Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $55,949
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 63%!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by Qwinn

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Jennings Rides Again: Kristol Warns Conservatives Against 'Temper Tantrum'

    02/04/2008 12:49:01 PM PST · 103 of 137
    Qwinn to no dems

    Don’t. Voting for Obama will just send the message that the electorate wants -more- liberal candidates. If you must protest vote, write in Fred Thompson or something, but sitting it out or voting for the Dem will only be interpreted in ways that help the liberals in both parties.


  • Black Conservatives Rally to Urge Mike Huckabee to Stay in Presidential Race

    02/04/2008 3:50:35 AM PST · 25 of 48
    Qwinn to Kurt Evans

    “The consensus is that Huckabee’s campaign was deliberately sabotaged by Fred Thompson in South Carolina to hone out a two-man race between McCain and Romney in Florida.”

    Why yes! That’s why Fred endorsed McCain as we all knew he would!

    Oh, except, he didn’t.

    Sorry, but that baseless paranoid smear right there renders the entire post as dishonorable and paranoid as Huckabee himself has repeatedly shown himself to be.



    01/21/2008 2:38:49 AM PST · 161 of 191
    Qwinn to Prophet in the wilderness

    Cut that the hell out, please. You can post it one time and ping everyone with one post, you don’t need to spam the same thread 50 times.



    01/21/2008 2:38:03 AM PST · 160 of 191
    Qwinn to outofstyle

    “Fred could not even gather enough signatures to get on the ballot here. Maybe that says something.”

    Entirely false. His team got 500 signatures. But, it turned out his team was unaware that all 500 signatures had to be from registered Republicans, the rules didn’t permit independent signatures. It’s not that he couldn’t get the signatures (you should know that’s utterly ridiculous, I’m sure we have 500 -freepers- from DE alone who’d sign for Fred), it’s that his team didn’t know about some technicality in terms of who was eligible for signing. You can bitch about that mistake by his DE team, but don’t try to misrepresent it as indicative of his lack of support there or anywhere else. Sheesh.


  • Study: Chicago Prostitutes Say They're Forced to Service Police Officers for Free

    01/12/2008 7:11:22 AM PST · 36 of 52
    Qwinn to Bulldawg Fan

    “So out of one hunred cops, three have free sex with whores? 97 do not? 97%? More than 9 times as many cops dont have sex with prostitutes than do have the sex?”

    Actually, that should be “More than 32 times as many cops don’t have sex with prostitutes as do.”


  • Exchanges in Latest Debate Highlight a New Dynamic in the Republican Field (Fred Thompson)

    01/11/2008 5:08:38 AM PST · 120 of 204
    Qwinn to Old Teufel Hunden

    I believe the next Republican debate is on 1/24, so no, no more until after South Carolina.

    That’s not so bad though... a lot of people think he won the debates on the 5th and 6th too. Going into the SC primary largely held to be the winner of the last 3 debates doesn’t sound bad to me! Fred can do it, and he’d kick Hillary/Obama’s ass in the general and seriously educate the public while he was at it which we desperately need, the OP writer is an idiot :)


  • For all Freepers who plan to stay home on election day to teach the GOP a lesson

    01/09/2008 5:08:41 AM PST · 247 of 662
    Qwinn to Justice

    If Rudy, Huckabee or Paul win the nomination, I’m staying home.

    If Mitt or McCain wins it, I’ll vote, choking with nausea.

    If Fred or Hunter wins it, I’ll vote happily.

    Sorry, but that’s the way it’s going to be. The first 3 will do even more damage than Hillary will. Hillary’s liberal policies will at least be fought tooth and nail by the minority of conservatives who will at least be capable of filibusters. If it’s one of the 3 RINOs, -no- one will fight them.


  • My Fellow Evangelicals Blow It By Supporting Mike Huckabee

    01/08/2008 6:57:29 AM PST · 67 of 205
    Qwinn to Jibaholic

    You’ve had an evangelical in the White House for the last 8 years, elected with the help of many non-evangelicals, so please spare me the notion that non-evangelicals have been spurning evangelicals.

