Caption Contest
 

Where is there a law on the books about evolution? and the only reason you guys don't have your laws on the books is that most people in this country realize you're a bunch of feeble brains, no offense. it sure as shit isn't that your leaders tell your fringe groups to pipe down. Hell look here, Ty has never told Fringe or Taxwonk there nuts. Why?*

Where one does see the influence is in schools, in textbooks, in curriculems, because the great bulk of school teachers are Democrats. Speaking of a cancer....




*gratuitous TW insult of the day

Caption Contest
 

Did that ebonics thing ever get any traction? What a joke. At least Bill Cosby and Chris Rock have spoken out against that foolishness.

I particularly like Chris Rock's explanation: "There are two ways of speaking -- Ebonics, and How-You-Need-To-Speak-If-You-Want-To-GET-A-Job."

Caption Contest
 

Sad news. I was going to respond to this from the shizzalator and i find you can no longer have specific quotes translated- just webpages, 'n shit.

anyway, where do I go for my kid to be taught about creationism and not evolution? I am not aware of any school. I do know where to send my kids to learn that Europeans have pretty much fucked up things across North America since day 1.

Caption Contest
 

Kansas, Dorothy.

eta: My bad. Evolution can now be taught in Kansas.

This article has a chart you might find helpful in selecting your next residence.

http://www.infidels.org/activist/state/evolution.shtml

Caption Contest
 

The fear of the unknown. There's your answer. Again. For the 100th time.

I am personally afraid because, well, contrary to my persona here (which derives from hating my work), I actually love my life. I don't want it to end, so my fear, which may be unique, is not really so much fear as anger at having to end the party. I've actually been pretty lucky in life so far. I like this gig. So my fear is that all I know and dig will end.

I have no fear at all of a vengeful god. None. Nada, as you say. You fear my lack of fear because people who don't live in little moral boxes like the one you've built for yourself challenge your raison d'etre. You're a judgmental little man. You don't like having someone bend your beliefs. Its obvious from your debate tactics, where you say things like "There could be no fear of anything but a vengeful god," even though thats clearly not true. Thats "putting the rabbit in the hat" and its the surest sign that the opponent has no argument. I threaten you because I don't play your game. Thats why you keep writing things like "You'll come back to mass" to fuck with me. Unconsciously, you show your hand. You're so rigidly tied to your beliefs that you can't even discuss the possibilty that they might illogical and futile.

You are, like the God Guns and Gays contingent, a "true believer". You just like to call yourself a libertarian because you know this board leans a tad liberal and you want to sustain som intellectual cachet. But I know what you are, and I'm hardly the smartest person on these boards... So consider just how transparent you are to the rest.

Unless, of course, you're a troll, in which case, I tip my hat and say "touche."

Caption Contest
 

Don't you get it? She just beat you like a red headed stepchild. I've slapped you all over the board for the past day.

You don't nail a difficult witness on cross by getting him to break down and admit his lies. People like you never do that.

You push the witness here, then push him there, and you have him create a pile of little absurd statements in respinse to what you ask. The pile eventually gets pretty big and the conclusion that he's a fool is obvious.

You don't work in court, do you? Nobody who's ever been in court could get rope-a-doped and drawn out as a fool as much as you.

Caption Contest
 

Oy vey, Sebby, no wonder this country's incarceration rate is so high. Don't blame me for not going beyond the first line in your post.


Let me summarize this. There's nothing (you said). Then fear (you said). Then there's maybe fear ain't the right word (you said), but you don't have another. Now its back to fear (see quote above).

As previously stated, there is no fear of nothing. You are afraid of something, and its not nothing. In fact, its a big mean hairy God behind door #1. And He might be pissed that you say things you don't really believe, like that he doesn't exist.


Hello

Caption Contest
 

Yeah, calling someone names, retreating from positions, calling in a rear guard, and then declaring victory sure sounds like you won. I tell ya what, if I agree that you won, will you resign as a moderator from your dead board so I can put you on ignore? Seriously, I can't imagine anyone wants to read this exchange anymore.

