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 1-20 ... 841-860861-880881-900 ... 1,661-1,665 next last
To: Senator Bedfellow
No thanks.............

EXPLAIN IT; EXPLAIN IT NOW!

Glibness is Clintonian and unwelcome. You play games and that is NOT a good thing at all. Either engage in direct debate and/or discussion, or slither over to your other forum and try to impress the people over there.

861 posted on 10/26/2006 10:28:45 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 842 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
The only way to drive out bad science is good science, and when anti-evolutionists start doing science instead of apologetics, they will have my attention.

That's odd, I thought you would feel the opposite way about it.

No joke nor flame--but why trash apologetics for "not being science" when it isn't even *pretending* to be science?

I would be more concerned about ID masquerading as "real science" when it is just a mishmash of poor science and poor apologetics.

Cheers!

862 posted on 10/26/2006 10:29:13 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 821 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
Ah, I see. Of course, any container that would sufficiently shield the contents would look a bit odd on the old-fashioned X-ray, don't you think?

Well gee, with all those wires and switches showing up on the X-ray, what do we need NMR for?

863 posted on 10/26/2006 10:30:07 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 848 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

I'm not here to impress anyone, nor am I accountable to you. I'm simply here to sign the divorce papers. But first we have to talk about splitting up the albums, and you know how that can be.


864 posted on 10/26/2006 10:30:50 PM PDT by Senator Bedfellow (If you're not sure, it was probably sarcasm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 861 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Well gee, with all those wires and switches showing up on the X-ray, what do we need NMR for?

I expect that NMR is intended to supplement X-ray machines, not replace them.

865 posted on 10/26/2006 10:32:31 PM PDT by Senator Bedfellow (If you're not sure, it was probably sarcasm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 863 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I say the evolutionists on FR (and elsewhere) who are using their science as a weapon to insult and beat up on religious conservatives

Who here on Free Republic is using science as a "weapon" to "insult and beat up on religious conservatives", and how exactly is this being done?
866 posted on 10/26/2006 10:33:25 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 856 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow

Senator Bedfellow
Site Admin


867 posted on 10/26/2006 10:33:29 PM PDT by fatima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 858 | View Replies]

To: Tench_Coxe

I'm having trouble understanding what point you are trying to make. I understand most of your sentences as they stand on their own. And it all works both ways. But what's your point?


868 posted on 10/26/2006 10:33:37 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 843 | View Replies]

To: fatima

I administer it. I don't own it.


869 posted on 10/26/2006 10:35:36 PM PDT by Senator Bedfellow (If you're not sure, it was probably sarcasm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 867 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
"I'm simply here to sign the divorce papers. But first we have to talk about splitting up the albums, and you know how that can be."

If this is true, just say the word and I'll grant you your final papers.

Oh, and those albums, just give them away. Just give them away.

870 posted on 10/26/2006 10:36:46 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 864 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

The Dems certainly do want to see the conservative movement fractured. I don't think there is any disagreement there. I've written many times on FR that conservatives and libertarians need each other, and should try to bury the hatchet. I've tried to bury the hatchet with a number of people on FR and have discovered shortly thereafter the hatchet buried between my shoulderblades. I tried to make peace with Cultural Jihad once and it turned out badly.

If we're going to stay united against the socialists, religious conservatives need to realize that modern biology isn't the enemy. None of us are "evolutionists". I don't "believe" in evolution in the religious sense. Calling us darwin-idolaters and evilutionists plays into the hands of the Dems, because it helps them portray the conservative movement as the party of luddites. I agree that some of the secular conservatives around here need to be more respectful of the beliefs of the religious conservatives. I try to be respectful of people's faith. I am not without some measure of faith myself.


871 posted on 10/26/2006 10:37:22 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 856 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow

Heehee,heehee,Sorry-Heehee


872 posted on 10/26/2006 10:37:26 PM PDT by fatima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 869 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

slither over to your other forum and try to impress the people over there.

So Thou Shalt Not Have Other Forums, lest you be regarded as unworthy of the one true one? Is that what it's all about?

873 posted on 10/26/2006 10:37:36 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 861 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; Jim Robinson


FGS! Go read some of your own posts. You play head games with religious posters --- asking them to PROVE the Ten Commandments are God's words.


874 posted on 10/26/2006 10:38:03 PM PDT by onyx (We have two political parties: the American Party and the Anti-American Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 866 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
Hmm, we seem to be talking past each other here.

Let me rephrase my original post, with background, in case I explained it poorly.

Somehow this thread got embroiled in a crevo food fight. It came up that a number of pro-evo's got ticked off (for various reasons, some of which I have heard about, some of which are over my head).

Jim Robinson (founder of FR) pointed out that as the founder of the site he had the right to ban people. Exactly right. As evidence of the "bad faith" (so to speak) of *some* of the evos, he posted links to Darwin Central in his post 655 of this thread.

I clicked his links and READ the posts by some people who have recently posted opuses, or who are still posting. Many of them were being disdainful of FR, or of the conservative movement, or the Republican party, because they disagreed with the influence of "anti-science" types. Some of the posts said so in so many words, some of the posts merely commiserated.

In other words, I was basing it on what I read tonight on DC, not on any notion that FR is the largest portion of the Republican Party.

Full Disclosure: I will not mention names, but a number of the explicitly pro-evo people have FReepmailed me saying they would miss talking to me, or even inviting me to join them on DC. Only a couple of the staunch atheists have ever tried to call me a troll...and I think that that was out of frustration that I was able to logically defend a limited position--they weren't used to that.

Cheers!

875 posted on 10/26/2006 10:38:43 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 823 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Sheesh, the innocent one again. Apparently, you've never been on a "crevo" thread. Well, don't bother. Not worth the effort. Trust me on this one.
876 posted on 10/26/2006 10:39:35 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 866 | View Replies]

To: onyx
FGS! Go read some of your own posts. You play head games with religious posters --- asking them to PROVE the Ten Commandments are God's words.

Even if your assesment of my postings is correct -- and you have provided no direct references to support your claim -- how would that be an application of science, and in what way is insulting or "beating up" religious conservatives?
877 posted on 10/26/2006 10:40:55 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 874 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
FR began in 1996, for the sole purpose to discuss CONSERVATIVE POLITICS and most of the aspects of the Clinton administration.

So I'm a class of '04 n00bie.

I was invited by Freeper adam_az, and did not come on as part of any project of infiltration, whatever other reputation the FReeper class of '04 might have :-(

Though there are now many different forums within FR, it is still primarily a CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL FORUM.

Right, like the Hobbit Hole, or Word of The Day...as long as it has Jim's blessing, and God's :-) (and is done in a spirit of amity). I wish the crevo threads had been more civil--and that the pro-evo folks had taken more time to talk to their audience at a beginner's scientific level. They'd have made more friends that way.

Cheers!

878 posted on 10/26/2006 10:42:40 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 827 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Sheesh, the innocent one again.

I have asserted no inncoence. I am merely requesting clarification of your claim.

Apparently, you've never been on a "crevo" thread.

You are mistaken. I have witnessed many such discussions, and I have participated in many of them as well.

Not worth the effort.

If it is "not worth the effort" to support your claim with evidence, why then did you make the claim?
879 posted on 10/26/2006 10:44:19 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 876 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

You have an Anti -Freeper forum,hello.


880 posted on 10/26/2006 10:44:24 PM PDT by fatima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 873 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 841-860861-880881-900 ... 1,661-1,665 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