were LOTS of hits. This one looks pretty comprehensive.

I honestly do not understand you Peter. You are married to a Christian woman and yet you go out of your way to debunk the New Testament. That boggles my mind. Consider me shocked.

Luigi said There are loads of contradictions in the Bible, and I listed a long list of them at the end of my October 20, 2:32am post on the Hi, what'd I miss? board

Can you be satisfied with the fact that each and every assertion you make as a possible contradiction can be debunked by someone else as not being a contradiction? I seriously doubt it, but one has to ask.

Me: "I never claimed Peter should be happy to be targeted for conversion, but how does name-calling help?"

PAD: To quote Rupert Giles, It doesn't; it's more of an end unto itself

David Bjorlin: Which part of this justifies calling Jim a chowder-head, comparable to the Spanish Inquisition, a yahoo, snot-faced, or lame-brained? {... Do you even read other posts} portions that you QUOTE?

Luigi Novi: Why no, David, I just sit blindfolded at the computer and let my fingers guide me. :-)

You know, judging by some of your arguments, I almost believe this.

Luigi again: What part justifies rudeness? I think that’s up to Peter. Telling him that he’s going to hell isn’t rude? After everything Jews have been through, is it possible that he has a different perspective on the things that Jim says, and doesn’t feel the need to pretend that they’re really “compassionate,” regardless of whether Jim thinks they are? Could Peter respond without rudeness? Sure. But that’s his call, and since he’s mostly polite the rest of the time, I don’t blame him for having reached his breaking point, between the constant Straw Man arguments on this single thread, and Jim’s statements that telling him he’s going to hell is an “act of compassion.”

Sure, if he doesn't mind being the rhetorical equivalent of Ron Artest, I guess that really is his business.

I'm more than a little disturbed by your invocation of Jewish history to rationalize PAD's tantrums. Do you really think different rules of civility apply to different ethnic or religious groups? My point all along has been that there is no such thing as adequate provocation for that. Honestly, are we in grade school? Is calling someone a chowder-head really so cathartic that we're willing to toss reasoned discourse out the window? The more extreme the emotions involved, the more important it is to struggle to maintain dignity. Don't cuss your opponent out, show him up. In this debate, of course, Jim in Iowa has remained respectful and polite throughout, so someone is being shown up; arguably it's the wrong person, or people.

Nova, can you truly only believe in the Bible's deeper truths if you believe that it's inerrant and totally non-contradictory?

For a more contemporary example, try reading Spider Robinson's "Callahan's Place" stories. Spider himself said that he deliberately inserted contradictions into the stories. Does that make the moral points of his stories any less valid?

For that matter, does the fact that Heinlein's "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" tells a story totally at odds with his earlier "Starship Troopers" invalidate its points about honor, duty, and sacrifice?

The tale of Noah tells us of faith and trust in a way that, IMHO, is in no way lessened even if its details are impossible (fitting seven pair of each clean animal, and two pair of each unclean, into a vessel of the described dimensions).

Jim in Iowa: For most of you who reject the idea of a God having created the heavens and the earth, I will be curious to get the names of books you would recommend that give a strong defense of the idea of evolution.

Your first stop should be The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins. It's highly readable, and it's also one of the accepted classics of its field. It also directly addresses one of your objections, the idea that complex features couldn't develop incrementally, because they are useless until relatively fully developed.

I think the reason Roger Tang objected to your use of the word "progress" was that it's implicitly teleological-- it suggests that the progress is toward some predetermined goal. I disagree with his quibble; evolution basically boils down to the development of more complex life forms from less complex life forms. I have no problems categorizing that as "progress" or an "advance," even without the goal-directed connotations.

Novafan,
"I honestly do not understand you, Peter. You are married to a Christian woman and yet you go out of your way to debunk the New Testament."

Oh, for crying out loud, Novafan. He did no such thing. He looked for "contradictions in the New Testament". As someone who was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school, let me say THERE ARE MANY CONTRADICTIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT!
Acknowledging that does not "debunk" anything. It simply points out a fact.
Actually, in my HIGH SCHOOL religion class, we were taught that, believe it or not, NOT EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE IS TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY!
The Red Sea, for example, the one made famous in The Ten Commandments, was likely The Reed Sea, a much smaller body of water than usually portrayed or conceptualized. Those who were considered "possessed by the devil" were likely having epileptic seizures, only science and medicine were not as advanced then, so that was the reason they came up with it for people suddenly having seizures.
The Bble has a lot of truth in it, but it has also been rewritten various times. It should not always be taken literally for this and other reasons.
By studying it, researching it and asking questions, many Christians feel they know more of the Truth contained in its pages, and this actually STRENGTHENS their faith.

"This boggles my mind. Consider me shocked."

Well, maybe your mind wouldn't be so boggled and you wouldn't be so shocked if you didn't take everything at face value and did your homework. You do not have to believe in the Bible and take everything in its oages literally to be a ggod Catholic, and you do not have to support your President - be it Carter, Reagan, Bush or Clinton - 100% of the time to be a good American either. In either case, you may find questioning to make your beliefs stronger.

Luigi Novi: Since Gore never said that he developed the Internet, I’ll interpret that smiley as an indication that you’re joking. :-)

Oh for God's sake. For the millionth time, Al Gore really DID have a brain fart on March 11, 1999, during an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet,” said Gore. He actually DOES deserve a lot of credit for being an early supporter of a civilian internet, so he's guilty only of hyperbole. Given our current President's history of malapropisms, which hasn't seemed to hold him back any, I think it's sad that Democrats are too insecure to own up to ONE bad word choice from five and a half years ago. Sheesh.

eclark1849: "If you think about it, if not for the timeline, atheists would be arguing that you can't teach evolution because it's in the Bible, Torah, and Qu'ran"

well, since it sparked an interesting discussion in class, i just wanted to point out that im not sure the koran actually put a timeline to the order things happened in as specific as genesis did, although i think that it did say six days, and basically had one or two lines that could be interpreted to support the big bang and evolution. well, animals evolving from the water anyway. i'ld probably have to look it up tho, because honestly, i never did pay much attention to that prof. oops :oD

To eclark 1849:

"Chrissie:
I think both you and (I believe) Craig are using the story of Lot out of context. Way out. One : the bible condemns incest. Two: Lot's two daughters thought they and their father were the last three beings on the planet. Lot was too grief stricken at the loss of his wife to tell them otherwise, nor did he knowingly consent to have sex with his daughters. They got him drunk, and then took advantage of him."

--Thanks for pointing that out, and I do agree that the Bible condemns incest. :) I think my question was phrased in a confusing way though. What I meant was, true, incest was mentioned in the Bible but it was condemned...so, is homosexuality likewise mentioned AND condemned or was it noted as something that just *is*?

I think the reason Roger Tang objected to your use of the word "progress" was that it's implicitly teleological-- it suggests that the progress is toward some predetermined goal. I disagree with his quibble; evolution basically boils down to the development of more complex life forms from less complex life forms. I have no problems categorizing that as "progress" or an "advance," even without the goal-directed connotations.

I find it useful to discard old terminology for a while in order to understand fully new concepts; that way, I bring less baggage to the table when I look at something.

This is particularly useful when talking about evolution, because it's surprisingly poorly understood; comments on this thread have some common misunderstandings about the concept (and I think we all can agree misunderstandings can get in the way of a discussion. That's why I dislike using the term "progression", because the connotations get in the way of what actually occurs.

Craig,

"If you want a broken record, go watch Bush during the debates."

There's still debates, even though Kerry conceded? Wow! What station are they on?
Seriously, instead of just responding to what i said and defending your point of view, you take a meaningless, laughable shot at Bush.
Which illustrates my point.

"I have made many points, along with many other folks here, and people such as novafan and yourself would rather dismiss us on a whim."

I know you've made points, but you increasingly undermine them by getting in petty, immature digs at Bush and inserting your viewpoint, the topic be damned.
Caling Giuliani and "idiot" for daring to support Bush and referring to the War In Iraq as Operation Fix Daddy's Mistake ad nauseum are just two examples of silly shots at Bush. Actually debating the merits and the success of Iraq is worthwhile, and both you and others have prsented solid arguments that contradict mine. I've never said otherwise.
But your rabid hatred of Bush undermines many of your arguments, as did your shoehorning your opinion about Abu Gharib into my response to someone who said "spitting is in order" regarding our troops as a result of the incident.
Yet again, you were so intent on criticizing the Administration, you completely failed to see the clear statement Nick Eden made.
Furthermore, you have yet to condemn it.
And stop with the "us".
Many on this board present reasonable, rational, and even compelling arguments for their position. Luigi Novi is one. Tim Lynch is another.
The reason I am increasingly dismissing a lot of what you have to say is because lately you and your posts have become increasingly unreasonable and irrational.

"Apparently some folks can't handle a debate with facts and truths. Apparently, some, such as Novafan, would rather just huddle in a corner when they find that their points are not holding up."

First, I feel this doesn't apply to me. Second, why are you bringing up and insulting Novafan in a response to me?
He seems to have REALLY gotten under your skin.

"The whole conservative argument is to say you're full of shit, you have no proof and then provide no proof of your own."

I could just say "bullshit". Instead - Wow, Craig is angry and painting all conservatives with the same broad brush. What a surprise.

"Fine, you say I have no proof that we are doing something in Afghanistan."
"What the hell do you want for proof, Jerome? What damn proof do YOU have that we've actually accomplished something over there."

Since you asked, here is a statement from the Embassy of Afghanistan, based in Tokyo, on November 18, 2004:
"Hamid Karzai, President of the Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan and President Elect, in accordance with his stated policies and commitments for the elected period, considers narcotics the most significant threat against national interests, stability, security and prosperity of the Afghan people, a threat the extent of which may be bigger than that of terrorism in the region.
Therefore, the fight against narcotics will be the top priority for the elected government, and the president is strongly committed to this fight in all its dimensions, including but not limited to the eradication of poppy fields."
"Lately, reports have been received from some districts of Nangarhar province about the application of aerial spraying of lands believed to have been cultivated with poppy."
"While emphasizing its strong commitment to the eradication of poppy fields, the Government of Afghanistan opposes the aerial spraying of poppy fields as an instrument of eradication. In addition, the President is deeply concerned about complaints from the region pointing to possible side effects of the aerial spraying on the health of children and adults. Therefore, the formation of a joint investigation team from Ministries of Agriculture and Health has been authorized to travel to the areaand prepare a detailed report for the President in this regard."

