Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)
National Review Online ^ | 10/25/06 | David Boaz & David Kirby

Posted on 10/25/2006 11:10:46 AM PDT by Blackirish

As the Republican base fragments and Christian conservatives consider a “fast” from politics, the polling data point to a mid-term Republican thumping. Less than two weeks from now, Republicans will begin their post-mortem soul searching. And as the corpses of their House and Senate majorities grow cold, so should Karl Rove’s 2006 campaign strategy.

(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: besthijack; bestthread; blackirish; braad; creation; darwin; darwincentral; darwinhomebase; doublehijacked; evolution; frhero; frlegend; hero; hijack; hijacked; hijackedthread; legend; libertian; minifreepathon; monthlydonorthon; rehijacked; religion; science; socialright; threadjacked; threadjacking
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 1,651-1,665 next last
To: denydenydeny
". In short, anyone who thinks that libertarianism and social conservatives are in direct oppostion to each other is either naive or is deliberately trying to sabotage things."

Huh? In what drug induced state would you think that social conservatives could abide with the Libertarian platform?

Queer marriage, sex with children and small animals, every drug legal, abortion on demand, anything goes.

Politically speaking, you are confused if you think those two factions could ever agree.
201 posted on 10/25/2006 7:25:13 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Demonrats want the Gays out of Congress.....stand back and let them purge their base.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

Yeah, well a buddy of yours up thread gratuitously connected evolution theory to a whole lot of unrelated things so I was simply following suit. All that aside, only a willing tool or a liberal would ignore the hand the Godless ACLU has in promoting all this anti-God, anti-America, anti-freedom bull crap. And that is the very real association, unfortunately for the "science is the true religion and all others can go to hell thank you very much" people.


202 posted on 10/25/2006 7:26:57 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Tench_Coxe
Clicked on your home page...

The following quote describes EXACTLY the dilemma many feel about the RINOs and the upcoming election...

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,... to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man."

--Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

The Republican Party can still be reformed from within, the Democrats have passed the point of no return.

203 posted on 10/25/2006 7:32:52 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
All that aside, only a willing tool or a liberal would ignore the hand the Godless ACLU has in promoting all this anti-God, anti-America, anti-freedom bull crap.

Charles Darwin never heard of the ACLU. I'll bid you goodnight before I get into too much trouble.
204 posted on 10/25/2006 7:34:23 PM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic; Jim Robinson
This whole business of *anti-science* and *pro-science* is just a tool to be used against creationists. There are those of us who do not agree with the lock step doctrine of the ToE and hence are labeled as *anti-science*.

Disagreement with the interpretation of the fossil record is not a blanket rejection of science as a whole. Evolution depends on science to support it, but science does not depend on evolution to support IT.

There are those of us creationists who have degrees in science and some who work in scientific fields, and yet that means little to the evolutionists who label us that.

The whole basis for deciding what a *real* scientist is and what *real* science is apparetly one's opinion of the Theory of Evolution. It's irrelevant whether one's field of expertise is even related to evolution or not. If you are a creationist, you are automatically *anti-science*.

205 posted on 10/25/2006 7:36:07 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

Queer marriage, sex with children and small animals, every drug legal, abortion on demand, anything goes




You gotta be pretty goofy too even think that...but oh yeah you are.


206 posted on 10/25/2006 7:36:20 PM PDT by Blackirish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish

Not much of a stretch when you actually visit the Libertarian Party website...the language is a little more couched in PC terms.


207 posted on 10/25/2006 7:37:48 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

I have seen what pot can do to people. I've watched friends who were bright, amitious people with everything going for them turn into dopey, glassy-eyed pot heads who can only think about their next joint, drink, or guy and have lost their memory and ability to reason and think clearly. I sure wouldn't want anyone in that condition working for me.


208 posted on 10/25/2006 7:38:56 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish

Read their platform. You buy into their party you get the whole package.


209 posted on 10/25/2006 7:39:59 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Demonrats want the Gays out of Congress.....stand back and let them purge their base.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

In today's world, it's the ACLU (and their willing fools and tools) forcing all this crap on us.