Caption Contest
 

Oh no you don't. Re-Read the rest of my post - the part you didn't want to address. Then respond.

Caption Contest
 

No. I won't let you go because I think people like you are the sort who are ruining this country, and I intend to out every specious position you take (when I'm the office of course - when I'm out you'll be free to prevaricate and misrepresent all you like).

You and people who think like you are dumbing this country down. You're taking us backwards.

Caption Contest
 

1. Incarceration rate? WTF?

2. Your literal use of "fear" reminds me of Bush's "global test" misrepresentations. It didn't work for him, it won't work for you. "Fear of the unknown" does not mean "fear of a vengeful god."

3. As to your third paragraph, remember what I said about "little absurdities" adding up? Its all going in the record, counselor.

Caption Contest
 

If you could state, maintain and defend a coherent position to save your life, you could try selling it to someone. I'm pretty sure the religious faith of your euthanized cat just doesn't work.

Caption Contest
 

The technical word is "venial", but venal works too.

S_A_M

Caption Contest
 

Has anyone ever won with you at their side?

What it means to be a conservative today
 

I was actually responding to Hello, with whom I was having this exchange before you happened along -- welcome -- and who posted something to the effect that it was Bremer's decision to disband the army -- not Rumsfeld or the White House. Hello did not explicitly say so, but the reason to point that out is to blame Bremer and absolve the White House for what has turned out to be a catastrophic decision.

So if I appear to be dancing, perhaps it's because I'm talking to two defenders of the Administration who are saying contradictory things. Hello wants to pin things on Bremer; you don't, but you think the decision to disband the army wasn't so bad.

To my understanding, Bremer's not exactly criticizing the Admininstration. He's speaking frankly to small groups where he doesn't think his views will be reported, and some of it -- e.g., that he had requested more troops, despite the Bush campaign's line that he'll give the generals what the want -- got out. Since then, he's grovelled. Calling the decision to disband the Iraqi army "Bremer's judgment" is wrong -- it goes well beyond what that NYT article said, and contradicts what's been reported all over the place. Garner lost his job over this issue, I believe.

For you, cheap.

On this Kerry-unilateral-force thing, what do you want to hear? He's said he would use unilateral force. He thinks Bush made a poor decision in Iraq. Do you want Kerry to answer hypotheticals? Does he get to object that they're incomplete?

War will not go perfectly, no doubt. Indeed, the principle basis I had for opposing the war was that things tend to go wrong -- you may recall that I argued that this was the conservative point of view.

But the decision to disband the Iraqi army seems to have been the biggest single blunder made in the whole campaign. I'm not particularly interested in debate the subjective intentions of whoever it was that made that choice, because whatever they may have been thinking, they royally fucked up, and a lot of Americans and Iraqis*are dead as a result. In most places, if you fuck up something on this order, you lose your job.


* and Poles.

What it means to be a conservative today
 

I wonder if that is spin from the admin. now that Bremer has gone off the reservation. I've read something before (months ago) from a source within the CPA which blamed the decision to disband the Iraqi Army on the Pantagon, or at least Washington.

S_A_M

NYT: Kerry Film Should be Aired by Network TV
 

That the NYT gave it a good review and is proposing it be aired everywhere.

Love me, love me, love me -- I'm a liberal
 

It's a funny week for bilmore to roll out the "seed corn" metaphor, since that's how a lot of bloggers were talking about the Army's decision to deploy the Eleventh Armored Cavalry Regiment to Iraq. This unit is the "OPFOR" at the Fort Irwin National Training Center, and plays the role of enemy forces for exercises with other units. Phil Carter, a veteran and a journalist, quoted a LA Times story on this (see here) and said:

• Deploying the OPFOR is like eating your seed corn. This unit is responsible for training other units and raising their level of expertise and combat readiness. The 11th ACR is being replaced by a National Guard unit. That's like replacing the Dodgers with a high school baseball team. Sure, they can both play baseball and wear the uniform — but one is a whole lot more proficient and experienced at its job. The OPFOR has a reputation as a tough enemy, and that's a good thing because it forces units training at the NTC to become better themselves. By replacing this unit with National Guard troops, the Army has hurt its ability to produce good units for Iraq in the future. Suffice to say, National Guard and active units that go through Fort Irwin aren't going to get the same tough experience they would have with the Blackhorse regiment as OPFOR — and that means they'll be less ready for combat when they get to Iraq. This is a desperation measure, and I think the Army will come to regret it.

