Governing through Reason
Open Mic July 20
Ann Romney has a gleam in her eye when she thinks of “you people”.
Did Ann Romney say “we’ve released all you people need to know and understand about our financial situation”? (It sounds to me like “we’ve released yunh people need to know…” when I listen to the video.)
Did Barack Obama say “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that,” or was he referring to bridges? (It sounds pretty clear to me that he’s talking about infrastructure.)
Did Michele Bachmann say there is “potential Muslim Brotherhood infiltration into the United States Government” including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s assistant Huma Abedin? (Yes, and it’s in writing.)
Did Abedin’s now-infamous househusband make a sort of comeback? (Yes, revealing that he is or maybe is not going to run for New York City Mayor.)
Are we going to have to endure this kind of silliness between now and November 6? (Almost certainly “yes”.)
Feel free to weigh in on what Ann Romney said between “released” and “people”, and what Barack Obama said about business owners, or anything else that strikes your fancy. It’s your thread.
Don’t see an article on a particular topic, but want to talk about it somewhere? This is Open Mic. Talk about whatever you want, but stay respectful.
We create a new Open Mic every week to give a clean slate, but feel free to add to this topic at any time.
-
#202 written by shortchain 9 months ago
AW,
Except that the “authority” Max (and yourself) appeals to is an imaginary omnipotent being. The ultimate authority, provided one accepts, a priori, both the existence of same, and that this being’s wishes have been accurately reported…And no, I don’t regard Thomas Jefferson as being an authority on those questions.
-
We also have great health care if you have insurance.
OTOH, no one goes broke in Canada simply because they get ill or injured. They get excellent care even if they’re unemployed. You didn’t bother to read either the article I linked, or filistro’s response, did you?
Every single person I’ve seen interviewed from the theater
shooting either mentioned God or said they were laying on the ground
praying as they heard shots being fired. I thought it was
interesting, particularly coming from a young group of Americans.I don’t find it surprising. I’ve seen any number of studies which show that Americans tend to think of themselves as “religious” more than people in most other countries.
Drowing is the second leading cause of death among children in
the United States; second only to automobile accidents. Why are we
not banning swimming pools?False equivalence. 1) Swimming pools are not designed for the purpose of killing. 2) No one is recommending that we ban guns, either. 3) When someone drowns, it is usually negligence on the part of the person who drowned or the person who owns the pool, rather than being because the pool was designed and intended to kill you.
Does anyone actually believe that banning guns will cause
criminals to suddenly become law abiding citizens and not have
guns? Because meth is illegal and there are a lot of.…you know.…meth
labs in my county.I don’t think anyone here has recommended that we ban guns. No elected official whom I can think of has recommended it, either.
-
shortchain,
The ultimate authority, provided one accepts, a priori, both the
existence of same, and that this being’s wishes have been accurately
reported…Yes, and that’s the problem with the “natural rights” argument, and why I find it completely unconvincing. This same line of reasoning has been, at various times, used to justify slavery, sexism, genocide, torture, and any other atrocity anyone can imagine.
The purpose of the argument, of the appeal to deity, is to shut off rational discussion. Ours is a nation of laws that are designed, enacted, and enforced by humans, for the purpose of building the sort of society we want to have. It won’t be perfect — it is always a balance between ideals and practicality, between how we understand the World today and the world we want to build.
This is the essence of the dichotomy I’m trying to bring out in my “Old Time Religion” series. We’re not going to ban religion from our political thinking. We just need to learn to use it in the proper way, and using it to shut off reasonable debate isn’t how it should be used. Indeed, it’s the opposite of what our Founders intended.
-
#205 written by Armchair Warlord 9 months ago
dc,
Allow me to rephrase the problem.
Muslim extremists, acting to explicitly further their religion and backed by rich scriptural justification from their religion (albeit from a tiny minority of Islamic scholars), have committed countless atrocities over the last few decades.
Should we therefore repeal the First Amendment protection of freedom of religion so that the practice of Islam may be banned in the United States, in the interests of protecting ourselves from jihadist terror?
You have been making precisely the same argument against gun owners that the far right makes against Muslims.