210 posted on 10/25/2006 7:43:51 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U; CWOJackson
Thats as intellectually honest as saying if your an Evangelical then must buy into you playing with snakes and drinking strychnine
211 posted on 10/25/2006 7:46:15 PM PDT by Blackirish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish

"you must buy"

getting late


212 posted on 10/25/2006 7:47:12 PM PDT by Blackirish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish

We're discussing the LP...I'm not too sure "intellectual honesty" can be applied. If you'd read any of the drivel coming out of CATO lately you probably wouldn't have used that term.


213 posted on 10/25/2006 7:47:25 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Thanks cm, Another example of the courtesy with which evos treat non-evos. Lump everyone who disagrees with you into one category to try to discredit them, and of course, post it to nobody so that it can't be considered a personal insult.


214 posted on 10/25/2006 7:49:19 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Kind of like poaching us slowly vs dropping us like lobsters in the boiling pot


215 posted on 10/25/2006 7:50:58 PM PDT by satchmodog9 (Most people stand on the tracks and never even hear the train coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
In today's world, it's the ACLU (and their willing fools and tools) forcing all this crap on us.

Stop The ACLU: Click Here

216 posted on 10/25/2006 7:53:03 PM PDT by Fiddlstix (Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
True but if you read the NRO piece or the beginning of the thread this has been a debate between small L libertarian/conservatives and the social right both who vote Republican but have different priorities ...even goals.

This has little to do with card carrying members of the Libertarian party who don't vote Republican.
217 posted on 10/25/2006 7:57:09 PM PDT by Blackirish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
True but if you read the NRO piece or the beginning of the thread this has been a debate between small L libertarian/conservatives and the social right both who vote Republican but have different priorities ...even goals.

This has little to do with card carrying members of the Libertarian party who don't vote Republican.
218 posted on 10/25/2006 7:57:15 PM PDT by Blackirish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

Where on earth did I say anything about the Libertarian Party and its platform?

I am talking about the basic desire to be left alone by the government which is the essence of libertarianism. This is generally called "small-l" libertarianism. And I stand by my statement that nothing in it is incompatible with social conservatism, which also wants to be left alone by government for its own reasons.

Don't caricature my viewpoint.


219 posted on 10/25/2006 7:57:18 PM PDT by denydenydeny ("We have always been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be detested in France"--Wellington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish
I've never really figured out just what a small "l" libertarian is. From my experience with them they are nothing more then someone with some sort of axe to grind with the GOP and hiding behind the LP. They all hide their particular grudge behind the "small l" label.

It's a convenient way to attempt to legitimize their particular anger but without a united definition it's really just a deceptive smoke screen.

220 posted on 10/25/2006 8:00:27 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Personally I could care less if someone smoked pot on the weekend and kept it to themselves.

The problem comes when you are the boss and its well known that someone uses drugs and you fail to act and someone gets hurt or damages company equipment.

You always have to order drug tests and when it comes back positive it wont say or prove that was the cause, just that drugs were present.

Pot isn't legal, therefore there is no standards for a legal limit.

It just isn't worth the risks of law suits to hire or keep them once you know.
221 posted on 10/25/2006 8:01:38 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Demonrats want the Gays out of Congress.....stand back and let them purge their base.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish
Well small "l", perhpas you'd take a shot at this question. The guiding priniciple of small l "libertarianism" is non aggression and yet the LP and many small l's have no problem with folks aggressing against the weakest of us all, unborn babies.

Why is that?

222 posted on 10/25/2006 8:04:15 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny
"Don't caricature my viewpoint."

I didn't. I posted a quote from your post.

There is no small "L" party that I know of, all anyone can go on is the Libertarian party platform.

That will never fly with social conservatives.
223 posted on 10/25/2006 8:07:04 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Demonrats want the Gays out of Congress.....stand back and let them purge their base.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Jim Robinson
If you are a creationist, you are automatically *anti-science*.