    I could understand the pro-Huckabee position if there -weren’t- a candidate that was right on pro-life issues -and- conservative issues. But there is - Fred Thompson.

    And not only that, but Thompson’s approach to pro-life issues (first getting Roe v. Wade overturned) is infinitely more realistic and productive than going straight for the (for now) overkill HLA which will only drive people away from the pro-life position and which this country won’t be ready to pass for some years, at -least- not until we’ve had 3/4 of the states largely ban abortion so that an amendment is feasible, and the way to start that -requires- eliminating Roe v. Wade and -then- fighting the fight among the states.

    But by demanding that no one but yet another evangelical, socialist or otherwise, will be acceptable to you, you are practicing the ugliest of identity politics. That and your other posts make it very plain that you are a liberal across the board, so why do you even post here?


  • My Fellow Evangelicals Blow It By Supporting Mike Huckabee

    01/08/2008 6:47:18 AM PST · 48 of 205
    Qwinn to VRWCmember

    In addition to the other points made, Huckabee has rubbed elbows with some pretty rancid anti-Catholic types.


  • Remember, We're Choosing a President (Thomas Sowell: Romney most steady candidate in GOP field)

    01/07/2008 10:55:13 PM PST · 41 of 287
    Qwinn to AKSurprise
    You show me a where Fred rates in the Top 3, in any major state polls, and I’ll give you that one.

    Um, you're kidding, right?

    No? Okay. Well, that's easy, then. How about IOWA?


  • Low-Key Thompson Stumbles Toward Finish Line

    01/02/2008 9:53:00 AM PST · 109 of 290
    Qwinn to pissant

    “Low Key”, “Lazy” Thompson’s schedule for today:

    8:30 am
    Fred Thompson does a live interview on “Morning in America” with Bill Bennett
    10:35 am
    Fred Thompson does a live interview on “The Laura Ingraham Show”
    11:45 am
    Fred Thompson is a guest on Fox News’ “Happening Now”
    1:50 pm
    Fred Thompson meets with voters at event in Waterloo, Iowa
    4:15 pm
    Fred Thompson meets with voters at event in Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    6:00 pm
    Fred Thompson does a live interview on “The Mark Levin Show.”
    7:00 pm
    Fred Thompson meets with voters at event in Davenport, Iowa
    10:00 pm
    Jeri Thompson does a live interview on Fox News’s “On the Record with Great Van Susteren”
    11:00 pm
    Fred Thompson does a live in studio interview with KCCI’s Kevin Cooney and Stacey Horst in Des Moines, Iowa

    Funny how the media thinks one event on New Year is worth a whole article, but the above list doesn’t get a mention.


  • Rasmussen Sees A Republican Rebound

    01/02/2008 8:26:09 AM PST · 34 of 52
    Qwinn to proud2beconservativeinNJ

    He paid for it as a taxpayer. It was a reminder that government is supposed to be “by the people, for the people”.


  • Rasmussen Sees A Republican Rebound

    01/02/2008 8:24:49 AM PST · 33 of 52
    Qwinn to steve8714

    “This is just a public opinion poll and may or may not have anything to do with registration. Dems cross-registering can still tell Rasmussen the truth.”

    Dems... telling truth?

    Come on now. Where ya been? This is the party that fights all attempts to require voter ID, that brings out legions of the dead to vote, etc. etc. They’re habitual liars and connivers. If they register in order to screw with the Pub vote, they’ll “cover their ass” by telling the pollster they’re a Republican just out of habit... when you’re pulling a con, you don’t tell -anybody- what the real gig is.

    Sure, it wouldn’t matter, no pollster is going to tie that to their vote, but it’s just the sort of habit of trying to be consistent in their lies that habitual liars are prone to.


  • Rasmussen Sees A Republican Rebound

    01/02/2008 8:18:58 AM PST · 31 of 52
    Qwinn to Savage Beast

    Sure, Republicans could cross over to pick the most unelectable Democrat - but who the heck knows who that is? I would guess it’s Hillary, but one, I don’t think she’ll need much help to win her primary, and two, I don’t think even the most evil and conniving Republican could stomach both registering Dem -and- pulling a lever - any lever, even as a means to sabotage - for her. Imagine the remorse if she somehow won, heh.