I think some of the key words there are "President Elect" - they aparently don't use a dash in their spelling of the title - and "elected government" - both of which we helped to bring about.

"I've had better conversations with brck walls."
You actually have conversations with brick walls?

"That, and you might as well not bother trying to use simple English with a conservative - they probably won't understand."
Well, if you've been saying things like distain instead of disdain all these years, maybe it's because you haven't been speaking English. Please, enough with the insults and paintng with broad brushes. George Will makes exceptional use of the English language, as does William F. Buckley, Jr. Will actualy had some tough questions/crticisms of Cond Rice in a recent column. And Pat Buchanan, who has written several books and speeches, actually started a magazine specifically because he disagreed with a lot of Dubya's policies.
And you may hate Ann Coulter's opinions but after four best-selling books, years writing a column, years giving speeches and working in the legal profession - where words are of paramount importance - I thnk it's just a WEE bit silly to say she doesn't understand the English language.

"The seven-day week has no basis outside of Scripture."

It's one-fourth of a lunar cycle. Man needed a unit of time greater than a day but less than a month. That's the basis for it.

The problem I see with most defenders of creationism is that they only read the creationist argument, so no wonder they believe things like that.

Who told you that you would go to hell for thinking for yourself? God gave you free will to chose to do right or wrong.

Who said going to hell had anything to do with being right or wrong?

Oh, wait, not being a Christian is WRONG. Forcing your Christian believes is right, because God said so.
So, I'm obviously going to hell. Because I can't possibly be right, can I?

Do I believe in a god? I don't know. I sure as hell don't believe in the Christian god.

"And then man convinced himself that black was white, and walked into a stampede of zebras."

EXTREMEly paraphrased (since I'm doing it by memory) Douglas Adams.

Travis

PAD
I entered "Contradictions in the New Testament" in google and there were LOTS of hits.

Yeah, and we all know if it's on the internet, it MUST be true.
No offense PAD, but a lot of the contradicitions this guy lists are rather trivial and could be explained away as poor editing and poor continuity by the writers of the New Testament, whom, everyone agrees, were human. I'm sure it's something you can identify with:

Writing Star Trek, the comic (and for that matter, novels) while working in tandem with Paramount is like walking a tight rope with razor blades for nets.
Now it's not so bad when they're doing their job, which is to maintain Star Trek continuity. For example, I had an issue where I forgot to have a Klingon warship decloak before it fired on the Enterprise. That was fair and square--they caught it and it had slipped past both myself and Bob Greenberger, no question. Nor do I mind the self-proclaimed nitpicking changes. It's the vascilation that can get to me. And the contradictions. And the ignoring of Star Trek history. We are told that Star Trek command personnel can never be less- than-sterling characters, despite ``Patterns of Force'' and ``Doomsday Machine'' and ``The Omega Glory'', etc., etc. We are told that we must concentrate almost exclusively on the principle seven characters, but everytime we try and develop a storyline involving those characters (for example, Chekov wanting his own command, or Uhura returning home to visit her family) they are shot down

http://www.etext.org/Zines/Quanta/working.html

Heh. I could just imagine PAD working on the New Testament and complaining about the continuity headaches. "Jesus tap-dancing Christ! Those bastards don't know what bloodline they want Mary's son to follow! I'm just gonna say she was a still a virgin and let the editors work it out!"

heck, even the gospels contradict each other: Just what did Jesus instruct them to take? (Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.

When did the fig tree hear of its doom? (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging.

When did the fig tree keel? (Matthew 21:9) The fig tree withered immediately. and the disciples registered surprise then and there. (Mark 11:12-14 & 20) The morning after Jesus cursed the fig tree, the disciples noticed it had withered and expressed astonishment.

Was John the Baptist Elias? "This is Elias which was to come." Matthew 11:14 "And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And he said I am not." John l:21

Matthew 5:1-2 Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. Luke 6:17 & 20 Christ preached his first sermon in the plain.

John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. Mark 1:14 John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. John 1:43 & 3:22-24

Where did the devil take Jesus first? (Matthew 4:5-8) The Devil took Jesus first to the parapet of the temple, then to a high place to view all the Kingdoms of the world. (Luke 4:5-9) The Devil took Jesus first to a high place to view the kingdoms, then to the parapet of the temple.

When was Christ crucified? Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour and they crucified him." John 19:14-15 "And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king? John 19:14-15.

The two thieves reviled Christ. (Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32) Only one of the thieves reviled Christ. Luke 23:39-40.

How many women came to the sepulcher? John 20:1 Only one woman went, Mary Magdalene. Matthew 28:1 Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary" (Jesus’ mother) went.

How many angels were within the sepulcher? John 20:11-12 two, Mark 16:5 one.

Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples? In a room in Jerusalem. Luke 24:32-37 On a mountain in Galilee. Matthew 28:15-17

Where did Christ ascend from? From Mount Olivet. Acts 1:9-12 From Bethany. Luke 24:50-51

Who purchased the potter’s field? Acts 1:18 The field was purchased by Judas. John 20:1 The potter’s field was purchased by the chief priests.

The thing about the bible is that, not only was it written by many numerous men over the space of mny years, it was also "edited" numerous times. See also: the apocrypha. The King James Edition. Even the New International Version.

There is no way to claim the bible is infallible, that it contains no contradictions, that it is inerrant. there were numerous times that kings and other rulers had things which displeased them about the bible removed. the bible you have now is the result of hundreds of revisions.

additionally, unless you're reading the original hebrew/aramaic for the old testament, and the original greek for the new, you're definitely not getting the original message. remember, the edition of the bible you have now has been taken from the hebrew, translated into greek, translated into latin, and then translated into english. There's a lot of fine detail thats lost amidst all that.

oh, and if you're not reading the apocrypha, you're missing out on what was originally intended to be the entire bible. thank the council of trent.

Personally, as an athiest raised jewish, I think the bible is a fascinating collection of stories and some history. I don't think it was divinely inspired, but i do think it provides an insight into the times that it was written.

of course, history shows us that both civilization and morality predate the bible, and that it exists where organized religion never ventured, so I don't see any reason to think the bible and religion as the be-all and end-all of how to live your life.

Posted by Den: "'The seven-day week has no basis outside of Scripture.'

It's one-fourth of a lunar cycle. Man needed a unit of time greater than a day but less than a month. That's the basis for it."

Actually, a lunar cycle is about 27.5 days, so a 7 day lunar based week would be 2 days off every 4 weeks.

Point is, there were 7 day weeks in use by the Romans, pre-Christianity. Not sure when Rome started using a 7 day week, but I'm guessing it wasn't taken from the Pentatuch/Genesis.

Scripture may have the only documented basis for a 7 day week, but to say that it has no basis outside scripture is to beg the question of, if so, how did the Romans come to adopt it?

I take that back...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week

Says ancient Bablyon used a 7 day week based on the 7 visible planets. That's a basis outside of scripture, no?

No offense PAD, but a lot of the contradicitions this guy lists are rather trivial and could be explained away as poor editing and poor continuity by the writers of the New Testament, whom, everyone agrees, were human.

And here I thought it was the Word of God.

And here I thought it was the Word of God.

So? Donald Trump doesn't write his own business corespondence, but you know they're from him.

eclark1849 wrote...
a lot of the contradicitions this guy lists are rather trivial and could be explained away as poor editing and poor continuity by the writers of the New Testament, whom, everyone agrees, were human.

That's fine and dandy, except you're completely ignoring the fact that PAD was responding to the discussion started by Kevin Walker, who wrote,

"The truth of the matter is th Bible was written over a 1500 year period by over 40 different authors. These authors spoke on hundreds of controversial subjects with agreement and unity from the first book of Genesis to the last book of Revelations and there are no contradictions" (Emphasis added by me).

The statement said that contradictions in the Bible do not exist, and PAD provided evidence to the contrary. He made no statement as to the relevance or triviality of the contradictions.

Important note: I have received a message from God. I have been creating way too much theological debate on a site devoted to culture and the writings of a Writer of Stuff. I hereby repent and go on a 1 week Sabbatical.

Interpretation: I am leaving for a week of vacation with family for the Thanksgiving Holiday. Enjoy yours, I will mine.

Jim in Iowa

Happy Thanksgiving Jim! It will certainly not be as exciting around here without you :)

"And God sayeth 'GO FORTH AND EAT COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF A LARGE, UGLY FOWL, YET DOTH TASTETH GOOD, especially with that cranberry sauce stuff..."

Yes, I'm ducking the lightning bolts as I type....

The "Bible has no contradictions" strikes me as a fiath-based defense. It also takes the "define 'is' for me" line a little farther.

We've seen various posts that state Christian faith is rooted in the fact that God is infallible (and who's going to tell Him he's wrong, in any case) and that the Bible is the Word of God, given to man via the prophets. With the idea that God is perfect, thus his word must be perfect. This belief forces the devout to explain/ignore/rationalize what would be to the non-devout as a Biblical contradiction. For to do otherwise would be to admit that A) the Bible is in fact NOT the literal word of God, and thus not the absolute guiding force of religion and morality it is held up to be, or B), it IS the Word of God, and God is fallible, not perfect. Both A and B would destroy any rational foundation of the Christian faith.

So instead of saying "sure, the different books of the Bible were written hundreds of years apart, and in some case decades after the events described, so naturally there's going to be some minor differences, based on point of view, changes in the language, contemporary influences finding their way into the writings," etc., what we get instead is "the holy spirit has guided man throughout the ages to ensure that God's word is translated faithfully and accurately, and remains as perfect today as it did then."

Which fails to explain why some versions of the Bible are accepted and others not, depending on your point of view. Or why older versions are phased out, for newer versions.

