Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
28. But true, Hank, they're all packed with national electability.

Let's goooooooo, Govenor Rounds!

Governors from meaningless States can't be elected President?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Governors from meaningless States can't be elected President?

Not Republican ones.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Not Republican ones.

We're considering the nuclear option of not letting you guys run one. We might just send two.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
We're considering the nuclear option of not letting you guys run one. We might just send two.

I hear Dick Cheney says the Constitution has always required two Republican nominees, and the moderates don't feel like risking injury to tell him no.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I hear Dick Cheney says the Constitution has always required two Republican nominees, and the moderates don't feel like risking injury to tell him no.

Who is Bryson?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Who is Bryson?

He's an author, and according to his own web site, he's "wonderfully droll."

[Say_hello_for_me]

Lemesee here,

the Ds filibuster 10 or so for up to 4 or 4 1/2 years. The R's threaten to hit them with a hammer. The D's now agree to back off on their filibuster of at least a few of the 10, as long as the R's promise not to hit them with a hammer.

And Dean says this is a huge loss for the Rs? I take back every nice thing I ever said about the guy. He is as nutty as any of you that think this is an R loss. The R's have given up nothing but a threat, and that only temporarily. The D's have agreed to give-up several long standing positions.

Ty? What's the view on this through your rose-colored glasses?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I hear Dick Cheney says the Constitution has always required two Republican nominees, and the moderates don't feel like risking injury to tell him no.

If this is a joke, I don't get it?

Is my screen not showing something, or how does Hank know this is something to do with Bill Bryson?

Why are you discussing Bill Bryson?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
If this is a joke, I don't get it?

Is my screen not showing something, or how does Hank know this is something to do with Bill Bryson?

Why are you discussing Bill Bryson?

That was an unrelated question. I do that to show how cool I am and that Ty and i know each other other than just on PB -I hope it rebuilds my credibility here. And yes Ty was making a joke. Mr. Cheney is not interested in grabbing the White house. He wants to get back to Halliburton so he can cash in before the Iraq thing winds down.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I believe very strongly in God. But you're still wrong.

A sense of morals or ethics can still be postulated simply on a set of philosophical or political principles, or a combination of the two. In fact, a moral or ethical code can be postulated based upon the above, tempered by a firm belief that each person's self-interest will, on a macro level, balance out to achieve a moral and ethical society.

2. I believe in God (or creating force of a sort) based on the rational (at least it seems entirely rational to me) observation that something started the universe. My rational side also tells me to believe that religion is a heaping pile of shit. It might serve some social purpose, but the whole "path to God" bit is horseshit. None of them are right, and "faith" is just ignorant refusal to deal with reality pervertedly repackaged as some noble endeavor. Its not noble to view the evidence around you and say "I believe a faery tale instead." Thats idiocy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Ty? What's the view on this through your rose-colored glasses?

I am enough of a small-c conservative to be happy that the filibuster survives in some form. And I think that the big victory for Democrats is that some threat of a filibuster of a Bush Supreme Court nominee continues. This will temper that nomination, and should dissuade Bush from picking a total wingnut. Also, between Voinovich's position on the Bolton nomination, and the deal on the filibusters, you see moderate Republicans bucking the President and not (yet?) paying a price. The battle here is between the President and moderate Republicans, not between the GOP and Dems.

That said, I think that some of the judges who are going to take the bench are terrible, and I regret seeing them going up. Owen was just ranked as the worst judge on the Texas Supreme Court according to the bar association ratings in that notoriously liberal hotbed, Houston. By her own speeches, Brown wants to be the worst kind of judicial activist. But you can't win them all, and Bush has been happy to turn over the selection of judges to cultural conservatives.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Owen was just ranked as the worst judge on the Texas Supreme Court according to the bar association ratings in that notoriously liberal hotbed, Houston.

Who knew I had this much influence here?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
A sense of morals or ethics can still be postulated simply on a set of philosophical or political principles, or a combination of the two. In fact, a moral or ethical code can be postulated based upon the above, tempered by a firm belief that each person's self-interest will, on a macro level, balance out to achieve a moral and ethical society.

I have heard this claim before, in fact I have read whole books based on this claim, but they never really back it up. Absense a higher law where do morals and ethics come from?

I have never heard of how everyone looking out for their own self interest leads to a moral and ethical society?

In the end, how does ones self interest lead to the conclusion one should be concerned about starving children in Bangaladesh?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
2. I believe in God (or creating force of a sort) based on the rational (at least it seems entirely rational to me) observation that something started the universe. My rational side also tells me to believe that religion is a heaping pile of shit. It might serve some social purpose, but the whole "path to God" bit is horseshit. None of them are right, and "faith" is just ignorant refusal to deal with reality pervertedly repackaged as some noble endeavor. Its not noble to view the evidence around you and say "I believe a faery tale instead." Thats idiocy.

OK - but is the source of your personal ethics and morality come from this creator or from yourself?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
OK - but is the source of your personal ethics and morality come from this creator or from yourself?

Evolution. Survival of the species. Tempered by personal experiences and drug-induced changes to brain structure.