-
#206 written by shortchain 9 months ago
AW,
What? That requires us to accept that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what you say it means. We don’t have to. The meaning of the 2nd Amendment is that the right to “bear arms” should not be restricted — all people in the country should be able to participate in the “militia”. This has two beneficial results, from the standpoint of the country: 1) it prevents the development of a “Praetorian Guard” which would be king-maker (or emperor-maker), and 2) it spreads the defense of the country across a broader class of people, engendering a sense of shared sacrifice and an “ownership ethic” amongst the populace.Of course, thanks to the “volunteer army”, we’ve undone much of that. We’re fast developing a country in which only certain classes and certain families participate in the military.
The idea that there’s some magic in the 2nd Amendment that the founders intended for us all to be armed to the teeth is a creation of the NRA and its stooges.
Here’s a clue: if the US military develops a taste for power and decides to run the country, there’s nothing in the 2nd Amendment that would prevent them from doing so, as currently interpreted.
-
AW,
No, my argument in favor of repeal of the Second Amendment is not that people use guns to kill people. It is that the purpose of the Second Amendment no longer applies (we don’t need a “militia,” and if we had one, it would be bad) and the current misinterpretations of the Second have led to ridiculous law.
The latest SCOTUS decisions need to be reversed in one way or another (just as the Citizens United decision needs to be reversed, and several other decisions of the radical activist Roberts court). In America, we have two primary ways of doing that: 1) wait until the makeup of the Court changes, and present them another case (as happened, for instance, in Dred Scott), or 2) change the portion of the Constitution on which the Court relied for its decision. I’m willing to pursue both avenues.
-
#208 written by dawolf 9 months ago
-
One could argue that strict gun laws are not only constitutional, they are required by the constitution.
A “well-regulated militia” must, by definition, be well-regulated! Why are gun rights people so selective about their sacred document that they see the word “right” and completely skip over the word “regulated.”
I don’t pay much attention to the NRA, since for me they occupy the same niche as pond scum, cockroaches and Grover Norquist. But I wonder what they say about a “well-regulated militia?”
-
dawolf, you must realize, Americans truly believe our cultural icons are sacred, and that the rest of the world revers them as much as we do.
Much like how Christians view their ideas of Heaven, Hell, Jesus, and the various other Biblical characters and concepts.
It’s simply a matter of growing up within a cultural context and not realizing that other people in other contexts have other icons.
-
#211 written by Armchair Warlord 9 months ago
dc,
Actually, it’s not so much a matter of not realizing as not caring. If discussing politics in the UK I would not casually dismiss the monarchy as “some old woman putting on airs”, and I feel entitled to similar cultural consideration from the European peanut gallery when it comes to our own national symbols.
-
#212 written by shortchain 9 months ago
-
#213 written by Armchair Warlord 9 months ago
-
#214 written by Max 9 months ago
OK,
FIRST!, has ANYONE seen me state that NO regulation on the 2nd Amendment rights apply? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So those who wish to counter MY arguments need to deal with MY arguments, not that of the NRA or other such extremist views!!! Got to a website where THAT is being argued and stop the foolishness and diversion here.
sc,
I assume you are engaging in Socratic argument even POSING such a ridiculous assertion as tp counter with “fallacious appeal from authority”!!! Otherwise, you are denying the basis of all US law and authority! Please, shift the subject from the 2nd Amendment to any other and see how quickly you counter falls apart within the context of a social contract and, by logical extension of such denial as you present, NO RIGHT exists, no law has a basis without some such starting point and you have promoted anarchy and NO societal rules. Perhaps you and Mule would be happy together on you little island.
Perhaps you should have lived 236 years ago in the UK and argued for George III against this absurd proposal by Jefferson. “You, sir, are full of shit! You DON’T get you rights from a “Creator”. That is stupid, sir. Your rights are granted by MAN, and in the case of you colonists, that man is the KING! So sit your ignorant arse down, sir. Roll up that silly piece of parchment and use it to kindle the fire in your stove so that you might brew a pot of good, taxed, tea!”
