Free Republic

I guess I buy into that. The combination of linguistics and genetics must be fascinating. Good luck with that.

You mean you would have to read my post and understand it? That no doubt is annoying - and challenging, evidently.

That might require you to get off your hobbyhorse and out of your echo chamber. can't have that.

What really annoys you is being disagreed with, that and not being held in the high regard that you hold yourself in.

Again, you argument seems to be "I am a very impressive person, and if you do not agree with me I will bludgeon you with insults." This is not discourse. This is egoism.

That is what is so comic about the evos around here: They think they are "deep scientific thinkers" when I doubt that any of them have even worked in even third tier institutions. I doubt that you have worked in one of any tier.

This amuses: "Toodles." Is that suppose to be clever? Dismissive?

Do you imagine that I am hanging out here looking for your approval?

Too funny.

You know I just got back from a meeting at CERN (tech not science) and twerpish, mediocre and prickly little egoists like you would literally be shown the door in about a half a hour over yonder, and yet you think that you are dealing with "issues of the highest levels of import to civilization," or some such blather. Really, no one that matters is listening to your little echo chamber.

A nerve? No, I must have hit your spinal cord.

Too funny

You should listen to yourself - you think that is reasoned discourse? Just more invective, hand waving and psychobabble.

Again, nothing substantive.

let me repeat myself:

But drop me a note when you have something meaningful to say, just spare me the hectoring, please. It does not have the effect on of me that you evidently are looking for.

It is just nettlesome, I doubt that you could insult me.

Oh, an inclusive, "plural" use of the English pronoun "You" is quite acceptable, as you should well know. My meaning is clearly stated by my phrase:

Really, you evos and IDers.

Honestly.

You are just proving my point about how "you people" (perhaps you would prefer "Youse guys") with all of these attacks on anyone that disagrees with "you"in any form whatsoever. "You" may chose not to believe me, but "the public" finds this irksome. But go ahead, perhaps they will find "you" as impressive as you find "yourselves." (Note the plural usage here.)

You know, if you actually worked in an real, professional scientific institution and tried this tactic, you would get fired.

But then you would not know about that, now would you? (now here I mean it in the singular)

Looks like I struck a nerve - more hysteria and mortification, I see.

This is not substantive response, nor does it address my points. It is just blathering informed by little else that egoism. That ego is the driver is amply demostrated by that fact that you somehow think that i was merely addressing you and what you said when it was quite clear who I was talking about ansd where my focus was directed.

Prior postings of your is rather off point. There is nothing to respond too as there is nothing in this response but personal attacks and psychobabble.

But drop me a note when you have something meaningful to say, just spare me the hectoring, please. It does not have the effect on of me that you evidently are looking for.

May his suffering be short

What diplomatic aplomb.

Yes, but I would argue that archeology and anthropology are not really "sciences." They are really in the Humanities.

Archeology, a field that I have immense respect for, strikes me as a sort of "applied historical study" which is richly informed by Science, and in general, the "hard sciences."

Anthropology, a field that I have some real problems with almost seems to me to be a form of literature, a form of literary conjecture, or perhaps a "preliterate philology" of illiterate cultures (an awkward phrase and concept, I know.) One could say that is is a "Social Science" which is, of course, to say that it is not a science at all, at least from my point of view.

I have a lot of trouble with anthropology, but occasionally these people put out some interesting stuff. I am just not sure that we need a "science" called "anthropology to get these writings.

Too true. I am surpized that they have not tried to link him to Oral Roberts.

Though all in all it is a good sign.

Really. That is exactly what occurred to me.

It does bing up the point that Putin (along with other enemies in the world) would not feel half so cocky as he does without the continual attacks of the Democrats. We must at this point really at least consider that the Democrat obstructionism goes beyond narrow and thoughtless political gain for their party. It is beginning to openly verge on treason.

These utterances when placed along side the recent war games with China, the SCO nonsense in the CIS and China's offer of military assistance to Iran, bodes ill.

What is up?