    Pubs have reason to vote in their own primary. Dems really don’t, all their candidates are pretty much the same, differing only in style.


  • Rasmussen Sees A Republican Rebound

    01/02/2008 7:15:24 AM PST · 8 of 52
    Qwinn to jdm

    I expected something like this, but unfortunately I don’t think it’s because of conservatives “returning to the fold”.

    I think it’s Democrats registering as Republicans in states where party registration is required to vote in the primary, so they can screw with the primary results - i.e., vote for Huckabee or Ron Paul or whatever.


  • Thompson expects to surprise in Iowa

    12/31/2007 4:48:42 AM PST · 94 of 94
    Qwinn to Senator Goldwater

    “Rudy’s willingness to appoint strict constructionists to the bench preserves the sanctity of the 2nd amendment.

    If you believe he’ll actually appoint strict constructionist judges. I, personally, don’t. Episodes like him claiming that he can support a partial birth abortion ban -now- because it -now- has an exception for the life of the mother, when EVERY PBA ban ever proposed has had that exception, convince me that he’s full of crap, and willing to say anything, including slandering conservatives, to get elected.

    “This is a false issue and a media-created straw man that some GOP primary voters are irrationally fixated upon, which means they took the bait.”

    Oh please. I haven’t heard the MSM complain about his gun control position once, and would probably snort soda through my nose if they did. The complaints I’ve heard about it have been on the conservative blogosphere, and it’s a damn good point.

    “I square being “tough on crime” with making NYC a safer city than the one he found.”

    And he did well on violent crime - but he certainly wasn’t tough in any way on illegal immigration. He was in fact very open to it. Just so the record’s clear, his toughness on crime seems to be rather selective.


  • Thompson expects to surprise in Iowa

    12/29/2007 11:14:14 PM PST · 69 of 94
    Qwinn to Senator Goldwater

    “Strong leadership, less government, lower taxes, tough on crime and terrorism, bold defense of America, strict interpretation of the constitution and a willingness to appoint judges of similar temprement.”

    How do you square “less government” and “strict interpretation of the constitution” with his history on gun control? How do you square “tough on crime” with NYC being a sanctuary city under his tenure?


  • Is Google Dropping Conservative Sites They Disagree With?

    12/24/2007 2:19:22 AM PST · 22 of 46
    Qwinn to Wiz

    Wow, you’re advocating a federal law that would give the federal government oversight powers on internet content, and when someone points out how dumb that idea is, -you- call -them- a “Stalinist” and a “leftist”?

    You can’t be for real, can you?


  • Can Thompson's late effort pay off?

    12/24/2007 1:59:34 AM PST · 26 of 146
    Qwinn to Soliton

    “I supported Fred until the attacks came on Huck. If you compare the two’s proposed platforms they are very similar.”

    Um, you’ve -got- to be kidding. They’re not even -remotely- similar. They’re not even on the same planet, except on abortion, and even there, why doesn’t Huck taking tens of thousands of dollars in speaking fees from the biggest stem cell researching company in the world bother you? It sure bothers me.


  • Proof Hucakbee is lying about the moving cross

    12/23/2007 1:44:51 AM PST · 258 of 259
    Qwinn to N3WBI3

    I don’t think anyone “mistook” the bookcase for a cross. Yes, it’s clearly a bookcase. But it’s a bookcase deliberately framed and highlighted to appear like a floating glowing cross panning slowly across the film.

    It appears obviously contrived to me. Which isn’t a problem. It’s his lying about it so as to appear a hapless victim of an overzealous press that totally turns me off.

    He’s basically trying to create a “war on Christmas” controversy by sticking this in there, and then claiming that all the people who obviously see it are paranoid and delusional and out to take the Christ out of Christmas. I personally consider the -real- issue too important to condone seeing it manipulated for rank political gain like this, and hell, I’m agnostic.