In fact, you ARE required (under law) to accept that the 2nd Amendment says exactly what we are saying it means, as the SCOTUS has so ruled. You may always challenge, under law, that decision. Just as we are required to accept Citizens and Bush. Just as conservatives are required to accept Roe and NFIB, et al.
And, dc and fili, just as, in your opinion, I and AW are incorrect to depend primarily on the second clause, so we find it incorrect for y’all to depend primarily on the first. The thing is, historically and legally, at least until the SCOTUS decides differently or a new amendment is ratified, WE have law and precedent to support our opinion.And NONE of you have begun to address the societal and cultural changes over the past 40 years or so that I brought up earlier. Why not?
-
@AW… I would not casually dismiss the monarchy as “some old woman putting on airs”
dawolf did nothing analogous to that.He did not, for instance, make fun of a current American authority figure, as you suggest, but an “old dead geezer.” Something like me calling Henry VIII a fat old lecher… which he certainly was… and which I’m sure would not cause dawolf any concern.
(Though I’m not at all sure dawolf would get bent out of shape over your remark about the Queen, either.)
-
#216 written by shortchain 9 months ago
Max,
What a load of baloney. We agree, as a society, to live by the rule of law not because it is divinely ordained, or ordered by authority (except in some cases, perhaps) but because we do. That doesn’t mean we think the law is not an ass. For example, as interpreted by Scalia, Alito or Thomas I have no confidence that the
Constitution would not support the most repressive, religious
fundamentalist régime imaginable.We would, if Congress passed a law, the President signed it, and the SC decided a case so, be required to agree that we all have to wear clown noses and beanies, under the law. Would that make it divinely ordained?
Ever read Sanford Levinson’s books on the Constitution?
-
Max… since you ask, I think carrying a concealed gun is an evil thing to do. People carry that gun not to “protect themselves and others” but because they get a deep, visceral thrill, whenever they touch the thing, from the knowledge that they might just possibly use it to kill somebody. They might violate the 6th commandment and use this gun to commit a mortal sin… and the prospect of sin is very exciting. The more serious the sin, the bigger the thrill.
I submit that if weapons makers came up with an effective and accurate Taser-type weapon that would disable and immobilize a potential adversary but inflict no lasting harm, there would not be nearly as many people anxious to carry that weapon or lobby passionately for the right to own it.
The thrill is in the possibility of killing. And just like any other predatory animal, once a society develops a taste for human blood, it will not be allowed to survive for very long.
-
#218 written by Max 9 months ago
sc,
Back at ya! And may I say you offer stale, dried out baloney.
Sanford Levinson lives only about 50 miles up the road from me and teaches at UT, AND I have also QUOTED him from Framed: America’s 51 Constitutions . . ., on these pages, I do believe, so, yes, I have. So what? I agree with him on some things and disagree on others. He is not the sole, nor even the primary, authority on the Constitution. And as far as a final word on the Constitution, he has no more a lock on that as Fred G Sanford. And a damned sight less than the SCOTUS.
And who is making a fallacious appeal from authority now?
-
#219 written by shortchain 9 months ago
-
#220 written by Max 9 months ago
sc,
No, you didn’t. But since Dr Levinson has written and lectured against the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment; AND since you made reference to him SPECIFICALLY, then there was strong room for my inference. If incorrect, I apologize.
And I do not believe any of my arguments have been assertion alone, but by citation of our founding documents and legal precedent.
“half-cocked”!!
Indeed! Well, thus far, IMHO, your arguments have shot their wad. -
#221 written by Max 9 months ago
fili,
Oh but no, my dear. You generalize way too much. I certainly hope your generalization does not extend to me, as you would be totally and completely incorrect, not to mention rather audacious in that you believe you know what is in my mind.
On concealed carry, I have mixed feelings. The fact that it would take more than a little time to draw, actually gives me more time to assess the situation, and hopefully it would not be necessary to use my weapon. Which is something that I tell myself every time I go out armed. And that I regret the current atmosphere that causes me to feel the necessity. Every time.
Concealment is the law, except in a very few states.