I know that God isn't really interested in making things easy for us, but you'd think that, if He were interested in keeping the Bible accurate, he'd clearly do so. The fact that there is even a controversy tells me that, despite God's best efforts, some person, some when, some where, mucked it up.

"No offense PAD, but a lot of the contradicitions this guy lists are rather trivial and could be explained away as poor editing and poor continuity by the writers of the New Testament, whom, everyone agrees, were human."

Nooooo, no no. No, the conservative right doesn't get to have it both ways.

Either the Bible is the word of God, inviolable and not to be questioned, or it's the words of men, and anything is fair game.

It's the same damned "pick and choose" attitude. The Bible says homosexuality is evil, and therefore it must be so, because it's God's word and you can't question it. The Bible also instructs you to kill a disobedient, disrespectful child and is rife with contradictions, but hey, some things in the Bible just aren't acceptable anymore and the contradictions are as a result of human foibles.

When conservative religious types complain they think that so-called liberals and intellectuals get snide with them or treat them contemptuously, perhaps they might want to consider how their own flagrantly indefensible, contradictory positions might engender some of that.

PAD

Actually, a lunar cycle is about 27.5 days, so a 7 day lunar based week would be 2 days off every 4 weeks.

And a year is about 365.25 days. The fact that the lunar and solar cycles don't come out to a whole number of days has vexed calendar makers for millennia. So yeah, a calendar month is a little longer than a lunar cycle and we have leap years every four years to correct these imbalances. That doesn't change the fact that these units of time were based on the solar, lunar and planetary cycles.

>When conservative religious types complain they think that so-called liberals and intellectuals get snide with them or treat them contemptuously, perhaps they might want to consider how their own flagrantly indefensible, contradictory positions might engender some of that.

>PAD

We've come a long way. It wasn't all that long ago that kings in power had complete books of the Bible that they didn't agree with completely taken out of the book. Kind of makes you wonder what edicts were taken out.

Fred

I haven't found much to support any calendar based on a lunar cycle. I think it's a rough coincidence.

Everything I've seens does support a seasonal calendar, as most societies that need a date-recording system have some form of agriculture, and a calendar makes a good tool for knowing about when you should be plowing, sowing, planting, etc.

My point was, if it was a lunar cycle you wanted to track, a 5/6 day week system makes more sense. Months would be 5 weeks long, and alternate between 27 and 28 days.

Stating that a traditional week is about 1/4 of a lunar cycle is more an observation, not a description of origin.

And, boy, how fast did this meandering thread get bumped off the front page by what's going on over in Northstar's thread?

I haven't found much to support any calendar based on a lunar cycle. I think it's a rough coincidence.

The you obviously haven't done much research.

The word "month" is derived from moon.

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/calendar.htm

http://www.krysstal.com/calendar.html

Well, fine.

But...

While "month" may indeed be a derivation of "moon," neither of those links suggest that the calendar is based around the lunar cycle. Rather, it's solar.

Which is to say that the 7 day week is no more connected to the lunar cycle than it is to the story of Genesis. The earliest reference I've found is Babylon, naming 7 days for the 7 visible planets/astronomical bodies. Which is not a lunar cycle.

So, once again, where is your support that the division of weeks/months is based on a lunar cycle?

Nooooo, no no. No, the conservative right doesn't get to have it both ways.

But the liberal left does?

Either the Bible is the word of God, inviolable and not to be questioned, or it's the words of men, and anything is fair game.

Nope. Of course it can be questioned. You're given a choice. It's called "free will". You can choose to follow whatever beliefs or paths that you want, but in the end you have to stand before God and HE holds you accountable for the choices you made.

It's the same damned "pick and choose" attitude. The Bible says homosexuality is evil, and therefore it must be so, because it's God's word and you can't question it. The Bible also instructs you to kill a disobedient, disrespectful child and is rife with contradictions, but hey, some things in the Bible just aren't acceptable anymore and the contradictions are as a result of human foibles.

Same thing. You want to follow the Bible to the letter you're free to do so. You're also free to ignore it. Who's stopping you, the law? But isn't that what you want, a government that isn't swayed by religious beliefs?

When conservative religious types complain they think that so-called liberals and intellectuals get snide with them or treat them contemptuously, perhaps they might want to consider how their own flagrantly indefensible, contradictory positions might engender some of that.
PAD

Couldn't agree more. Perhaps more liberal and intellectual types might be more willing to practice what they preach as well.

By the way, PAD, why didn't you include the Old Testament in your search for contradictions?

I didn't include the Old Testament because I figured it was irrelevant, since the OT doesn't consist of gospels written by different people recounting the same events. You don't have the Books of Moses, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob each describing what went down in Eden.

It is not, as I infer from your question, from a belief that the OT is somehow intrinsically more right or better than the NT. It's just that since the question involved the various Apostles describing the career of Jesus and whether there were contradictions, I focused the search to address that.

PAD

"I honestly do not understand you Peter. You are married to a Christian woman and yet you go out of your way to debunk the New Testament. That boggles my mind. Consider me shocked."

You can just bite me, you jackass.

PAD

"Same thing. You want to follow the Bible to the letter you're free to do so. You're also free to ignore it. Who's stopping you, the law?"

Yes. That's the problem. For instance, eleven states now have specific laws that are essentially voter-sponsered bias mandates against gays, and I will wager that the vast majority of those voters cite the Bible as their reason for condemning homosexuality.

The problem isn't related to following or not followng the Bible and then being held accountable before God. I have absoloutely no argument with people who have faith in the Bible and their God and use it quietly guide their lives in a live-and-let-live manner. Where I take issue is when we're talking about people using belief in the Bible to take a holier-than-thou attitude for the purpose of terrorizing others, for taking away their rights, and for making their lives miserable. It happens in big ways, such as anti-gay initiatives. And in small ways, such as out here in Long Island, where an interracial couple woke up the other morning to discover a cross burning on their front lawn. To many people, that's a terrorist act. To the people who did it, I'd fancy they'd call it a faith-based initiative.

As for liberals practicing what they preach, well--I'd wager that both liberals and conservatives preach tolerance. However, I would suspect that if you tally up the number of conservatives who show up and badger liberal bloggers as opposed to liberals who show up and badger conservative bloggers, it's going to tip heavily to the former. So who's tolerating who?

PAD

Peter said You can just bite me, you jackass.

I guess that struck a nerve. You cuss at me because I say I'm shocked that you debunk the New Testament when you're married to a Christian woman? Hmmm. Maybe you're upset at the wrong person here.

Nofavan wrote...
I guess that struck a nerve.

No, you were being a jackass.

"David Bjorlin: Which part of this justifies calling Jim a chowder-head, comparable to the Spanish Inquisition, a yahoo, snot-faced, or lame-brained?"

First of all, I freely admit I'm on a far shorter fuse these days, since 51% of voters were suckered into voting for Bush for another four years so he can complete his destruction of the country.

Second, I didn't compare Jim to the Spanish inquisition. I said there's a zealot mindset that is shared by such varied and sundry individuals as George Bush, missionaries, the Spanish Inquisition and Jim from Iowa. Considering he's a fan of missinaries and Bush, overall he should be flattered.

Third, David, your point of view is that you just show up on this board and post. You're not the one speding time, energy and money to maintain a board that sometimes seems way more trouble than it's worth. How would you like to sponsor a board so that people can show up and inform you they're going to heaven and you're not, or insinuate that you have contempt for your wife's religion? You're not the one patrolling the board and removing regular postings that are filled with nothing but heavy duty, profanity laced, racist insults from anonymous trolls. In short, you're not the one busting ass so that people can show up to abuse your hospitality.

PAD

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm done with Novafan. He's shrouded.

I will not be responding to him, acknowleding his posts or his existence. He is, as far as the host of this board is concerned, dead.

Others may commune with the dead as they see fit.

PAD

Nova,

Take the hint for what it's worth and back off fast. Don't insult a man's marriage and expect him to like you for it. And before you say you aren't insulting him, think about it this way:

"How can your marriage be any good if you and your wife disagree on your faith?"

Because that's basically what you asked. It implies that marriages can only work with a common faith. Well, people have gotten around that for a long time.

Mostly, though, it's not your business. Considering my wife is a devout Catholic and I am not Christian (though I was raised one), I can certainly empathize.

So, again, I say, back off.

Peter said He's shrouded.

You might as well tell me to go to Hell again, Peter, since you never appoligized for that.

I'm sorry if I stated the truth that I'm shocked. You know it's funny, my faith can be attacked, my beliefs can be attacked, our President can be attacked repeatedly, and when I make a statement that doesn't make sense to me, I'm a jackass. It was the truth, I honestly don't believe it. I guess we aren't about stating the truth in here are we.

Good grief.

Have a happy Thanksgiving.

As I reflect on what Novafan said, I can't help but reflect on the uproar that ensued when Kerry brought Cheney's daughter into his speech.

I thought it was inappropriate to make comments about someone's family, hmm?

And for anyone who wonders why I have political discussions here...look at the response rate to just about any other blog entry, as opposed to this one.

Not trying to be snarky, but why are you measuring the success of topics based on quantity rather than quality? Personally, I think most of the political discussions online (not just here) are shallow, unintellectual, repetitive, and offer no insights. They're just a place for people to insult each other and feel superior. The fact that they do so multiple times within a topic doesn't make it any better.

You're not the one speding time, energy and money to maintain a board that sometimes seems way more trouble than it's worth. How would you like to sponsor a board so that people can show up and inform you they're going to heaven and you're not, or insinuate that you have contempt for your wife's religion? You're not the one patrolling the board and removing regular postings that are filled with nothing but heavy duty, profanity laced, racist insults from anonymous trolls. In short, you're not the one busting ass so that people can show up to abuse your hospitality.

And judging by that, you're not enjoying them much either.

Novafan wrote...
I make a statement that doesn't make sense to me

Don't worry, you're not alone...your statments don't make sense to a lot of us.

Peter, I certainly don't know you on a personal level, but if you are feeling very short-fused or even actively not enjoying the blog right now, just know that taking a day, a few, a week, etc and shutting it down for a break or stepping away to relax from it is not only ok.... but your perogative.