  • Romney, Thompson criticize Confederate flag

    11/29/2007 1:26:42 AM PST · 62 of 187
    Qwinn to Eddie01

    Mitt’s answer was definitely fairly characterized as criticism of the flag, but Fred’s answer was not by any means.

    Mitt basically seemed to agree with the premise that those who display the confederate flag are racists. Fred specifically disagreed with that premise.


  • Zimbabwe Inflation "Incalculable" (100,000% Inflation By Year's End Alert)

    11/27/2007 6:30:25 PM PST · 19 of 65
    Qwinn to goldstategop

    “A country looking at 100,000% inflation by year’s end. In which a business loan is available at 25% interest.”

    Wow. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me. Borrow the equivalent of $10,000 in zimbabwean currency, convert it to $10,000 immediately, and in a year convert $15 dollars back into zimbabwean currency and pay the loan back in full.


  • Bush Rescues Hillary

    11/24/2007 10:29:48 AM PST · 21 of 79
    Qwinn to CT

    Your tag line is an outright lie. Thompson -did- vote to impeach Clinton on obstruction of justice, so your claim that he “refused to convict” him is complete bull. Such classless mendacity is the sort of thing I expect from liberals, not from Freepers.


  • Fred Thompson and the NRLC (Washington Times Editorial(11/15/07))

    11/18/2007 6:29:01 AM PST · 148 of 159
    Qwinn to EternalVigilance

    Nice speech. Really. Too bad it didn’t even remotely address anything I said.


  • Fred Thompson and the NRLC (Washington Times Editorial(11/15/07))

    11/17/2007 7:20:38 PM PST · 145 of 159
    Qwinn to EternalVigilance

    Your logic is flawed. Whether the unborn counts fully as a human being (and I believe it does) has no bearing on whether a murder of one is a state or federal matter.

    If I go next door and murder my neighbor, who has jurisdiction? Who will try me, convict me and imprison me? Would it be a federal court?

    No. It would be a state court. The laws against and jurisdiction over murder are handled by the states. To claim the unborn should be treated differently is to make it somehow substantively different from any other murder, which undermines your own position.


  • Bob Novak: Hillary has dirt on Obama

    11/17/2007 7:06:32 PM PST · 57 of 108
    Qwinn to AmericanMade1776

    I wouldn’t rely on anything Novak says. I put him in the same category as George Will - someone who is only marginally a conservative and who often makes the worst possible arguments for correct conclusions so that liberals in the MSM can easily punch holes in them.


  • Thompson Argues Polls Will Change

    11/15/2007 4:22:34 PM PST · 34 of 170
    Qwinn to Bommer

    Right, because unbridled lust for power is an attractive quality in a candidate, just look at what it does for Hillary.


  • Word from Al Gore's Office: Stop Ballot initiatives-(St. Gore Ain't Runnin')

    11/13/2007 4:08:35 AM PST · 13 of 19
    Qwinn to tcrlaf

    I personally wonder why anyone would think that his not wanting to be in any of the -primaries- means that he isn’t planning on running as an independent/green in the general election.

    Which would be teh awesomest, of course. Gore splitting the dem vote with Hillary would mean Republicans could put up Larry Craig and win (not that there’d be anything wrong with that...).


  • Analysis: Right Splinters on GOP Field

    11/08/2007 5:30:00 AM PST · 38 of 44
    Qwinn to SmithL

    If it’s Fred or Hunter, I’ll not only vote, I’ll campaign.

    If it’s McCain or Romney or Huckabee, I’ll have to hold my nose but I will without doubt vote for them against the Hildebeast.

    If it’s Rudy, I won’t vote on the Presidential race. Sorry. Just can’t do it.

    And before someone wants to take me to task as some evangelical fundie purist... I’m actually agnostic. I just think Rudy will destroy the conservative movement in a way Hillary never could.


  • Anti-global warming report a hoax

    11/08/2007 3:29:57 AM PST · 3 of 5
    Qwinn to Proverbs 3-5

    Well, actually, it seems to me to be both. It reads to me like a global warming skeptic website uncovered a hoax that, if it were accepted, would undermine global warming theory. So basically, a skeptic debunked a skeptic hoax. So the headline is accurate, technically.