I heard that in grammar school he chortled at a female crossing guard, an fellow classmate to. Quite ungentlemanly even back then.

Honestly, the Left thinks that they are somehow "outing" him whit all of their "revelations" but all they are doing is validating his bone fides.

It is sort of amusing to watch.

As far as titles go, you have outdone yourself this time.

I think that this e an FR hall of famer.

It must toast their buns to hear this from a black woman.

It is refreshing to have a SoS that can connect the dots, that actually knows something and has a real education.

I have done neither, and you know it. Her position is absurd on the face of it.

You are merely taking sides based on gender, not on any other "principle." Your retort is as childish and it is off point.

I have asked for cogent discussion from "doodle" and have not gotten it. Instead I received what can only be described as willful obtuseness interspersed with ill conceived gobbledygook, and this gobbledygook she has used to literally heckle people on this thread. She in no way meaningfully response to post directed at her.

In any event, it is none of your business.

If you have a substantive point, please make it. Otherwise spare me your "refereeing." It is completely uncalled for and out of line. She is big girl.

Honestly. Talk about rude.

As for you personal opinion of me, I could really care less.

Republican Party foreign policy expert Sen. Chuck Hagel

Heaven help us.

Do I have too? I make me sick to my stomach.

It is just more nonsense, more spin.

These people were moved up into more responsibility and with more outwardly facing foreign policy roles, not "demoted."

There is a vast difference between being a pawn and being a cincerned citizen unwilling to cede the public square to the enemies of one's civilization.

Receding from that fight in that square may be "creative," but it is most certainly cowardly.

Lastly, you have no notion of the depths of my creativity.

What no one in the media seems to want to mention is that most of the "Rising Sun" agitprop -for that is what it truly was - occurred during the Administrations of Reagan and Bush Senior.

Notice that soon after Clinton came to power the reporting here changed.

Curious thing about that.

You are completely missing my point, and your response was so fast that you could not have possibly digested my post.

You in fact completely ignored it.

Do you think this is just an echo chamber?

Why even bother with you?

And no, it is not a free country when the NEA and the Left controls the public school system. That is just the point.

Oh I believe you, and am gratified, believe you me.

I was making a smaller point. I do not doubt that there are high quality people in the service, and I absolutely do not think that to attain this level one has to be from the Ivies or even go to college (I went to a couple of Ivies, and I have taught in them, so I know first hand of what I speak.)

I am just making the point that it is amazing to see people from that background go in, that is all.

And do not get me started about the media...

Your assertion goes far beyond education,

If fact it is cognitively, intellectually, socially and politically impossible to have "freedom from religion,"

Our entire internal world, our civilization and our political foundations are deeply shaped and informed by it. Too suggest otherwise is just preposterous, and a thoroughly narcissistic and solipsistic understanding of what civilization is, or what the human is.

Likewise you notion of "choosing your children's private education is both spurious and specious.

1) Why should parents be forced to withdraw from public schools rather than decide to change them? Are the not coerced in to supporting them? Are they mere serf? hardly seems democratic or "public" to me.

2) There are no value neutral curriculum - they do not exist in a vacuum. Some group of people decide these things, and that group promotes its own believes and agenda. It is intellectually dishonest to suggest otjherwise, and it is arrogant for you to imagine that you have the right to foist your believe system on others without any political form or political outcome.

3) Secular humanism and Socialism are really just other belief systems and apply a quasi-supernatural mandate to their core beliefs as well. "Socialist man," Scientific materialism, "Scientism" or even the efficacy of reason as an ultimate moral arbiter are no less mystical or religious assertions than a belief in the Virgin Mary, and a great deal more harmful, I might add. Nothing could be clearer from the history of the 20th century.

4) In principle, no, parents cannot chose if there are economic. geographic or logistical limitations placed on them. This is a particularly specious formulation, and for obvious reasons.

5) You assume that your position is the majority position birth nationally and regionally. I fail to see how this is so.

So, based on what you have articulated, I find you position faulty in its whole and its parts, and not a serious position whatsoever.