Not saying that you should, just saying you could.

I enjoy this place. I enjoy much of the discussions and many of the posters here. I wouldn't be thrilled to see it go away. I'd much rather it or you take a brief break than become so frustrated or upset that you say the hell with it for good.

Be healthy and don't forget to hug the kids, kiss the wife and smile. :)

Jeff said Don't worry, you're not alone...your statments don't make sense to a lot of us.

What the hell was this comment for? I've stuck up for you several times and then you throw and insult at me. Forget you.

As I recall, I've backed up a statement or two made by you, as well. That doesn't change the fact that a lot of what you say doesn't make sense to me.

If it makes you feel any better, a lot of what Bladestar says is equally repugnant to me.

Peter said I will not be responding to him, acknowleding his posts or his existence. He is, as far as the host of this board is concerned, dead. Others may commune with the dead as they see fit.

I appoligize for stating something that I should have kept to myself.

This election wasn't about reason; it was about values. According to philosophers like Chaim Perelman, appeals to reason are made to a "universal" audience, and appeals to values are made to a "particular" audience. (Never mind the fact that all audiences are particular by nature. I am referring to audiences as they are constructed in the minds of the speaker before forming his or her argument.)

I suppose one could argue that Bush's success in this election owes a lot to his targetting a particular audience (and therefore focusing on values), and perhaps Kerry's failure was due to his attempt to target a universal audience, (and therefore focusing on reason). I don't mean to say that Bush was unreasonable, nor do I mean to say that Kerry was too reasonable. Appeals to a person's values can sway them more than appeals to reason. And, unfortunately, people are not purely reasonable. We are not a nation of Mr. Spocks. People have to be reached on a logical level and an emotional level, and Bush was very skillful at reaching people on an emotional level. Kerry was not.

Politics is like show business. The candidates are actors that are auditioning for the role. But remember folks, just because they play a doctor on TV doesn't mean we should let them anywhere near a hospital, let alone a patient. Unfortunately, that's exactly what elections do. They hand the most appealing actor a scalpel, and then he starts cutting. The question isn't "if" we will bleed, but "when" and "how much."

Jeff said As I recall, I've backed up a statement or two made by you, as well. That doesn't change the fact that a lot of what you say doesn't make sense to me.If it makes you feel any better, a lot of what Bladestar says is equally repugnant to me.

I don't care if you agree with me all of the time, or even some of the time, although it would be nice if you did. It's the fact that your statement came way out of left field since you've never made a statement like that before. Then all of the sudden, BAM, right when I wasn't looking.

Novafan wrote...
It's the fact that your statement came way out of left field since you've never made a statement like that before.

True. Mostly because I've been trying to stay out of this discussion, opting instead to watch it devolve (on both sides) to the point where little is being actually said. It's rather frustrating.

The next logical question is, "why keep reading?" I'm working on that one. :)

Novafan, the fact that Jeff wasn't willing to back you up this time around ought to open your eyes to the idea that you're quickly becoming persona non grata around here. Maybe you should quit with the snarky, victimized indignation and go back and re-read some of what you posted... it (apparently) didn't make a lot of sense to many people, myself included.
-tOjb

Just to elaborate a bit on why I chose your comment to sound off on...

A) The superior, dare-I-say "motherly" tone of the post in question - "I'm very disappointed in you young man" - is not only offensive in itself, but it's also a prime example of the attitudes found in some (but not all) Christians, which PAD himself has been arguing strongly against in this very thread.

B) The inherent assumption that all Christians must interpret the Bible literally, which is simply not the case.

C) As I mentioned earlier, it's eerily similar to what John Kerry said about Dick Cheney's wife, for which he caught all kinds of hell from conservatives (though not necessarily you, I can't recall and don't feel like checking).

BrakYeller said it (apparently) didn't make a lot of sense to many people, myself included.

And just who the heck are you. Speaking of coming out of left field....

"Since I believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, then it is not disdain to tell you that you are going the wrong way and headed towards a canyon where the bridge is out (to change the metaphor), but an act of compassion."

And PAD replies:
See, whereas I see it as an act of supreme arrogance, of self-righteous, holier-than-thou, snot-faced, wrong-headed, purblind, where-the-hell-do-you-get-off-you-Bible-thumping-yahoo, biased, prejudiced, anti-Semitic chowder-headed, lame-brained jackass intolerance.

Okay, for that alone I'm going to buy two copies of all your comics from now on. :) :)

What, so you saying things I don't understand is *my* fault, because you don't know who I am?
I'm somebody who's been reading the thread. I'm part of your audience, and the audience of everyone here. Does my opinion not matter because you've never heard of me before?
The point is that people who have been otherwise silent are speaking up en masse, each saying essentially the same thing: that you need to check yourself, because you're being both unintelligible and offensive.
-tOjb

Others may commune with the dead as they see fit.

"Let's hold a seance!"

"But we're not dead. Yet."

"Not trying to be snarky, but why are you measuring the success of topics based on quantity rather than quality?"

I'm not. But when there's continued responses to political threads, it means people are continuing t come back because that's the stuff that's important to them. And if they keep returning, then they're going to be seeing the stuff that's the main reason for the existence of this board: News and information about my upcoming projects.

I mean, let's face it. No one is contributing money to the upkeep of this board. The tip jar is almost never used. I mean, if I were having a major ongoing houseparty, people would not hesitate to contribute. "Can I bring soda? Beer? Dessert?" This is an ongoing houseparty where the host and co-host (Glenn) don't get offers for so much as a 50 cent bag of chips while guests show up constantly, including some who keep getting in the hosts's face about his beliefs and a handful who make it a point to piss on the furniture.

So the upside is that if there ARE a lot of people coming through, there's back-end success through support for my projects and we see money back from Amazon.com purchases when they come through here. And the political debates keep people coming through.

Manipulative? Perhaps. But hey, I'm a writer. If I don't find ways to keep people coming back, I'm out of business.

PAD

So, in other words, you post something politically controversial to stir things up so that people keep coming here to comment and (hopefully) buy stuff.

Yep, I think manipulative is a good word for that ;)

PAD,
I don't use my credit card on-line. Yes, I'm paranoid, but that's just me. I have asked before, but if you have an address, a PO box or some such, I would love to throw a tip in the jar.I'm just more comfortable sending my money snail mail. You'll even get to see my last name! OK, not a great draw, but I would still like to be able to contribute for the wonderful hours spent engaging in the dialogue on this site.
(The last name is Boe. I worry about spam, so I have a fake e-mail, but do not hesitate to let you all know who I am.)

I'll second Karen above on the snail mail for the tip jar. I don't trust my credit card in person, let alone over the Internet, but I'd like to be able to give back a little for the pleasure of participating here. Besides, you'll get the satisfaction of being able to say that you finally got your check in the mail from John Byrne. (Not *THE* John Byrne, of course, but *A* John Byrne...)
Another bit I wonder about (hopefully without being crass): how much is too much/too little for the tip jar? Is there a reasonable recommendation you can make as to what constitutes a decent tip?
-tOjb

Here's a fun site:

http://beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html

It's a personality quiz about your religious beliefs. Here are the top 5 I scored:
1. Liberal Quakers (100%)
2. Reform Judaism (99%)
3. Unitarian Universalism (99%)
4. Neo-Pagan (89%)
5. Bahá'í Faith (82%)
In reality, I am a Reform Jew, number 2 on the list, but wonder if I should look into Liberal Quakerism? (That's a joke for those of you with a religious sense of humor. I will not convert and promise not to convert you.)

Karen wrote...
Here's a fun site:

">http://beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html

That was fun, but I'm not terribly shocked by my results:

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (95%)
3. Liberal Quakers (84%)
4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (77%)
5. Theravada Buddhism (71%)

I am a little surprised that Nontheist was tied for sixth with Neo-Pagan, but I'm satisfied.

So the upside is that if there ARE a lot of people coming through, there's back-end success through support for my projects and we see money back from Amazon.com purchases when they come through here. And the political debates keep people coming through.

I would venture a guess that the people who come here for the political debates rather than discussing your work, have little or no interest in your work. I'm sure you remember that guy on the AOL board who freely admitted as much. This site does come up on search engines, so somebody plugs "Bush" or "Iraq" in, they can come to this site not really giving a damn about Peter David or his work. Maybe if you were the Peter David who wrote that Gulf War book, it would be different. ;)

Basically, I just think the politics stuff attracts all the wrong sort of people. The people who are interested in your work will continue to come here to hear about it, or even just to hear your thoughts on related entertainment subjects.

Some graduate student a decade or two from now is going to dig this thread up and run a content analysis on how it's changed and...evolved....and get a thesis AND a dissertation out of it. Maybe even an academic career.

The tip jar is almost never used.

There's a tip jar? And I didn't know you got money back for the Amazon thing. I'll be sure to use it in the future.

"So, in other words, you post something politically controversial to stir things up so that people keep coming here to comment and (hopefully) buy stuff."

Well, that's "other words" in the sense that it's what I said, but boiled down to a sentence. But yes, that's pretty much right. This isn't news: I've repeatedly made note of the fact that the highest trafficked threads are the political stuff.

Entertainers manipulate their audiences all the time. Movie writers and directors. Actors. Magicians. That's just how it's done. And as long as no one is being ripped off, there's no harm to it.

But every so often, audiences will go to nasty places. I really don't think JD Salinger envisioned anyone using "Catcher in the Rye" as an impetus to kill John Lennon.

Same thing here. There will be people who use the platform I provide here to become abusive. It happensm, and it has to be addressed and dealt with.

PAD

Matt Adler,
I disagree. Many of us who regularly post on the political threads love PAD's work. I originally found the site because of his writing, not his political beliefs. I stay because I like to hear his opinions things outside of his works, but still want to know what's coming up. I think there are more like me than the occasional person who just comes to see what is written on the political blogs. And that person may be introduced to PAD's writings after coming out of curiosity and become a fan.

Jeff,
"As I reflect on what Novafan said, I can't help but reflect on the uproar that ensued when Kerry brought Cheney's daughter into his speech. I thought it was inapproprate to make comments about someone's family, hmmm?"