  • Fred Thompson's blunder

    11/08/2007 12:26:03 AM PST · 7 of 325
    Qwinn to Tailgunner Joe

    Did Novak get this pissed off when Rudy claimed that he could now support a partial birth abortion ban now that it includes an exception for the life of the mother - when EVERY PBA ban ever introduced has included that exception?

    Did he see fit to tell everyone that that’s something we could expect from NARAL?

    I’m guessing no.


  • Fred Thompson Is Finished

    11/07/2007 8:37:08 PM PST · 101 of 362
    Qwinn to Tailgunner Joe

    I’m as pro-life as they come, and I don’t get how being for overturning Roe v. Wade counts as “pro-choice”.

    If you’re insisting that the only possible legitimate position is to be for an immediate federal banning of abortion in all 50 states, then enjoy having it be legal up until the moment of birth for the rest of your life.

    The -only- way we’re ever going to get there is if it goes back to the states first by overturning Roe, then convincing enough states (two thirds) to make it illegal so that passing a constitutional amendment on the issue becomes possible.

    That’s not all going to happen in 4 years. Getting Roe overturned is the next step, and if a candidate is willing to do that (as Fred is), that’s the most we can expect out of -any- candidate for the time being.


  • Are Ron Paul Supporters Real?

    11/07/2007 8:26:13 PM PST · 256 of 383
    Qwinn to Dreddnafious
    I didn't read this entire thread, but has Ron Paul's extreme hypocrisy on earmarks been addressed?

    Yeah, he likes the earmarks just fine.,2933,292334,00.html

    Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul — who is campaigning as a critic of congressional overspending — has revealed that he is requesting $400 million worth of earmarks this year.

    The Wall Street Journal reports Paul's office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing.

    Having a little trouble buying the "fiscal savior" routine there.


  • McCarthyism: The Rosetta Stone Of Liberal Lies (Ann Coulter Upsets Liberals Again Alert)

    11/07/2007 6:17:16 PM PST · 55 of 107
    Qwinn to rebooted

    “Hiss was jailed for purgery, not for being a communist. You sir, have no credibility.”

    Uh, first of all, it’s “perjury”. Second, yes, he was convicted of perjury - for lying when asked if he was a communist spy.


  • Strikes Halting Production On 7 Shows (All praise be to Allah)

    11/06/2007 9:40:57 PM PST · 46 of 60
    Qwinn to Libloather

    Call me if Heroes or Lost or shows by the Sci Fi Channel are affected.

    I don’t really watch anything else.


  • Democrats seek to ban FoxNews Channel from taxpayer funded cable for the poor. (satire)

    11/05/2007 10:07:50 AM PST · 127 of 147
    Qwinn to the Real fifi

    That’s the original source as linked to from the original post. I figured out it was satire by going there and looking at other things they’ve posted. Doesn’t take long to realize the entire site is satire.


  • Democrats seek to ban FoxNews Channel from taxpayer funded cable for the poor. (satire)

    11/05/2007 9:59:04 AM PST · 124 of 147
    Qwinn to Trueblackman

    Well, can you make up for it some by providing a link to this 1994 “Internet Access For All” thing you’ve mentioned several times? Cause I can’t find anything on that either.


  • Democrats seek to ban FoxNews Channel from taxpayer funded cable for the poor. (satire)

    11/05/2007 9:54:14 AM PST · 121 of 147
    Qwinn to the Real fifi; Trueblackman

    That’s because the satire tag wasn’t there originally.

    And as a result, I posted it elsewhere and I look like an ass now :( Thanks a lot :(


  • When Fred Met Tim: Evaluating Thompson on Meet The Press

    11/04/2007 9:36:38 PM PST · 60 of 359
    Qwinn to CharlesWayneCT

    “But eventually we need a president and a congress that will act on abortion like we once acted on slavery.”

    You mean Civil War?

    I’m as pro-life as they come, but really, you should think about that statement before repeating it.


  • EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

    11/03/2007 3:20:10 AM PDT · 71 of 271
    Qwinn to Coyoteman

    I wouldn’t go bragging too much about how you’re not getting the responses you’re looking for (or imagine you’re not), considering you haven’t replied to a single point I made in post #32. I’m guessing it has something to do with not being able to dismiss everything I say on the basis that I’m religious.


  • DUmmie FUnnies 11-02-03 (Pied Piper Pitt Panders To Hillary By Slamming Tim Russert)

    11/02/2007 8:25:59 PM PDT · 42 of 66
    Qwinn to PJ-Comix

    “Dean got a yell. Kucinich got a ufo. Dukakis got a helmet.”

    You forgot about Kerry and the bunny suit.

    The only problem with your theory is, Dean didn’t “get” a yell, Dean really did yell. Kucinich didn’t “get” a UFO, Kucinich told everyone else about the UFO and owns up to it. Dukakis didn’t “get” a helmet, he put it on himself thinking he’d look cool and manly and instead actually managed to make an army helmet look dorkish. And Kerry really did dress up in a big blue bunny suit and crawl on all floors smiling for the camera.

    The VRWC didn’t do that, Pitt. Every single one of them did it to themselves. No one held a gun to their head and made them do all those silly things. It really was their fault for making asses of themselves. But wait, that’s the personal responsibility thing, I forgot you libs don’t do that.


  • 'This Will Make Voter Fraud Easier'

    11/02/2007 12:58:42 PM PDT · 41 of 55
    Qwinn to Zerodown

    I don’t have the link, unfortunately, but I saw a site that graded politicians on their positions on immigration. Fred scored an overall C, with A+’s in border control and something else important, but which was offset with low grades on things like penalizing employers who were tricked with fraudulent ID (and a reasonable argument -can- be made for that, in that it’s really the federal government’s job, not employers). Not a -terrific- record, but nothing to be overwhelmingly ashamed of either, especially since it was in the 90’s and it wasn’t exactly a hot issue then. I do think, out of the big 5 contenders, between that record and the positions he’s staking out now he has the best record overall on immigration.


  • Obama chides Clinton for playing gender card

    11/02/2007 12:18:24 PM PDT · 39 of 43
    Qwinn to kevkrom

    Has he really been saying that? (”Vote for me to prove you’re not a bigot”?) I suppose I’ve just missed it, it’s not like I go out of my way to listen to Obama, but it had been my impression he was trying to go for the quiet unassuming statesman pose, the few times I’ve seen him talk I didn’t really get the Jackson/Sharpton vibe from him.


  • 'This Will Make Voter Fraud Easier'

    11/02/2007 8:14:57 AM PDT · 25 of 55
    Qwinn to VR-21

    “I’ve yet to hear one single Republican say anything about Democrat voter fraud.”

    Fred! has.

    “Drivers Licenses for Illegal Aliens: “Recipe for Voter Fraud”
    Posted on October 31st, 2007
    By Fred in Statements, Immigration

    While Hillary Clinton was speaking out both sides of her mouth at last night’s debate over the issue of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, what went unsaid is that this is a recipe for increased voter fraud. Under the federal “Motor Voter” law (the National Voter Registration Act of 1993), states must provide applicants for drivers licenses with the opportunity to register to vote.”

    Yet another reason he’s the candidate we should all rally behind. Every other candidate always goes for the 2nd or 3rd best argument against liberal policies, Fred consistently puts forth our best arguments.


  • Obama chides Clinton for playing gender card

    11/02/2007 7:49:29 AM PDT · 5 of 43
    Qwinn to kevkrom

    Eh, let’s be fair, Obama hasn’t really pulled the race card much... at least, if he has, I’ve missed it, and political junkie that I am, if I missed it, so did 90%+ of everyone else. At the very least, he could be playing it a whole lot more than he has, for a Democrat, and he’s certainly playing the race card less than Hillary is playing the gender card.


  • Blue Dress Democrats and the Clinton Scandal Effect

    11/02/2007 6:41:54 AM PDT · 11 of 23
    Qwinn to Kaslin

    The reason we want Hillary to lose the primary is that if she wins, there WILL be a 3rd party candidate (I’m betting Ron Paul) to siphon votes from Republicans and give her the Ross Perot effect that she knows she can’t win without. She will make sure of it.