No, this is not so. There are vast numbers of Christians and Jews working in genetics and petroleum engineer for example, as well as other science and engineering disciplines who believe that the Lord created the universe. Typically, these people believe that the Genesis chapter does not give a definitive description of the process, and the findings of modern science are accurate. The theological position of mainstream Christianity and Judaism is that the Lord exists beyond scientific scruitiny.

I am not objecting to religion, or Christianity. What I am objecting to is the pig-headedness and assholery of a vocal contingent of science-deniers on this site. The anti-science people I am referring to typically are not simply advocating a belief in the Genesis chapter. As I wrote up thread, there is a contingent of people who are stumping for the false Christ Sun Myung Moon, there are people who say the moon landings were faked by the government, that alien abduction and crop circles are real, that surgery is sinful and doctors are unable to actually cure disease, that dinosaurs walked with man, that petroleum does not come from fossils. I find all of these ideas rather silly by themselves. But taken together there is a pernicious anti-science culture growing on FreeRepublic. They are giving FreeRepublic, and the conservative movement, a bad name.

I am somewhat dismayed to see the forum's founder give creedence to the anti-science crowd. He just handed science-deniers ammunition with which to call me a liar and a marxist -- one of the things I have complained about to the moderators in the first place.

Disagreement with the interpretation of the fossil record is not a blanket rejection of science as a whole.

I disagree with this assessment. You are welcome to disagree with the interpretation of the fossil record, but you actually do run the risk of utterly rejecting the rest of modern science in the process. Disagreement with the interpretation of a particular fossil in the record, or dating of strata is not a blanket rejection of science as a whole. There is debate about the length of time that it took the dinosaurs to go extinct. However, the vast majority of scientists accept evolutionary theory (meaning the modern synthesis theory comprised of Darwin's theory of natural selection, Mendel's theory of inheritance, and subsequent discoveries in molecular biology since the description of the DNA molecule by Watson, Crick, Wilkins, and others) as valid science. The reason the vast majority of scientists accept evolutionary theory because it produces real world results. This is something the science-deniers refuse to accept.

I have posted this to anti-science posters a number of times. The reaction I have received universally amounts to "too long didn't read." The anti-science crowd does not want to learn, they put their fingers in their ears and go "lalala".

What is Micropaleontology?

Micropaleontology is the study of microscopic fossils. It is the largest discipline in paleontology, just as microfossils are by far the most abundant of all fossils. Although nearly invisible, micro-organisms at the base of the food chain make up nearly 90 per cent of the biomass in oceans and lakes. The variety of life forms at this level is almost incomprehensible, and while only a few kinds leave solid remains that fossilize, even these few can be so abundant that in places they form mountains of pure fossil remains. The limestone of the plateau from which the Sphinx and Pyramids are carved is actually a mass of foraminifera, preserved in a vast offshore formation that, 40 million years ago, extended from France to Burma. The Chalk Cliffs of Dover, another microfossil marvel, is a layer hundreds of feet thick all across western Europe that consists of nothing but sub-microscopic coccoliths. In other parts of the world, solidly packed remains of diatoms make up formations of thin-layered diatomite hundreds of feet thick that are quarried for industrial uses.

The abyssal floor of the ocean, which occupies more than half of the earth's surface, is buried under a carpet of microfossils that slowly piles up like layers of dust over the millenia. Changes in the abundance and types of microfossils from year to year, over millions of years of undisturbed accumulation, makes an exquisitely detailed record of climate change, plate tectonics, and biological evolution. Each time a new species of free-floating marine micro-organism evolves, it quickly spreads throughout the oceans in countless billions, forming a worldwide marker in the fossil record. Such marker horizons allow geological events in different parts of the world to be related in a global earth history. For instance,it was the microfossil "tape recorder" that proved that reversals of the polarity of the earth's magnetism were worldwide events. Microfossil data also revealed that changes in sea levels, temperature, and glacial advances were synchronous worldwide, proving the reality of global climate changes more accurately than geochemical dating methods.Recently, micropaleontology has shown how oscillations in the earth's orbit and tilt lead to cycles in global climate, including the Ice Ages.