It is, which is why Novafan was wrong, as i stated earlier.

"Here's a fun site:

http://beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html"

I came in as Reform Judaism 100%, followed by Unitarian Universalism, Mainstream Liberal Protestantism, and Neopaganism...

...no wonder I'm confused! :-)

While "month" may indeed be a derivation of "moon," neither of those links suggest that the calendar is based around the lunar cycle. Rather, it's solar.

It's a combination of the two. As for the Babylonians, they named the days after the seven planets that they knew of, but that wasn't the only reason that they choose to make a week seven days long.

generic viagra

We can bet on Viagra now? Great! :)

Oh fooey, the post got removed, so now nobody will have a clue as to what I'm talking about. ;)

I didn't include the Old Testament because I figured it was irrelevant, since the OT doesn't consist of gospels written by different people recounting the same events. You don't have the Books of Moses, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob each describing what went down in Eden.

It is not, as I infer from your question, from a belief that the OT is somehow intrinsically more right or better than the NT. It's just that since the question involved the various Apostles describing the career of Jesus and whether there were contradictions, I focused the search to address that.

PAD

Okay, I'll accept that explanation, but I was under the impression that the person you were responding to had said there were no contradictions "from Genesis to Revelations". Since you excluded the Old Testament from your search without explanation, it suggested that you did indeed have a deeper reverence for the Old Testament.

Den, your last post was more helpful. I had to do some research on my own this time...

To recap, waaaaaay up above, before whatshisname was shrouded, someone posted that there was no basis for a 7 day week outside of scripture. Den responded that it was roughly 1/4 of al unar cycle, and that was the basis outside scripture.

Thus ensued a discussion that has expanded to include not just the week, but the entire calendar, days, months, and year.

Latest from Den: "'While "month" may indeed be a derivation of "moon," neither of those links suggest that the calendar is based around the lunar cycle. Rather, it's solar.'

It's a combination of the two. As for the Babylonians, they named the days after the seven planets that they knew of, but that wasn't the only reason that they choose to make a week seven days long."

Then there's this link:

http://www.takeourword.com/Issue104.html

Without checking into the accuracy of it, it sounds pretty well supported. The Bablyonian week had nothing to do with a lunar cycle...it was a mathamatical repeating progression that lead to the naming of the 7 days, not a lunar cycle. My point that, with the lunar cycle being 27.5 days, your week would deviate 2 days from the lunar cycle every 4 months. Meaning, if the 4th Monday was supposed to be the full moon, in 4 months, the full moon would be occurring on the third Saturday. Your system of trying to track the lunar cycle through the week would be horribly useless.

I did find at least one site that spoke to the scriptural week being lunar cycle based. I really didn't give it that much credence since it made a statement about mankind using a 7 day week, with the 7th day being one of rest, since Adam and Eve. Since the Babylonian week began with Sunday as day 1, I think that statement pretty much can't stand up to the facts.

Kingbob,

I've already mentioned that the fact that the lunar and solar cycles don't match up to a whole number of days has been a problem for calendar makers for thousands of years. That still doesn't change the fact that every calendar has been an attempt to use both solar and lunar cycles in combination to track time.

This is the second time in a week that I've really hard to help you out with your reading comprehension problem and I really don't know what else I can do anyone. I just you try Hook on Phonics.

Wow, Den, given the lack of proper grammar in your response, I'm tempted to try to make some smarmy comment about your reading abilities.

Oh, what the heck...

Funny you should mention reading comprehension

(which, by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with phonics. Phonics only attempts to help those that can't grasp the English language's many spelling nuances to be able to sound out words to pronounce or spell them correctly. Reading comprehension is where you have to understand the words used, and how they relate to the words around them)

since you seem to totally not be comprehending much of what I've been saying. I never stated anything about the calendar not making sense. And the only thing I've mentioned about the year is that it's based on a solar year, tied to the 4 seasons, and probably agriculturally based.

Which is aprapos of nothing to do with whether there is a non-lunar cycle basis for the seven day week.

I'll be honest: I don't know what the Babylonian calendar was trying to do with the YEAR. Why? Because we were only tangentially speaking about the year. What we were discussing was the WEEK, and whether there was some basis outside of scripture (Genesis...is this ringing any bells?) for it. You suggested it was lunar based.

Try to answer this question: If a lunar-cycle based week loses 2 days every 4 months, why use it? It's totally useless.

The Babylonian week had little, if not nothing, to do with a lunar cycle. They had a 12 hour day followed by a 12 hour night, followed by a 12 hour day, etc. etc. They had 7 visible celestial bodies, which they used to name the hours of each day, sequentially, and repeating. Over a period of 7 days, that hour naming cycle repeats. Thus, they days of the week are names after the first hour of each day.

It's a mathematically repeating progression that has nothing to do with a lunar cycle.

Comprende'?

Now, where, in my reedin komprehnzon haf I faaled 2 undrstnd U?

Say Matt Adler,

If I remember correctly, you were quite a supporter of the Campaign Finance Reform laws championed by John McCain/ Russ Feingold, a few years ago. I told you then that I had thought of a few loopholes to which you replied that I didn't know what I was talking about. (Not your exact words, but the basic gist of it). Judging from this past election cycle and the gaping holes in the way the CFR laws were used, Do you still think that CFR was a success?

Well, Kingbob, if the best you can do is make fun of my typos and repeat the same comment I've already addressed twice now, fine.

I give up.

No ancient people ever used lunar cycles in calendars. The calendar month has absolutely nothing to do with the phases of the moon or the rotation of the moon around the earth. You are right and every historian and archeologist in the entire world is wrong.

Does that make you happy?

Jeez, some people are just too thick for words.

Den, not to be a jerk, but you fired on me first. I'm not usually one to take a personal shot in a post, but I felt that essentially calling me dense was uncalled for.

One, I've never claimed that no ancient calendar was ever an attempt to track lunar and solar cycles. Neither have I spent much, if any, time talking about the MONTH. I've been talking about the WEEK. You stated that the week was 7 days because it was 1/4 of a lunar cycle. Point of fact: it's not. It's 7 days because the Sumerian/Bablyonian calendar, upon which just about all western calendars are based, was 7 days.

Which is not to say that any culture using that basis for a week (for those that even cared about such things) attempted to shoehorn the astromically based week into a lunar/solar cycle calendar. In fact, without doing any research on the origins of the calendar MONTH, I'd probably agree with you, that they are mostly an attempt to track lunar cycles.

But that was never my point. I know I'm long winded, but I generally think that I'm pretty clear in my meaning.

Aw gee, did I hurt your feelings?

Too bad I don't care.

This thread lately reminds me too much of "Argument Clinic"

No it doesn't!

Den said "Aw gee, did I hurt your feelings?

Too bad I don't care. "

Well, no. Were you trying to? 'cause you failed in that, too...

"Okay, I'll accept that explanation, but I was under the impression that the person you were responding to had said there were no contradictions "from Genesis to Revelations". Since you excluded the Old Testament from your search without explanation, it suggested that you did indeed have a deeper reverence for the Old Testament."

Or, eclark, given that the New Testament is shorter, perhaps it just takes less time to look up the contradictions...

In Matthew 27:46-50 and Mark 15:34-37, Jesus' last coherent words are given as "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?", translated in the New American Standard Bible (Updated Version) as "My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?" This is then followed, a short time later, by a wordless cry, whose power tears the veil separating the congregation from the Torah Scrolls in the Temple.

Luke 23:46 cites His last cry as, "Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit!"; the veil is torn by this cry. This could be the cry mentioned in Matthew and Mark.

John 19:30, on the other hand, gives His last words as a quiet, "It is finished." No shouting, no tearing of anything - He just dies.

Somebody's wrong here...

Or, eclark, given that the New Testament is shorter, perhaps it just takes less time to look up the contradictions...

You know, sometimes you should just leave things alone, Johnathan. I wasn't accusing PAD of anything. I just wanted to know why he didn't include the Old Testament in the search. He gave me an answer and I accepted it. As for whether or the search would take longer, I rather doubt the extra 2 1/2 seconds it would have taken to type O-L-D in to the Google search engine would have put PAD out much.

As for the contradictions on Jesus' last words, yeah, well, that just changes everything for me. Frankly, I find comic book incontinuity more disturbing.

A nice handy summary site for all your calendar needs!

http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/lunarcal/types.htm

Say Matt Adler,

If I remember correctly, you were quite a supporter of the Campaign Finance Reform laws championed by John McCain/ Russ Feingold, a few years ago. I told you then that I had thought of a few loopholes to which you replied that I didn't know what I was talking about. (Not your exact words, but the basic gist of it). Judging from this past election cycle and the gaping holes in the way the CFR laws were used, Do you still think that CFR was a success?

I think the FEC, a panel of unelected, politically-motivated bureaucrats, is not enforcing it. Which even Bush admitted, when he stated correctly that the law bans 527 groups from many of the activities they have been engaged in. The FEC is charged with taking enforcement action on violations, and they are not, due to their members own connections and interests. When you have a law-enforcement body refusing to enforce the law, do you give up on the law?

I know that conservatives are big on enforcing existing laws, so I'm surprised you're not more up on this.

Some reading for you:

McCain Applauds President's Commitment to Rein in 527's

McCain Applauds Decision Striking Down FEC Regulations

McCain Calls for Overhaul of Election Commission

Jim in Iowa: How does an organism work with what is already there? How did an eye develop? It was not already there? As Michael Behe argues, there are some systems that are quite complex that need to show up in a complete form.
Luigi Novi: And Behe is flat-out wrong.

The eye evolved a single, light-sensitive cell into the complex eye of today through a series of hundreds if not thousands of intermediate steps, many of which still exist in nature (the area around that set of cells could’ve then become concave socket, allowing for greater depth, later developing a lens, giving it the ability to focus, etc.).