  • "Al Qaeda Is Being Slaughtered"

    11/01/2007 11:35:24 PM PDT · 60 of 75
    Qwinn to kittymyrib
    We’ll only know that Al Qaeda has been defeated when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid show up wearing black arm bands.


    We’ll only know that Al Qaeda has been defeated when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid show up to take credit for it.


  • EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

    11/01/2007 11:27:55 PM PDT · 32 of 271
    Qwinn to Coyoteman

    I’m agnostic. I have no God in this fight.

    I view ID not so much as an independent scientific theory as I do a -critique- of evolutionary theory. In that, I think it’s proponents argue quite well. Take the simplest and oldest of the ID arguments - the irreducibile complexity of the eye. I’ve seen the evolutionist’s responses to that one - and they’re not only unpersuasive, their responses (such as that of Dawkins) have evidenced deliberate deception. In this case, he claimed a computer model that showed how the eye could have developed. I found this supposed model on the web, and examined it for a good hour. It didn’t even -begin- to show what Dawkins claimed it to show. It was about as persuasive as someone claiming they had calculated the exact value of pi, and when you look at it, it’s a piece of paper with “22 / 7” written on it.

    There’s also the lack of transitional forms. I agree with the ID arguments that, for evolution to be true, they ought to be -everywhere-. The evolutionist’s arguments for why they’re so incredibly rare are frankly terrible arguments (and their supposed discoveries of those few transitional forms they claim to have found have been repeatedly debunked as hoaxes).

    As a “non-partisan” agnostic observer, I’ve seen a good deal of BS along the lines of global warmism also produced by the evolutionists. You can consider me quite skeptical of evolutionary theory as it stands, and the behavior of those defending it is very much like the behavior of those who consider a successful debunking of evolutionary theory as concrete evidence of the Judeo-Christian God.

    My personal opinion? I -do- think that if evolutionary theory doesn’t pan out, then yes, at least for now, the logical deduction is that given no better explanation, “intelligent design” is the most reasonable conclusion for what we can observe. It doesn’t mean it’s the Judeo-Christian God (although it could be). It could also be that we were designed by little green aliens from Alpha Centauri who -did- evolve in a different environment and without any irreducably complex organs. It could be nanobots left over from the intergalactic war between Xenu and the Legion of Ascended Mormons. Who knows.

    It is at that step, where they presume that proving Intelligent Design means proving the J-C God, that I think the ID’ers swerve from scientific critique into faith based argumentation. But there’s plenty, -plenty- of places where the evolutionists engage in faith based argumentation as well.

    So. For the record. Trying to debunk it by merely asserting that it’s a trojan horse for religionists isn’t going to do a damn thing to convince me. I can tell precisely where the leap goes from a valid scientific critique to a faith based conclusion, and feel myself in no danger of mixing the two up. The line between evolution as a valid theory and the faith based argumentats of it’s proponents is way more blurry, and much more dangerous, IMO, and thus I am forced to treat it with much more skepticism. Ad hominem attacks such as yours only advance that skepticism. Do better.


  • Democrats Get Off Hillary's Back She's All Ours

    11/01/2007 9:53:08 PM PDT · 42 of 43
    Qwinn to 668 - Neighbor of the Beast

    Very very very bad advice. Take Hillary down now - BEFORE she enables a third party candidate (I’m guessing Ron Paul) to be the ‘Ross Perot’ for the general election. She knows she can’t win without a 3rd party candidate that lets her win on a plurality, and that’s part of the plan. Take her down in the primaries, and she won’t have that option.


  • Rudy a Lefty? Yeah, Right.

    10/29/2007 3:11:40 PM PDT · 192 of 198
    Qwinn to Eagles Talon IV

    Since you are so horrified that people not voting against Hillary will “get us all killed”, I can presume you won’t be voting for Rudy in the primary, right? Because Rudy’s the only possible winner of the Pub primary that’s making everyone here planning on staying home.