Microfossils are vital to oil exploration. Because of their tiny size and great abundance, they occur unbroken in the rock fragments brought up by drilling into the deeply buried ocean formations and lake beds where oil is found. By comparing the characteristic fossils from each formation as they are penetrated by the exploratory drills, geologists can unravel the geometry of the strata far beneath the surface and locate the domes and traps that may hold oil. The condition of the fossils, as well, indicates whether the petroleum source rocks have been buried and heated sufficiently to generate oil from trapped organic matter. Most importantly of all, the organic matter itself is almost entirely from ancient micro-organisms that make up the ocean's biomass.

224 posted on 10/25/2006 8:11:30 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
Maybe not in the election coming up soon, or even in '08, but if the Republican party becomes known as the anti-science party it's going to hurt.

Are folks who oppose scientists creating and destroying human embryos "anti-science"?

Are folks who oppose federal courts intervening in local school curricula "anti-science"?

Are scientists who put out garbage like the Michael Fox ad in Missouri trying to dupe citizens into funding and constitutionally mandating human cloning "anti science"?

225 posted on 10/25/2006 8:14:10 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Interesting conversations going on here. I guess if I got involved, the thread would just spontaneously combust, huh?


226 posted on 10/25/2006 8:16:26 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
Then why do you consider only 1/3 of the responders to the poll as *pro-science*?

Just because someone voted differently does not mean they are anti-science. I have seen people with science degrees be told they don't even know what a theory is because they were a creationist. The minute a person states they are a creationist, they are lumped into the YEC category and called a bunch of Luddites who want to take us back the the Dark Ages and a Taliban style of living. Not so. There are extremes on both sides of the issue, but to automatically label one as being in the extreme no matter what they say and then basically accuse them of lying when they deny it, is wrong.

I am a creationist amd I am NOT anti-science. I know how science works, I have a degree in it. My kids are all creationists and excel in science in school; they're in the top of their classes. In spite of the mockery and scorn of some evos, one can reject the ToE as it stands and NOT reject the science that supports it, and, yes, love science.

As I wrote up thread, there is a contingent of people who are stumping for the false Christ Sun Myung Moon, there are people who say the moon landings were faked by the government, that alien abduction and crop circles are real, that surgery is sinful and doctors are unable to actually cure disease,

A contingent but not the mainstream. I also don't see what some of that even has to do with the ToE and one's acceptance of it or being pro or anti science. SOme of it's just sheer whackiness. But call a spade a spade. Don't label the whole group based on the actions of a few who are either not really part of the group or could just plain be trolls coming in from DU on "suicide runs" just to stir things up and make real Christians and creationists look bad.

227 posted on 10/25/2006 8:26:33 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
For once I would like someone to actually read what I wrote. The next time someone does will be the first. It's like people make up what they would wish I would have said, and then argue against that.

The anti-science people I refer to on FR are those arguing that crop circles are real, the moon landings were faked. There is a sub-culture of cranks who are lending fuel to the fire of anti-science suspicion on the part of conservatives. They are banging the anti-evolution drum and appealing to your sympathies. However, if you scratch beneath the surface of some of these people you find they are total nutball who believe the earth once orbited Saturn and gravity was much higher in the past, or the earth had a near miss with Venus flying in from outer space, or whatnot. Many of these cranks have been banned before and are sneaking back in under new nicks. As a long time poster who takes pride in having few posts pulled, it galls me to see people break the rules and get away with it.

Modern conservatism must be solidly pro-science and pro-reason or is will once again be the minority party. I have no problem understanding why some people believe embryonic stem cell research is contentious. What I am saying is to be on the lookout for anti-science kooks who believe that western medicine can't cure anything and that surgery is sinful. If you look around on what passes for science threads these days you are going to see a rather vocal group of people who do little but sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt upon the whole of science. What I am saying is don't buy into it. Don't let the Dems sieze the initiative as the party of science and reason. Don't lose the war for want of a horseshoe nail.

228 posted on 10/25/2006 8:26:37 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

Don't some libertarians think that you have to have liberty to get an abortion any time, and that you can't favor man-woman over man-man??? Come on, now!