Creationists like to argue that the evolution of the eye is akin to monkeys typing Hamlet, or even “to be or not to be,” arguing that it can’t happen by random chance. The problem is that the metaphor is completely wrong, as Michael Shermer illustrates in Why People Believe Weird Things. In order for the monkey to type the thirteen letters opening Hamlet’s soliloquy by chance, it would take 26 to the power of 13 trials for success, which is sixteen times as great as the total number of seconds that have elapsed in the lifetime of the solar system. But if each correct letter is preserved and each incorrect one eradicated (which is what actually happens in natural selection), the process operates much faster, as demonstrated by Richard Hardison’s computer program, in which letters were “selected” for or against, and took an average of only 335.2 trials to produce the sequence of letters TOBEORNOTTOBE. It takes the computer less than ninety seconds. The entire play can be done in about 4.5 days.

Behe’s argument is just an updated version of William Paley’s long-debunked Watchmaker argument, which has been refuted, most notably in Richard Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker

Jim in Iowa: As I mentioned, language has no true forerunner in the animal kingdom. There is no "primitive" language. The ability to language appears quite suddenly and with no explanation. (Bird calls, ape signs, etc., are signals, but they have no grammar, syntax, or any of the other key elements that allow humans to communicate -- as we are on this very site! For language to exist, it must occur in a community, since language only matters when it is shared with someone else.
Luigi Novi:

Jim in Iowa: There is no evolutionary/environmental theory that can explain this development.
Luigi Novi: Why do you assume that environmental theory has to explain every single phenomenon that you come up with? This is not the basis on which evolution’s validity hinges. Language is a human invention. It may stem from evolutionary neurology, but can be explained simply in terms of man’s complex intelligence. If man can invent wheels, light bulbs, plastic, computers, and rockets, why not lanuage? Do you feel all these other inventions have to be explained by evolution? If not, why language, then?

Novafan: You have no way of proving how long it took the Earth to be created.
Luigi Novi: We know from scientific evidence from fields such as geology, astronomy, cosmology, Newtonian physics, etc., that it took far longer than six days to be formed.

Novafan: The vverse merely states two straightforward facts: (1) God made animals, and (2) God brought the animals to Adam to be named."
Luigi Novi: And in describing these events the way it does, the Bible strongly indicates that man came before plants and animals. God even has Adam name the animals, which makes sense, if man came first.

Novafan: See Genesis 8:20. "And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar".
Luigi Novi: Saying seven in one verse and then two in a subsequent one isn’t “more detailed information.” It’s contradictory information.

Novafan: In Isaiah 14, we are not reading of a son being put to death for the sins of his father. Rather, as we look at the context, we understand this to be a prophecy concerning the coming destruction upon a nation.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. The chapter deals with the prophecy. The specific verse, on the other hand, is an instruction from God:

The preceding passage, for example, is written in the future tense:

20Like a corpse trampled underfoot, you will not join them in burial, for you have destroyed your land and killed your people. The offspring of the wicked will never be mentioned again.

But verse 21 isn’t. It’s written as an imperative:

21Prepare a place to slaughter his sons for the sins of their forefathers; they are not to rise to inherit the land and cover the earth with their cities.

Here, God isn’t just saying what will happen, he is instructing on the preparations for it, saying, “Prepare a place to slaughter children for their parents’ sins.”

Novafan: I honestly do not understand you Peter. You are married to a Christian woman and yet you go out of your way to debunk the New Testament. That boggles my mind. Consider me shocked.
Luigi Novi: Maybe because his wife doesn’t hold beliefs that compel her to conclude that Peter’s on the “wrong” path, or that he’s going to hell, shocking as it may be to you.

Novafan: Can you be satisfied with the fact that each and every assertion you make as a possible contradiction can be debunked by someone else as not being a contradiction? I seriously doubt it, but one has to ask.
Luigi Novi: If the flawed reasoning you offered above to rationalize the Isaiah passage is an example of what you consider “debunking,” I’d have to say no. If you can come up with something more cogent, like maybe pointing out that the original Hebrew [or whatever original language] did not phrase it in the way indicated, then yes, that would satisfy me. Since I have accepted corrections by others on matters such as this (as when one gentleman kindly debunked the notion for me that the Bible refers to bats as birds by pointing out that the original word was not “bird” but “flying animal”), then I will do the same here, Novafan.

David Bjorlin: I'm more than a little disturbed by your invocation of Jewish history to rationalize PAD's tantrums. Do you really think different rules of civility apply to different ethnic or religious groups?
Luigi Novi: No, I think that people who’ve seen things like that happen to their family may have a different view of statements like Jim’s than Christians like him may have. I personally wouldn’t care, since I’m an agnostic now, and don’t believe in the existence of heaven or hell. But I can imagine how someone like Peter for whom religion holds greater importance would see this as quite vicious. I think that Peter is human, and I admire the fact that he usually conducts himself with far more politeness than some who lob insults and Straw Men at him, and as such, he has a breaking point. I think that it’s lopsided to criticize him for his “rudeness,” but not the rudeness that provoked him (unless you did, in fact, criticize Jim in Iowa, and I just missed it—if so, I apologize). I think it’s wrong to assume that being a Christians means you have to think Jews are going to hell, as I never thought that when I was a Christian, and assume Kathleen doesn’t either. All things being equal, I don’t think Bladestartalk is the highest form of discussion here, and I commend you for avoiding that yourself, as I myself attempt to do most of the time, but everyone has their breaking point, and I think Peter’s reaction to Jim should be placed into perspective.

For what it’s worth, I was surprised by Nova being shrouded, since his expression of perplexment at Peter’s relationship to his wife vis a vis their respective religions didn’t seem offensive to me, (whereas Jim in Iowa’s statement that Peter was going to hell WAS), but then, I’m not in Peter’s head.

David Bjorlin: In this debate, of course, Jim in Iowa has remained respectful and polite throughout, so someone is being shown up; arguably it's the wrong person, or people.
Luigi Novi: Jim in Iowa has not remained respectful throughout. On that, we’re going to have to agree to disagree.

David Bjorlin: Oh for God's sake. For the millionth time, Al Gore really DID have a brain fart on March 11, 1999, during an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet,” said Gore. He actually DOES deserve a lot of credit for being an early supporter of a civilian internet, so he's guilty only of hyperbole.
Luigi Novi: Or bad phrasing. I somehow doubt that he would actually attempt to assert such a blatant lie that he would have to know would be easily debunked. Given how others have twisted his words on Love Canal and Love Story, his attackers deserve far more scorn, particularly since they are not as fair as you to conclude hyperbole rather than outright lying.

Peter David: As for liberals practicing what they preach, well--I'd wager that both liberals and conservatives preach tolerance. However, I would suspect that if you tally up the number of conservatives who show up and badger liberal bloggers as opposed to liberals who show up and badger conservative bloggers, it's going to tip heavily to the former.
Luigi Novi: Personally, I would not have known one way or the other. May I ask, Peter, what observation or evidence you have for this? (Just curious.)

Peter David: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm done with Novafan. He's shrouded. I will not be responding to him, acknowleding his posts or his existence. He is, as far as the host of this board is concerned, dead. Others may commune with the dead as they see fit.
Luigi Novi: And remember, guys, that Novafan. Not Luigi Novi. :-)

Luigi Novi: We know from scientific evidence from fields such as geology, astronomy, cosmology, Newtonian physics, etc., that it took far longer than six days to be formed.

Oh yeah, like scientific evidence isn't flawed? It still isn't a proven fact that the world took longer than 6 days to form. If it did take longer than 6 days, then prove it beyond any shadow of doubt.

Novafan

Luigi Novi: Maybe because his wife doesn’t hold beliefs that compel her to conclude that Peter’s on the “wrong” path, or that he’s going to hell, shocking as it may be to you.

I never said Peter was going to Hell. Shocking as it may be to you, he told me to go to Hell. Isn't it amazing how you never saw that, or if you did, failed to respond, which in essense means you pretended not to see it.

Luigi Novi: Or bad phrasing. I somehow doubt that he would actually attempt to assert such a blatant lie that he would have to know would be easily debunked. Given how others have twisted his words on Love Canal and Love Story, his attackers deserve far more scorn, particularly since they are not as fair as you to conclude hyperbole rather than outright lying.

Of course not, why would you or liberals in general think that a fellow liberal whould tell a blatant lie. I bet you would go so far as to say liberals never lie, it's only conservatives twisting their words.

Luigi Novi: And remember, guys, that Novafan. Not Luigi Novi. :-)

See, now there you go. You have to point out something over and over again. You would beat on a dead horse wouldn't you? Bah!

Luigi Novi: If the flawed reasoning you offered above to rationalize the Isaiah passage is an example of what you consider “debunking,” I’d have to say no. If you can come up with something more cogent, like maybe pointing out that the original Hebrew [or whatever original language] did not phrase it in the way indicated, then yes, that would satisfy me

So something has to actually satisfy you in order to meet your definition of "debunking". I don't believe anybody in here can actually satisfy you unless of course it's one of your liberal cohorts pointing something out, even if it's wrong. Then, you would probably be satisfied wouldn't you.

Luigi said For what it’s worth, I was surprised by Nova being shrouded, since his expression of perplexment at Peter’s relationship to his wife vis a vis their respective religions didn’t seem offensive to me, (whereas Jim in Iowa’s statement that Peter was going to hell WAS), but then, I’m not in Peter’s head.

Luigi, sometimes you say things that suprise me. Thanks for your comments.

...unshroud comments...

Hope you all have a Happy Thanksgiving.

...shroud comments again... :0)

Novafan: Oh yeah, like scientific evidence isn't flawed?
Luigi Novi: In what way is it flawed? Tell me your problems with it.

Novafan: It still isn't a proven fact that the world took longer than 6 days to form.
Luigi Novi: We know from physics, geology, and various dating methods that planetary material cannot coalesce and cool in 6 days.

Novafan: I never said Peter was going to Hell.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say you did. My statement was made in response to your incredulity as to how a Jew and a Christian can coexist in a relationship without allowing their different views on religion (or the NT in particular) to stand in the way of their relationship. Since I’m assuming Kathleen isn’t the Jim-in-Iowa type of Christian who tells Jews they’re going to hell, and since I’m assuming Peter doesn’t have equivalent feelings for non-Jews, this is how they can be married while holding different views of the NT.