Caption Contest
 

Are you high? Let me tell you what the priest said last week in husband's church. "i don't want to get into talking about politics, but just for the record, stem cell research is wrong and abortion is wrong and the church is against it. I'm not telling you how to vote, but you should vote for Bush because he is against these things."
In church. On Sunday.

Caption Contest
 

Please don't say Catholic. Please don't say Catholic. Please don't say Catholic.

What it means to be a conservative today
 

Don't forget all those Marshall Islanders.*

*Is this a country or a hockey team?

What it means to be a conservative today
 

I wonder myself, but its not like it absolves the administration if it is. He was still their guy. And, of course, it simply would not surprise me if this insanity came from the civilians at the top of the Pentagon.

Caption Contest
 

Yes. I don't think it is _total_ crap. Give me a break, I was trying to encapsulate every political philosophy know to man in a two sentence analogy. It is obviously imprecise and overly simplistic.

Also, that statement had several subparts, with which do you disagree? Also, remember the characteristics of mirror images -- its not that they are identical, its that the picture is backwards/opposite.

Remember this was in the context of a discussion with Hello about fascism as a poltical philosophy, and its distinctions from communism and socialism as philosophies (not about the real world examples of attempts to implement modified versions of those theories.)

S_A_M

[edited to remove random words at the end.]

Caption Contest
 

Excuse me if I'm wrong, since I am not a Catholic, but isn't that the only church that calls their guys priests? Aren't the rest reverends or pastors or something?

Yes CATHOLIC CHURCH. Politics in church.

Caption Contest
 

Actually I was discussing them as political theories and philosophies, without reference to any particular regime.

Fascism is not coterminous with National Socialism, and we're not talking about your "Right."

S_A_M

Caption Contest
 

okay so near here its melvindale, that hotbed of conservatism. You know who's the Congressman there? John Conyers. Conyers is not one of the Dems voting for Bush by the way. Obviously this is not a party line issue.

Caption Contest
 

I can't understand for the life of me why you keep bitching at _us_ for that Hank. It was your Supreme Court, after all, and your military, that let him go.

S_A_M

Caption Contest
 

Anglican has priests. Or so they did when I last went to church.

Also there are priests and priestesses of Wicca, but I'm fairly certain that your husband does not attend a Wiccan church.

Caption Contest
 

Interesting, now, address the position raised:

"I am personally afraid because, well, contrary to my persona here (which derives from hating my work), I actually love my life. I don't want it to end, so my fear, which may be unique, is not really so much fear as anger at having to end the party. I've actually been pretty lucky in life so far. I like this gig. So my fear is that all I know and dig will end.

I have no fear at all of a vengeful god. None. Nada, as you say. You fear my lack of fear because people who don't live in little moral boxes like the one you've built for yourself challenge your raison d'etre. You're a judgmental little man. You don't like having someone bend your beliefs. Its obvious from your debate tactics, where you say things like "There could be no fear of anything but a vengeful god," even though thats clearly not true. Thats "putting the rabbit in the hat" and its the surest sign that the opponent has no argument. I threaten you because I don't play your game. Thats why you keep writing things like "You'll come back to mass" to fuck with me. Unconsciously, you show your hand. You're so rigidly tied to your beliefs that you can't even discuss the possibilty that they might illogical and futile.

You are, like the God Guns and Gays contingent, a "true believer". You just like to call yourself a libertarian because you know this board leans a tad liberal and you want to sustain som intellectual cachet. But I know what you are, and I'm hardly the smartest person on these boards... So consider just how transparent you are to the rest."

Caption Contest
 

and I'm sure that's different from Clergy, like big Al, saying everyone who listens to him better vote for Kerry, and its different from an inner city baptist reverand saying you better vote for Kerry, but please explain why its different.

just so we're clear, these personal attacks may serve you well on the FB, but thet have no place here. We come here for civil discourse, not undeserved slurs.

Caption Contest
 

Episcopalians call their guys (and gals) priests.

Caption Contest
 

My "Right" has been the subject of several editorials posted on these boards the last few days. I did misread your statement that Bilmore was responding to though. I thought "cylinder" like where the two ends meet (which seems to happen in the real life perceptions of the extreme left and right... Gulags/Concentration Camps). In terms of theories, I like the mirror concept (inverted image) you just posted better. The disconnect between the perceived/characterized "right" and "left" and the theory explains how the characterizations have become so completely perjorative to large parts of the public.

Which is all to say, the editorialists are right. The citizens of the Right need to evict the pretenders because they are tearing the place up.

Caption Contest
 

Are you still talking?

Caption Contest
 

Apropos of your conversation about fascism, I refer you to "What Was Fascism?" by Adrian Lyttleton in the Oct. 21, 2004 issue of the New York Review of Books (on-line version for subscribers only, alas), a review of The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert O. Paxton. It starts:

An interesting review, and it sounds like a good book. Buy it from Amazon through lawtalkers' link, and let me know whether it's worth reading.

Caption Contest
 

Hell, they've been pulling that shit here in PA since the mid 80s when Casey, a pro-life candidate, was running for governor.*

* To Casey's credit, he bucked the political machine by refusing to endorse the death penalty, and would not sign a death warrant in office. Of course, the people who cry about stem cell research today don't mention iraq or the death penalty. Their latest trick to get around the contradiction of favoring the DP while opposing stem cells/abortion os to characterize abortion and stem cell research as "non-debatable", "urgent" and "foundational" (a word with no real meaning) and the war and DP as "debatable". Interesting. The gibberish explanation offered makes no sense, but the long and the short of it is, "We don't care as much about dead Ameircan and Iraqis, or the moral issues attendant to executing people as we do about preventing people from being able to use stem cells and stopping pregnancies."

I applaud the Church, I really do. Its a hell of a thing to say "Damnit, we've got no ground to stand on here, but we still expect you to listen to us."

Caption Contest
 

That statement can cost the church it's tax exemption.

Usually, every four years, the IRS attacks one church encouraging voting for each candidate in order to make an example. But I haven't heard about it happening this year.

Caption Contest
 

Sorry -- repeated a post.

S_A_M:rolleyes:

Caption Contest
 

I may. Walter Laquer had a good book on the subject, but its a bit long in the tooth now.

Caption Contest
 

Well, the only one other than Orthodox, most Episcopal or Anglican churches, and a few other denominations (Coptic, etc.). Generally, any Christian denomination that has a sacrifical mass or its equivalent uses the term priest (plus Anglican's, who aren't into trans.). Some of the Western protestant churches still use the term, but most rejected it as part of rejecting transubstantion.

The term also gets used in a lot of non-Christian religions, like Shinto Priests, but I suspect that's a translation issue more than anything else. And I suspect your husband wouldn't listen to a Shinto Priest in a Church.

Love me, love me, love me -- I'm a liberal
 

That is bad, bad, bad.

The decision really highlights how overextended our military is -- despite various denials.

I just don't see how we can keep going after the Axis of Evil and shore up Afghanistan with our current force structure or any conceiveble reshuffling of existing assets.

I think we're going to have to leave Iran (the true al Quaeda supporter) and NK pretty much alone. (i.e. We can't pretend that we'd "Iraq" them.) We don't have a credible conventional military threat at this juncture (wrt land forces) to use against any country larger than, about El Salvador.

S_A_M