229 posted on 10/25/2006 8:30:22 PM PDT by guitarist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish

The articleis replete with fallacy afer fallacy.

For one, Libertarians are almost an extinct breed and bear little or not relationship with independents.

Another fallacy is that the republicans have polarized the nation...far from it! It is the left wing Godless infiltation of the DEMOCrapic party that has polarized the nation.

The rest of the article is just more gobbledigook.


230 posted on 10/25/2006 8:31:25 PM PDT by eleni121 ("Show me just what Mohammed brought:: evil and inhumanity")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07; Coleus

You make a good point, and the stem cell debate which has sprung up so quickly since the Michael J. Fox ad is an excellent parallel.

Creationists are frequently accused of being anti-science either because they don't accept certain evolutionary interpretations of the evidence or (specific to Free Republic) it is inferred from the sometimes snide one-liners written by some on the creation-evolution threads. (Of course, these one-liners are frequently the heart-and-soul of other Freeper threads.)

Because creationists don't agree that the evidence supports certain ideas such as an ancient earth, accidental life, and a pointless existence, they are branded "anti-science" by some, much as embryonic stem cell advocates brand anti-embryonic research advocates "anti-stem cell research." (Or, simply, anti-science.)

When in fact, they oppose only certain aspects of stem cell research. Freeper Coleus documents real-world, applicable research and treatments being published in science journals every week, making progress from ADULT stem cells, not embryos.

Yet still the accusations of anti-science fly.

My only regret is that no side can divorce itself from the bias and prejudice of its own opinion enough to recognize proper debating form, precedent and procedure.


231 posted on 10/25/2006 8:34:19 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
Look LC. I can read as well as you can and from the looks of it, I understand your thesis better than you. You are worried about fringers. Don't lose any sleep over it, there aren't that many folks who care what revolves around Saturn.

Now back to the questions I posed. You forgot to reply.

232 posted on 10/25/2006 8:36:44 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Then why do you consider only 1/3 of the responders to the poll as *pro-science*?

The lower bound of the number of pro-science freepers is one third. I think the number may actually be a lot higher. The poll was on a wedge issue, one that was designed to be contentious. At least one out of every three freepers believes that theology has no place in science class. I actually think that this number is higher.

The minute a person states they are a creationist, they are lumped into the YEC category...

Know that luddites do exist among us. They exist to drive a wedge between us.

I am dismayed. What happened to Sunday school? Has the conservative movement adopted the postition that students need creationism in science class because not enough of them are going to church? What is wrong with lessons of Adam and Noah in Sunday school or bible study? Why biology class? Contrary to popular belief, science classes are among the least politicized classes in the public school system. Science and math classe are also one of the last places that haven't been given over for complete relativism. In science and math, your answer is right or wrong. No mushy feelings and cultural sensitivity involved. How is the wedge issue going to make things better? It isn't. Pick your battles! This is the wrong one!

233 posted on 10/25/2006 8:38:41 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
My only regret is that no side can divorce itself from the bias and prejudice of its own opinion enough to recognize proper debating form, precedent and procedure.

Sorry Dave but proper debating form where I grew up was hands held high and thrown fast in combinations.

Just joshing. :-}

234 posted on 10/25/2006 8:39:21 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic; jwalsh07
In my experience here very few people actually espouse or believe the things you say. For the most part that is something the evos infer about them or even attempt to paint it on them with their broad brush.

Or maybe you take one small part of their post that they used for an analogy or metaphor, and expand upon that to the Nth degree and then infer that is what is was what they were saying when it was not.

This post of yours really underlines the meat of the evo debate, the appeals to science but actually doing very little science or scientific thought on the threads.

W.
235 posted on 10/25/2006 8:39:29 PM PDT by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I understand your thesis better than you.

Then you don't need me to answer. Farewell.

236 posted on 10/25/2006 8:39:29 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic; jwalsh07
But it isn't the perceived-by-some anti-science stand of the Republican party that's what's driving people away from it. It's the moral issues. It's abortion, homosexual unions, immigration, education, taxes, euthanasia, the death penalty, gun control, property rights, and in the areas where science is involved, the ETHICAL issues surrounding science, not the science in and of itself.