Novafan: Shocking as it may be to you, he told me to go to Hell. Isn't it amazing how you never saw that, or if you did, failed to respond, which in essense means you pretended not to see it.
Luigi Novi: No, it doesn’t mean that at all. This is simply a False Either/Or Fallacy, wherein you presume as fact that there are only a finite number of explanations that you deem fit to recognize. I did see Peter say that, and saw no reason to respond to it because he was right, and because I had nothing to add to it. Peter has already gone on record as saying that Bush did not cause 9/11, nor knew of it in advance, and that (IIRC) no one could’ve completely prevented it entirely. Putting words to the opposite effect in his mouth was deserving of the scorn with which he responded to you, as was “essentially” calling him a liar, and implying that the content of his blog entries is up to anyone other than him.

Novafan: Of course not, why would you or liberals in general think that a fellow liberal whould tell a blatant lie.
Luigi Novi:

1. I do not consider myself a liberal.
2. I did not say that liberals do not lie, and in point of fact, we all know that they do. The issue is not the Straw Man of whether liberals would tell lies. The issue is whether someone like Gore would actually try to tell such an obvious one that he knows matters of record to easily and publicly disprove. The origins of the Net are well-documented, and not the sort of thing someone would get away with for any length of time. Politicians’ lies are usually centered around matters that they think will not be easily disproven.

Novafan: I bet you would go so far as to say liberals never lie, it's only conservatives twisting their words.
Luigi Novi: Nope. Liberals lie. Nice Straw Man.

Novafan: See, now there you go. You have to point out something over and over again. You would beat on a dead horse wouldn't you? Bah!
Luigi Novi: You’re angry because I made (clearly, I thought, given the smiley) joking reference to the fact that we have similar names?

Luigi Novi: If the flawed reasoning you offered above to rationalize the Isaiah passage is an example of what you consider “debunking,” I’d have to say no. If you can come up with something more cogent, like maybe pointing out that the original Hebrew [or whatever original language] did not phrase it in the way indicated, then yes, that would satisfy me.

Novafan: So something has to actually satisfy you in order to meet your definition of "debunking".
Luigi Novi: Putting aside the circular the nature of this wording, I made quite clear what the criteria was, as you yourself quoted it, though ignored it:

Cogent reasoning.

So who’s now “essentially pretending not to see” things?

Saying that a subsequent statement of “seven” after an initial statement of “two” is an example of “more detailed” info rather than contradictory info is not cogent reasoning. Arguing that a passages clearly phrased in the imperative is actually simply descriptive—simply because the contextual chapter is descriptive—is not cogent reasoning. It’s intellectually dishonest rationalization.

Novafan: I don't believe anybody in here can actually satisfy you unless of course it's one of your liberal cohorts pointing something out, even if it's wrong. Then, you would probably be satisfied wouldn't you.
Luigi Novi: Putting aside the fact that I’m not a liberal, and the ad hominem nature of this argument, I already stated to you an example where someone explained to me how a particular Biblical passage long cited by critics is actually not false at all. So your statement is disproven (unless you think I’m somehow lying). Did you not see this above?

Happy Thanksgiving to you too. :-)

And Jerome, thanks for the compliment above. I forgot to mention that earlier.

I know that conservatives are big on enforcing existing laws, so I'm surprised you're not more up on this

I believe that if the FEC had supported the existing laws before CFR was reformed and that politicians were abiding by the laws that they helped write, there wouldn't have been a NEED for CFR in the first place.

The simple fact that the FEC refused to act on a number of complaints due, as the courts call it, to "misinterpretation" of the law confirms that I was right and there are loopholes in CFR. All the court battles are nothing more than an after the fact attempt to plug a few holes. They'll find others.

uigi Novi: Personally, I would not have known one way or the other. May I ask, Peter, what observation or evidence you have for this? (Just curious.)"

Purely anecdotal. Any number of times, people have referenced conservative sites and blogs. And for grins and giggles, I've read message boards and comments in both places. And basically what I've seen is bunches of conservatives excoriating liberals and liberal thinking, blaming everything from the spiralling national debt to 9/11 on the Clintons...

...and no liberals responding.

Now as I said, purely anecdotal. Perhaps there are days where liberals show up in force at conservative bastions. But it's nothing that I've seen myself.

PAD

You should have been at Lucianne.com up to the day of the election--lots of liberals gloating over the impending demise of the Evil Regime Of Smirky McChimp.

Stangely, they've been more quite of late.

My own anecdotal account would be that the conservative blogs I've seen tend to have one or two persistant site pests who have adopted the site as their own little street corner to stink up--basically, liberal Dee or Novafans.

Of course, it's no surprise that your site has a solid core of people who disagree with your politics since the thing that brings most people here is something other than politics. Enjoyment of good writing tends to cut across political lines.

I'd wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving, but I don't want to be accused of trying to push my religion down anyone's throat.

Dumbass, eclark.

Thanksgiving isn't a religious holiday.

Happy Native American Oppression Day, everyone!

:-)

Bill Mulligan said My own anecdotal account would be that the conservative blogs I've seen tend to have one or two persistant site pests who have adopted the site as their own little street corner to stink up--basically, liberal Dee or Novafans.

Oh, so now I'm a site pest. Nice one Bill. Does anyone else have anything nice to say to me?

Come on, why hold back. Let me know how you really feel Bill and everyone else for that matter.

Go more generic with the holiday greetings...

"Happy Whatever-the-Hell-You-Freaks-Celebrate!"

Site pest, or an unflushable, both work for you

The simple fact that the FEC refused to act on a number of complaints due, as the courts call it, to "misinterpretation" of the law confirms that I was right and there are loopholes in CFR.

So if, for example, a police department chose to interpret the law as allowing them to receive bribes, you would blame the law for having loopholes, rather than the police for not upholding it?

"Let me know how you really feel Bill and everyone else for that matter."

Well, for starters, you're something of a masochist and/or just desperate for attention. You've alienated/irritated just about everyone here regardless of political persuasion. I know it's fashionable to say something like "If you've outraged everybody you must be doing something right!" but that was always a bogus bromide. Usually when you've managed to outrage everyone you have merely suceeded in being outrageous which, even in this ever more jaded world, is a lot easier than folks make it out to be.

And, in fairness, you're no Dee. I'll take that back. Bringing up PAD's family was a mistake though, even if you did not mean anything malicious. Bringing up a guy's family to score a point is tricky and likely to backfire (see Kerry, John).

Bill said You've alienated/irritated just about everyone here regardless of political persuasion.

Oh, how so. I'd really like to know which one of my posts irritated you so. I don't recall hearing you whine before, unless I missed it and forgot.

Why do you wait until a guy is down to kick him? The one thing I like about liberals is they let you know exactly how they feel right away, they don't wait until someone's being beaten down by someone else to open up their mouth.

Big Thumbs up to liberals there.

So if, for example, a police department chose to interpret the law as allowing them to receive bribes, you would blame the law for having loopholes, rather than the police for not upholding it?

Well, yeah, wouldn't you? I mean there has to be some ambiguous language in there that allows them to interpret the law that way. Now if you're saying they're taking a law like : Murder is illegal", and interpreting it to mean "Hey we can take bribes!", you have a bigger problem than police not upholding the law.

I mean, come on Matt, let's take a look at the Patriot Act, for example. It's a pretty benign law, design to help catch terrorists and save lives. So why are people so afraid of it? Because they're afraid of the people who use it abusing the law and their civl rights. So is anyone talking about keeping the police from abusing the law? No, they're talking about either weakening the law drastically or scrapping it all together.

I think any law or policy that allows the groups that use it to self-supervise themselves opens itself up to abuse by that group.

Bladestar:
Dumbass, eclark.

Thanksgiving isn't a religious holiday.

For God's sake, Bladestar, read a history book, man! Then think about recent court rulings.

Bladestar said Site pest, or an unflushable, both work for you

I love you man. :0)

Bill said liberal Dee or Novafans

BTW, it's Novafan without the s. If you're going to slam me, at least get it right.

Sheesh.

Novafan (Bill's masochist and/or just desperate for attention getter)

there has to be some ambiguous language in there that allows them to interpret the law that way.

Not necessarily. Saying someone misinterpreted something doesn't imply that the misinterpretation was reasonable. Someone can blatantly and deliberately misinterpet something that is otherwise perfectly clear, just to suit their own ends. People frequently do.

And in the case of CFR, if the law was ambiguous enough to allow for their interpretation, the court would not have ruled their interpretation invalid. Their ruling is basically saying "The law clearly says one thing, and you did something else."

Bladestar, whom I really hope was trying to make a joke, called someone else a dumbass and wrote, Thanksgiving isn't a religious holiday.

Thanksgiving? To whom or what do you suppose that the thanks is to be given? There is a definitive answer to this question, from the origin of the holiday. Abraham Lincoln, in establishing an annual Thanksgiving beginning in November 1863, declared, "I do, therefor, invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens." (quote courtesy of wikipedia)

Al-Zarqawi Lieutenant Arrested in Mosul

Thank goodness. Hopefully his boss will be rooted out and found soon.

A poster wrote:
"Peter,
If you're feeling very short-fused or even actively not enjoying the blog...know that taking a day, a few, a week, etc. and shutting it down for a break or stepping a way to relax from it is not only OK...but your perogative. Not saying that you should, just saying you could."

No! Really?! What a service, taling a beloved and best-selling writer that HE can actually shut down HIS blog if HE wants to.
Of all the arrogant, smug, condescending posts. What a know-nothing kiss-ass.

Matt Adler,
"I would venture a guess that the people who come here for the political debates rather than discussing your work, have little or no interest in your work."
I disagree. First, I feel most of the people who come here actually are fans of PAD's work to begin with. Judging from the posts i've read from people in the ten months I've been consistently visiting this blog, I'm pretty sure that's correct, although only PAD and Glenn would know for sure.

"I'm sure you remember that guy on the AOL board who freely admitted as much."
One person who helps support your statement is hardly enough to make it correct.