-
Which is something that I tell myself every time I go out armed. And
that I regret the current atmosphere that causes me to feel the
necessity. Every time.I’ve noticed that people who own guns tend to feel the need to carry them.
Or maybe it is that people who feel the need to carry guns tend to own them.
Or perhaps people who need to feel guns own them to tend and carry them.
In any case, however the causality works, those of us who don’t own guns tend to get shot less often, because there isn’t a gun around to shoot us.
-
#223 written by dawolf 9 months ago
filistro, Henry VIII certainly was a fat lecher — I’d dispute old on the basis that I’m sure he was also a fat young lecher, and then became a fat middle aged lecher, and then a fat old lecher.
AW, the Queen doesn’t seem to put on many airs. However, in general I’d agree with you, she may be a cultural icon but she’s still just a person, who therefore has all the natural needs to go to the toilet etc. She certainly isn’t in anyway special, except through the fact that she (personally) seems to be quite a decent sort. In a dozen years she’ll just be a dead english woman I expect. Which will be a shame as she is a decent sort I think, but frankly I’ll be much, much less bothered by her passing than that of say my cat.
The reason the appeal to authority is nonsense is because the term “natural right” quite clearly isn’t a natural right (as the term would be commonly construed) as many(most?) cultures in the world seem to get on very well without it. It’s just a form of words to make it seem more powerful — and it’s pretty clear it works, as can be seen from this thread.
The term “natural right” seems pretty clearly to me similar to “divine right”, and I’d consider both pretty dodgy unless on very very firm logical grounds. Certainly the divine right would have been supported by many people in a similar manner to AW & Max a while back I’d suggest. “But it SAYS the King has a divine right! Therefore he does!” “But it SAYS that guns are a natural right! Therefore they are!”
-
#224 written by Max 9 months ago
I had so hoped that there would be some discussion of the above mentioned social/cultural/environmental factors since about 1965 that lead to mass shooting murders. As noted, with guns prevalent in the US since it’s inception, such had not occurred until and after that time.
As we are not going anywhere with the gun abolition argument, maybe better time would be spent.
-
-
#227 written by GROG 9 months ago
dc,
In any case, however the causality works, those of us who don’t own guns tend to get shot less often, because there isn’t a gun around to shoot us.
I personally own 3 guns. A12 gauge shotgun, a .22 rifle, and a .38 Special revolver; three rather primative firearems.
I use the 12 gauge for hunting blue bills and skeet shooting. I use the .22 mostly for target practice and some rabbit hunting with my son. I keep the .38 special in a safe next to my bed. I will use it when necessary to protect my wife and three children from intruders.
I hope my constitutional right to do so will never be infringed upon.
-
#228 written by shortchain 9 months ago
I own a few guns — 20 Gauge shotgun for hunting (pheasant and grouse, plus the occasional rabbit), a .22 rifle that I’ve owned for many years but, since I no longer need to eat game to survive, I haven’t shot in a long time, plus a 12 Gauge I don’t use.
I have rather extensive security in my home, so I’m not worried about intruders. Prevention is better than a pistol. Still, I heartily support GROG’s use of firearms in the manner he outlines. What I have a problem with is conceal and carry — even the police or trained individuals will make mistakes, and mistakes with firearms are often fatal.
I’ve been shot by someone playing around, and I’ve also lost a treasured relative to a gun. That may color my attitude, but I don’t want guns to be commonplace in society.
-
#229 written by GROG 9 months ago
DC,
A really cool website, answering the question.…..
Obama has made a clear decision to go negative with this campaign. He obviously realizes that the things in the list you linked to are either a bunch of meaningless fluff, or that his so called accomplishments don’t play well with the American people. -
#230 written by shortchain 9 months ago
GROG,
Actually, the choice to go negative is dictated by the structure of the electorate. We have two camps on either side, each of which will never vote for the opponent candidate, and, in the middle, a collection of undecided voters. These undecided voters are actually people who lean one way or the other, but can be swayed.But the people in the middle are typically “low-information voters”, which means you won’t get anywhere with them by well thought out and nuanced arguments. It works a lot better with these people to call the other guy a poopy-head, on the chance that, if they happen to stray into a voting booth, they’ll remember that simple message.