One of the main issues with the teaching of evolution and creation in schools is the use of the judiciary to force on people what they don't want. Most people want creation taught in schools and it's not a science issue to them, it's a moral and belief issue; it's a government forcing people to pay taxes to support something they have no say in issue; it's a whose children are they anyway issue; it's a why should a self-appointed elite decide for us what's best for us whether we like it or not issue.

With all due respect, I think many evos here have overestimated the importance of science as related to politics and the elections. Just because it's important to those who are doing the science, does not mean that it's equally important the the man on the street. Science is not going to make or break the elections. It has nothing to do with the reasons and my efforts to keep Hillary out of office. My vote isn't based on her or her opponents stand on issues connected with the proper understanding or practice of science, it's got everything to do with the other above mentioned issues.

237 posted on 10/25/2006 8:40:15 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish

And leave the dims at home, crying in their pillows because they lost another election they were "supposed to win". It will be high humor and great entertainment seeing the knashing of teeth among dims this November 8th. LOL.


238 posted on 10/25/2006 8:41:07 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
For one, Libertarians are almost an extinct breed and bear little or not relationship with independents.



True magical thinking ...believing what you wish was true.....what polling or any evidence do you have?
239 posted on 10/25/2006 8:41:16 PM PDT by Blackirish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

The mods don't have access to the posters' profile pages. I do. And I've removed a few of them. Those that I have removed should take it as a warning (if I didn't ban them in the process).


240 posted on 10/25/2006 8:41:38 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic

Ciao!


241 posted on 10/25/2006 8:44:25 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; Dimensio

For some reason, I don't think Dimensio will be showing up here with his rote and ubiquitous declaration that you are lying about evolution, and nothing you say can be trusted.


242 posted on 10/25/2006 8:45:14 PM PDT by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish
"True magical thinking ...believing what you wish was true.....what polling or any evidence do you have?"

The list of election victories they have posted at their website.

243 posted on 10/25/2006 8:45:34 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Creationists are frequently accused of being anti-science either because they...

...don't actually know any science.

A lot of time they spout the silliest things taken for fact. Just the other day you said that modern science has no clue why water expands when it freezes and why flags flap in the breeze. I hope to goodness you learned something. Another guy who totally rejects science any science that conflicts with his theological positions can't even explain the difference between wavelength and frequency. I can go on and on.

There's no shame in not knowing something. The shame is in refusing to learn.

There are vast numbers of Christians and Jews working in science and engineering disciplines that have no problem with evolutionary theory. This tells me that the problem people have is not with their science, it is with their theology.

The conflict on these threads is not science versus religion at all. It is actually a sectarian conflict between people with a certain highly literal interpretation of the Genesis chapter and more mainstream viewpoints. The mainstream of Christianity and Judaism says that the Lord exists beyond scientific scruitiny.

244 posted on 10/25/2006 8:47:29 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson


LOL --- game, set, match, CWO!!


245 posted on 10/25/2006 8:47:51 PM PDT by onyx (We have two political parties: the American Party and the Anti-American Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: onyx
In all fairness, they did get that guy elected to some country school board not that long ago...they were celebrating big time with that win.

Of course most voters probably thought he was a "librarian" when they pulled the lever.

246 posted on 10/25/2006 8:49:42 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
What was wrong with creation being taught in the science classrooms to begin with? People only want it BACK. What people object to is the ACLU using the power of the judiciary to force it out of schools. During the Scopes Trials they pushed to just have it not illegal to teach evolution. Now it's to the point where Creation can't even be mentioned. I think the ACLU is just seeing the evolutionists as useful idiots in their drive to expunge Christianity from society; and the evos are going along with it. They think it's about *keeping science pure*, the ACLU, I believe, knows better. The evolutionists co-operation with the ACLU is not in their favor.