"Basically, just think the politics stuff attracts all the wrong sort of people."
Really? And what sort of people might they be. We have teachers, writers, and all sorts of people from all walks of life that post on this blog.
If you really look at this tread, there is a heck of a lot of hard information there and some thought-provoking (if somewhat hot at times) opinions.
Look at all the topics covered here: Creationism, the role of religion in government, validity of the election, to what extent one should question the government, gay marriage as a civil rights issue and a lot of other stuff. Most of it has been discussed and debated inteligently.
What you may see as nastiness, I see as an interesting, scintillating discussion. In all my time here, there is only one consistent poster who I consider to be a douchebag. That's a pretty good ratio.

"The people who are interested in your work will continue to come here and hear about it, or even just to hear your thoughts on related entertainment subjects."
Seeing as how can only speak for myself, let me say that in my case you are incorrect.
As PAD stated, look at how many more posts his political threads garner. This particular thread has been going strong for an incredible THREE WEEKS!
So I - and others - keep coming back to it. In the process we see a thread about "Fallen Angel" or "Madrox" and remember to go there.
I find some of these political discussions positively addictive. They are, for the most part, far more reasonable and knowledgeable and though-provoking than conversations I have with many of my POLITICAL friends, let alone the Joe Sixpack I run into at the neighborhood pub.
But another reason the political threads get so much more hts than the ones concerning PAD'S work, I feel, is obvious.
Since the majority of us that come here are fans of PAD's work, when a thread about his latest issue/novel comes out, the opinions are - with some exceptions - likely to be uniform. If it's a new issue of "Fallen Angel", for example, most people who bother to post on the thread are those who have read it. Chances are they are going to like it. So there is little disagreement or give and take.
If the thread is about that a book PAD is writing is being cancelled, well, again, since the vast majority of the posters are PAD's fans, they will be upset about it. They may post once stating that, and that's it.
But when the subject centers on a political topic, all of us who are united by our fondness for PAD's work suddenly have divergent opinions. There is debate, give and take, and sometimes the conversation will morph into another topic and the debate will start again.
I see nothing wrong with this, and find this blog both enjoyable and informative.
And, as PAD has stated, it does help his sales. I, for example, though I own and have read almost all of PAD's comics and novels, I did not like the first three issues of "Fallen Angel" and dropped it.
But since i found myself continuously drawn to this site for the political discussions, would inevitably click on his many threads regarding "Fallen Angel". Seeing his obvious passion to keep the book alive in these threads, which I would not have bothered to seek out if I weren't coming back almost every day to see the political threads, I decided I had to give this book another shot.
So I now have issues #12-17, and don't plan on stopping until the book ends. Even though it's still far from my favorite, it's gotten a lot better (in my opinion) and I feel the passion PAD shows for it should be rewarded and is definitely worth my three George Washingtons every month.
Thanks, PAD!

Matt Adler and eClark,
I personally feel CFR is an abomination. If we take a step further and obliterate the 527s, then we are letting the politicians, the press and the parties control the message.
People SHOULD be able to listen to and read material from everyone from the Swift Boat Vets to MoveOn.Org and everyone else and take the time to weigh it all.
CFR is such a crock, since it limits the ability for people to question their government.

Novafan says:

"Bill said You've alienated/irritated just about everyone here regardless of political persuasion.

Oh, how so. I'd really like to know which one of my posts irritated you so. I don't recall hearing you whine before, unless I missed it and forgot.

Why do you wait until a guy is down to kick him? The one thing I like about liberals is they let you know exactly how they feel right away, they don't wait until someone's being beaten down by someone else to open up their mouth.

Big Thumbs up to liberals there."

Ok, say the above in a real whiney Eric Cartman voice and you may have an idea of what I'm talking about. And knock off the "poor poor pitiful me" routine. As my grandpappy said when I fell out of the pecan tree and broke both my legs, "Take two toughen ups, boy, and call me in the morning!"

Bill said And knock off the "poor poor pitiful me" routine.

You're the worst kind of Conservative. The kind that has no backbone. I've yet to see a post from you that makes people go out of their way to respond. At least several of my posts have sparked many debates. What have you done to act as a catalyst?

Next time I make a post that ruffles your feathers, speak up and say something. Or, just shut your mouth until WAY after the fact as you just recently did and prove the no backbone comment. I'm finished with you.

'nuff said

Novafan

David Bjorlin: Thanksgiving? To whom or what do you suppose that the thanks is to be given? There is a definitive answer to this question, from the origin of the holiday. Abraham Lincoln, in establishing an annual Thanksgiving beginning in November 1863, declared, "I do, therefor, invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens." (quote courtesy of wikipedia)
Luigi Novi: So the holiday is religious simply because a religious idea was invoked in a speech when it was declared one? Me, I see it as merely one that commemorates a historical event, much like the Fourth of July.

Fred Chamberlain: Peter, I certainly don't know you on a personal level, but if you are feeling very short-fused or even actively not enjoying the blog right now, just know that taking a day, a few, a week, etc and shutting it down for a break or stepping away to relax from it is not only ok.... but your perogative. Not saying that you should, just saying you could.

I enjoy this place. I enjoy much of the discussions and many of the posters here. I wouldn't be thrilled to see it go away. I'd much rather it or you take a brief break than become so frustrated or upset that you say the hell with it for good. Be healthy and don't forget to hug the kids, kiss the wife and smile. :)

Jerome Maida: No! Really?! What a service, taling a beloved and best-selling writer that HE can actually shut down HIS blog if HE wants to. Of all the arrogant, smug, condescending posts. What a know-nothing kiss-ass.
Luigi Novi: I don’t see anything arrogant, smug, condescending or “kiss-ass” in that post at all. Its tone seems to be one of friendly reassurance, a tone that is somewhat obscured by the omission of the second paragraph in your quote. What’s arrogant or smug or condescending about “Be healthy and don’t forget to hug the kids, kiss the wife and smile”?

> Luigi Novi:

>Its tone seems to be one of friendly reassurance

You are correct, sir. :)

Novafan says:

"You're the worst kind of Conservative."

Actually, the kind who show up at the funerals of a homosexual with signs saying "Fags go to hell" and stuff like that are a LITTLE worse.

"The kind that has no backbone. I've yet to see a post from you that makes people go out of their way to respond. At least several of my posts have sparked many debates. What have you done to act as a catalyst? "

Gee, didn't know that was my purpose in life. I'll get right on it, sir.

"Next time I make a post that ruffles your feathers, speak up and say something. Or, just shut your mouth until WAY after the fact as you just recently did and prove the no backbone comment."

Nothing you said much interested me. My lumping you in with Dee (which, as I said, was unfair) was more a reflection on the sheer NUMBER of uninteresting posts.

"I'm finished with you."

Well, we'll always have Paris.

I will say one nice thing about you--I don't see much evidence that you've changed many minds but you are still plugging away. You have persistance, I'll give you that.

Luigi Novi: So the holiday is religious simply because a religious idea was invoked in a speech when it was declared one? Me, I see it as merely one that commemorates a historical event, much like the Fourth of July.

Or Easter. That commemorates an historical event. Admittedly it's an historical event that only Christians think happened, but still. Or how about Hanukah (however spelled)? That commemorates an historical event. Nothing religious about either of them. Nope.

Seriously, the historical event it commemorates was a religious celebration. The "speech" creating the current holiday was expressly a religious celebration. The name of the damn thing is "thanks giving"-- the thanks being given to a deity. While it is possible for a holiday to become so attenuated from its religious origin as to become a secular celebration-- such as has nearly happened with Christmas, and such as has happened with the word "holiday" itself-- for most of the denizens of the United States, Thanksgiving has overtly religious significance. It's utterly nondenominational, but religious nonetheless.

The name of the damn thing is "thanks giving"-- the thanks being given to a deity.

So it isn't thanks from the Pilgrims to the Native Americans for keeping their Pilgrim asses from starving as I was taught growing up? :)

Bill said Nothing you said much interested me. My lumping you in with Dee (which, as I said, was unfair) was more a reflection on the sheer NUMBER of uninteresting posts.

So if a post or many posts from one poster are not interesting to you, that means the poster is a site pest. Come on man. That comment was uncalled for. Then I asked for you to say how you really felt, which I was being facetious BTW, and you continued to insult me again. I personally don't care if you like me or not, but what you said was uncalled for. Plain and simple.

Instead of all the personal attacks, which the last part of this thread has been, why don't you post things that interest you. This goes for everyone who's come in here and made personal attacks instead of adding to the debate, whichever one it is, at the time.

Ok, ok, Novafan, I apologize. I didn't mean to be as insulting as it came out. It's normally not my nature to deliberately try to hurt any feelings.

It's not a matter of liking you or not, obviously I don't know you enough to like you or dislike you and it may well be true that the tone I'm getting off your posts is not what was in your mind when you typed it.

This thread's gotten so ungainly I can't keep track of who said what anymore.

"So it isn't thanks from the Pilgrims to the Native Americans for keeping their Pilgrim asses from starving as I was taught growing up? :)"

No, it wasn't. The locals didn't keep the Pilgrims from starving - probably would have helped it happen, if they could...

As regards other things you probably learned growing up, Marconi didn't really invent radio, Ford didn't invent the automobile, and Franklin didn't discover electricity. Had to unlearn two of those myself...

As regards other things you probably learned growing up,

Don't recall reading anything about the invention of the radio, to be honest.

Although, in a few years, they can start teaching kids about how Gore invented the Internet. ;)

Luigi,
Sorry if I came off a bit temperamental in my last posts. The REASON I omitted the second paragraph (which WAS quite touching) in my response is because I felt the tone of the first paragraph was extremely condescending.
Look at it again, the poster is not even saying PAD SHOULD do something (presumably out of concern) but that he COULD, as if a best-selling writer didn't realize that he could take a few days off from his blog.
To be fair, I will freely admit that may be hypersensitive to this way of talking/thinking/oversensitivity. I have a relative who the rest of my family insists on treating as a child just because she's older.
Sorry for (possibly irrationally) blowing up.

Where is everyone? First time I've checked this thread in 3 weeks and the last post was dated Nov 27. :-0