Which is why they put these complex accomplishments lists in websites for people like DC.
The decision to go negative was made by Romney long ago as well, so you can’t criticize Obama for it. Sure, it’s Romney’s surrogates (AFP and the like) that are doing the negative stuff while Romney smiles his fake smile at the camera, but it’s still the GOP that went negative first.
My advice is to keep your head down for the next few months. Personally, I just mute the media and ignore it.
-
shortchain,
You said everything in your response to Grog that I would have. Thanks.
And Grog, as long as you think those accomplishments are unimportant, at least you can’t criticize the President for doing something bad, right? In any case, that would be “going negative”, so even if you do think the President has done something you don’t like, I’d expect you not to say so.
In fact, if you criticize someone for “going negative,” haven’t you just “gone negative”? A given criticism is much more convincing if you don’t do it yourself. This is why McCain had to stop lambasting candidate Obama for not being experienced once Palin was on the ticket.
-
I hope my constitutional right to do so will never be infringed upon.
And I hope the constitutional voting rights of millions of Americans won’t be infringed upon, either. Nor the constitutional right to privacy which is the basis for safe and legal abortion. Nor the right to be free from establishment of religion, which is why creationism and organized prayer have no place in public schools.
Maintaining one’s rights requires vigilance, which is why the ACLU exists. Any of these rights can be restricted by law, or eliminated by constitutional amendment. Whether that’s a good idea or not is a matter for honest public debate.
-
#234 written by GROG 9 months ago
DC,
And I hope the constitutional voting rights of millions of Americans won’t be infringed upon, either.
No one is proposing that. Any United States citizen is free to vote.
Nor the constitutional right to privacy which is the basis for safe and legal abortion.
I hope you consider the rights of the unborn.
Nor the right to be free from establishment of religion, which is why creationism and organized prayer have no place in public schools.
In no way is teaching creationsism establishing religion. Sorry, it just ain’t.
-
#235 written by GROG 9 months ago
filistro said on Friday:
Obama takes sudden leaps at both Rasmussen and Gallup daily trackers. His lead at Gallup is now 48–44, tying his best numbers since spring.
And by Monday Obama is down to a 44% approval at Gallup versus 49% disapproval. Don’t pay much attention to these daily trackers, fili. Especially the “sudden leaps”. It’ll even back out by tomorrow.
-
#236 written by shortchain 9 months ago
GROG,
You are perfectly welcome to assert that nobody important will lose the right to vote. You are perfectly welcome to assert that you are in favor of forcing young women to carry to term the fetuses they carry. You are perfectly welcome to assert that teaching creationism is desirable for some reason, known best to yourself.However, you cannot pretend that choices are without consequences. You choose to support making it more difficult for people to vote. That has consequences. You cannot pretend that forcing women to bear children they either do not want or cannot care for has no consequences. You cannot pretend that wasting children’s study time on twaddle is beneficial to their understanding of the world they live in.
While you may like the consequences of the policies you support, you must admit that the consequences will not all be positive for everyone.
-
#237 written by GROG 9 months ago
DC,
OTOH, no one goes broke in Canada simply because they get ill or injured. They get excellent care even if they’re unemployed.
No one in the United States should go broke simply because they get ill or injured. That needs to be fixed. Do you propose we fix that by going to a Canadian single payer system?
Because if you do, keep in mind that you will be destroying the source that provides the most innovative medical and pharmaceutical breakthroughs and products in the world. We would no longer be able to carry the rest of the world on our backs in that regard.
-
#238 written by GROG 9 months ago
shortchain,
And I ask you not to pretend there aren’t consequences to aborting human life.
Please do not pretend there aren’t consequences to shielding children from the world and refusing to expose them to culutural and religious beliefs that billions of people on the planet share.
While you may like the consequences of the policies you support, you must admit that the consequences will not all be positive for everyone.