For all the years of having creation taught in public schools, I don't see that it hurt the advances made in science at all. A great many of the scientific advances made during the last couple hundred or so years, were made at a time where creation was taught in public schools and evolution was not. It cannot be demonstrated that the teaching of creation in schools is going to cause the deterioration of education in America. On the contrary, the only correlation I've seen is a deterioration of the American education system coinciding with the removal of Christianity from it.

247 posted on 10/25/2006 8:50:26 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Liberal Classic; VadeRetro; Jim Robinson
This whole business of *anti-science* and *pro-science* is just a tool to be used against creationists.

I rarely engange the crevo scene at FR for exactly that reason. You post one opinion that questions some point of ToE and the next thing you know you've got folks accusing you of being some kind of Luddite subversive, working behind the scenes trying to unhinging the very Laws of Physics. In fact, just posting this risks that someone will think it's bait [it's not] and flame me for having posting it.

I know of no one who avows creation as writ who disavows "science"; many are, like yourself, working scientists. Honestly. One's position on origins doesn't change the way one might write an analysis on cellular mitosis; it doesn't impact how one might perform a chemical titration; it has exactly zero impact upon the myriad daily tasks carried out by them daily in their work as scientists. Still, there are those in these forums who cannot abide simple observations -- much less a point of debate, that's five or seven orders of magnitude upscale -- such as "this data set could have an explanation that doesn't support ToE". No way. Not going to happen. EVERY post that makes the slightest intimation that ToE could be less than 100% bulletproof MUST be squashed like bubonic plague and no amount of piling on is to be spared. Ever.

Bottom line: people have got to the place where crevo cannot be a simple smoky back room discussion amongst ladies and gentlemen; it has to be a house-wrecking bareknucled brawl that spills into the streets and degenerates into a bloody gunbattle to the last man standing. That's not the fault of ToE, nor is it the fault of the Bible; it's the fault of posters -- posters on BOTH sides of the issue, mind you -- who cannot simply, politely, answer a point or observation, but simply MUST insert their snide little goads; who have so little self-control that they cannot resist the urge to needle and mock; who take the discussion into insulting and derogatory waters with needless, sophomoric (and that's being generous), retorts that precipitate the downward spiral of the whole thread into a morass of childish name-calling and mudslinging in which all manner of narrowmindedness and otherwise hidden bigotries emerge en flagrante. AAAND, in case nobody's noticed, the denizens of DU keep coming by with lawn chairs and buckets of pocorn to cheer and jeer the gore and carnage.

I've had GREAT discussions in my lifetime with others whos views were diametrically opposed to my own on many differing topics. Tone, demeanor, manners, and mutual respect made ALL the difference. So, I submit to you that it is not "anti-science" or "pro-science" Conservatives who are sullying FR, and, by extension, the whole Conservative movement; it is anti-social, rude, impertinent, foul-mouthed, posters who lack manners, respect and self-control who are sullying FR, and, by extension, the whole Conservative movement.

248 posted on 10/25/2006 8:50:30 PM PDT by HKMk23 (PRO-LIFE: Because a Person's a Person, no matter how small.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

FOTFLOL! Too funny!


249 posted on 10/25/2006 8:50:30 PM PDT by onyx (We have two political parties: the American Party and the Anti-American Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic

I have never read any postings attacking science by those who profess Creationism. Most Creationists respect science and its usefulness and are only questioning the elaborate but flimsy edifice constructed on the vague and gaseous mythic like qualities of Darwinoid assumptions - that human males and females ascended from the earthworm.

It is, in fact, Creationists and ID adherents who are the true scientists here...and Darwinoid evolutionists who cannot bear the scrutiny of their flimsy work. Some science they subscribe to!

Instead of questioning Darwin’s assumption themselves – self-styled evolutionists have erected a personality cult to him and have blocked any and all criticism of the theory while ridiculing those who dare to question. This angry defense of Darwin reminds me of Marxists who deify their materialistic hero…and delight in ridiculing those who do not.


250 posted on 10/25/2006 8:50:52 PM PDT by eleni121 ("Show me just what Mohammed brought:: evil and inhumanity")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 1,651-1,665 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson