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.