-
#239 written by shortchain 9 months ago
GROG,
You are the one who supports meddling in the decisions made between a woman, her family, and her doctor. You are the one who supports making it harder for people to vote. You are the one who supports teaching unscientific twaddle in place of the result of hundreds of years of hard-fought scientific knowledge.I support allowing people to make their own choices. I do not support trying to fix imaginary problems, like “voter fraud”, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. I do not prevent people from believing whatever they want — I just support making the truth available to them, as we best understand it.
As such, I’m happy to live with the consequences of the policies I support. If you can say the same, while knowing that you have taken rights away from people — more power to you. But don’t pretend that you haven’t taken something away from people: knowledge, medical options, the chance to vote.
-
And I hope the constitutional voting rights of millions of Americans won’t be infringed upon, either.
No one is proposing that. Any United States citizen is free to vote.
Yes, and English law prevents the rich as well as the poor from sleeping under bridges. I assume you’re okay with other forms of poll tax, or with literacy tests? They don’t prevent anyone from voting, either.
But you’re wrong. People without certain forms of ID are prevented from voting by the new laws. So are people who can’t afford to get the documentation, or can’t take time off from work to get it, or who used to vote on days or at voting places that have been eliminated.
The proposals most certainly are designed to prevent people from voting. There’s no question of that.
Nor the constitutional right to privacy which is the basis for safe and legal abortion.
I hope you consider the rights of the unborn.
“The unborn” what? Zygote? Blastocyst? Not so much. “Person”, sure. That happens at about the third trimester. Before that — not really.
I’m also concerned with the post-born, so I want them to have a right to health care.
Nor the right to be free from establishment of religion, which
is why creationism and organized prayer have no place in public
schools.
In no way is teaching creationsism establishing religion. Sorry, it just ain’t.
Depends. In a comparative religion class, or in a class on politics, it is legitimate to teach it as something that groups of people believe (similar to communism or Islam or any other system of philosophy). In a science class, creationism is nothing but religion, and doesn’t belong there any more than Lovecraft’s stories or Ptolemy’s earth-centered universe. Maybe in a segment on the history of science, but certainly not as a viable current theory.
-
Do you propose we fix that by going to a Canadian single payer system?
Yes, something very similar to that.
Because if you do, keep in mind that you will be destroying
the source that provides the most innovative medical and
pharmaceutical breakthroughs and products in the world.Nonsense. I am not proposing that the federal government stop subsidizing medical and
pharmaceutical research. In fact, I’d be in favor of increasing that funding. It’s been the main driver of innovation, and we need to emphasize that effort. -
Please do not pretend there aren’t consequences to shielding
children from the world and refusing to expose them to culutural and
religious beliefs that billions of people on the planet share.I think it’s vital to expose people to a wide variety of religious beliefs. But in a course on comparative religion, or mythology, or history — not in a science class.
-
GROG,
Please do not pretend there aren’t consequences to shielding children from the world and refusing to expose them to culutural and religious beliefs that billions of people on the planet share.
Are you suggesting that religious study belongs in a science curriculum?
keep in mind that you will be destroying the source that provides the most innovative medical and pharmaceutical breakthroughs and products in the world. We would no longer be able to carry the rest of the world on our backs in that regard.
You know what? I’d be OK with that. If I’ve been paying double for Canadians, Mexicans, Europeans, Asians, and Africans, and to have better healthcare, then it’s time for that to stop. It’s not worth it.
-
#244 written by GROG 9 months ago
Michael,
Are you suggesting that religious study belongs in a science curriculum?
How did you come to that conclusion? DC said religious study “has no place in public schools”. He made no mention of curriculum. He was very clear that it has no place in public schools, period.
You know what? I’d be OK with that. If I’ve been paying double for Canadians, Mexicans, Europeans, Asians, and Africans, and to have better healthcare, then it’s time for that to stop. It’s not worth it.
Fair enough. Not very humanitarian of you, but at least you’re being honest about it.
-
GROG,
How did you come to that conclusion?
I didn’t. I asked a question. I didn’t make a statement. Should there be classes of comparative religion offered in public schools? Perhaps…but if they are, they need to be very carefully crafted so as not to promote one over another. I suspect most schools would prefer not to offer them at all than to craft a course that would pass constitutional muster.
Fair enough. Not very humanitarian of you, but at least you’re being honest about it.
Considering just how much I’m paying for my healthcare, it’s pretty hard to be humanitarian about it. I pay more for my healthcare every year than most Americans pay for housing. If it turns out that half of that money is going to make healthcare better for the French, it’s not the best use of the money, in my opinion. From a humanitarian perspective, I’d prefer that money go to mosquito netting for people living in areas rife with malaria. We’d all get far more bang for the buck.
-
-
-
#248 written by Armchair Warlord 9 months ago
-
#249 written by GROG 9 months ago
DC,
Nonsense. I said creationism, taught as part of a science curriculum, has no place in public schools. Re-read #240.
Re-read #232. You said, “Nor the right to be free from establishment of religion, which is why creationism and organized prayer have no place in public schools.”
You made no mention of science curriculum. It appears that you’re back tracking on your original statement.
-
Grog:
LOL, whatever. I note that your statement in #240 said nothing about your position on economics. Does that mean you’re a Keynesian?No person puts all elements or his or her thought into a single blog comment, or even all elements related to a particular position. If you want to ignore the larger context of a single comment, be my guest.
-
#251 written by Max 9 months ago
As an American pioneer, Sally Ride will forever be remembered. It’s always a shame when we lose a person who makes those first steps onto that uncertain ground that the rest of us eventually follow.
“Godspeed. The stars will shine a little brighter with welcoming her home.”
So, dc, there IS, according to your statement, a Creator and it will adjust the temperature of all the fusion driven globes we see, in recognition of the death of one human? Guess TJ was correct after all!
And what’s with all these late hours you’ve been spending lately?
-
So, dc, there IS, according to your statement, a Creator and it will
adjust the temperature of all the fusion driven globes we see, in
recognition of the death of one human? Guess TJ was correct
after all!Not at all. It’s a simple force of nature, the natural reaction of hydrogen fusion to the physical release of the soul of a hero. Hey, I studied physics, trust me on this.
Geez, can’t a guy engage in a little poetry?
-
#253 written by Max 9 months ago
-
#254 written by GROG 9 months ago
-
#255 written by shortchain 9 months ago
-
#256 written by Max 9 months ago
-
#257 written by shortchain 9 months ago
-
Grog, I’d addressed the question frequently, on many prior occasions, repeatedly stating that creationism has no place in science classes, but it’s fine to put it in a history class or comparative religion class. I even repeated that position here only a few comments later. I see it confused you that I left out the details in one comment one time. I apologize if I appeared to contradict myself.
Let me once more re-state it: Creationism has no place in a science class. As part of classes in history, philosophy, mythology, or comparative religion, it is certainly fair game as being part of the belief system(s) of people under study in those classes (just as is any other element of religious, spiritual, economic, or philosophical thought).
I’ve been assuming that you support the position that creationism should be taught in science classes, either as an alternative to, or instead of, evolution. Am I mistaken?
-
The CBO has just released its analysis of the SCOTUS Ruling on the health care act. Bottom line… the ruling will reduce the 10-yr. cost by $84 billion, and leave an additional 3 million uninsured.
In a separate analysis,
CBO adjusted its projections of the budgetary impact of full repeal to
account for the Supreme Court’s ruling. Repeal would increase deficits over 10 years by $109
billion, and leave tens of millions of people uninsured. -
#260 written by Max 9 months ago
Fish don’t fry in the kitchen
beans don’t burn on the grill
took a whole lot of tryin
just to get up that hill
Now we’re up in the big leagues
gettin our turn at bat
all we got
is you and me baby
ain’t nothin wrong with that
And we’re movin’ on up
to the eastside
to a deluxe apartment
in the sky
movin’ on upto the eastside
we finally got our piece of the pie!Sherman Hemsley moved on up today.
-
You must be logged in to post a comment.
- Comment Feed for this Post
It isn’t, any more than tuxedos are always black. That’s why the adjective was added. A “black tuxedo” is a specific type of tuxedo. I’ve seen some that are white or green or hot pink.