WilliamK

If Paszkiewicz wasn't continuing his bad behavior, there'd be no "vendetta". Ah, yes. The old "someone else's actions are worse, therefore I should not be held accountable for my own" defense. Real class there, LL. Do you think the police should stop arresting burglars because there are still murders to solve? I suspect that the answer to that depends entirely on whether you are a burglar, as you're obviously not above using exactly that kind of excuse. As to why Paul would be so keenly interested in Paszkiewicz' misdeeds, does it not occur to you that a parent might have a greater than average concern for issues that affect the quality of public education? Does it not occur to you that someone who has been personally affected by the wrong doings of a particular person might have a heightened concern for the continued bad behavior of that same person? Does it not occur to you that someone who strongly values science and reason might tend to have greater than average concern for attacks on same? Does it not occur to you that ALL of these factors apply here? Is acknowledging those things just too to honest and decent for your character to allow? That's a low blow, LL, and completely without merit. In his pursuit of Paszkiewicz, Paul has done nothing unethical, illegal, or that in any way hinders the proper functioning of our legal system.

When I saw Paul's obviously accidental "Guest" post, I wondered how long it would take for someone to try to spin it as some kind of deliberate deception. But then I thought, no, surely no one would stoop that low. Tell me LL, how's the view from way down there?

That makes it legal, but it doesn't make it right.

Yep. And as moderate Republicans abandon ship, these far-right fanatics make up a larger part of what remains, making the party even less attractive to moderates and independents, or for crossover votes from Democrats. The Republican party may eventually recover, but for now, it is still busy inflicting wounds on itself. They didn't lose the youth vote, the minority vote, or the moderate vote by not being conservative enough. And they didn't lose the far-right vote, so there's little to be gained by appealing to the base. But that is the direction they're currently going. Their future, at least for the short term, is not bright.

A false dichotomy. And not a particularly clever one at that. It could also be that arranging an AF1 photoshoot just isn't an important enough issue (think Afghanistan, economy, energy, N. Korea, Supreme Court appointment, etc.) to warrant the involvement of any significant portion of the President's administration, and that an otherwise competent person simply didn't think things through all the way on this one. You'd be hard pressed to come up with any good reason to expect the former to not be the case, and the latter is a common enough occurrence. But, no, Guest would rather pretend that these very likely cases are somehow not in the realm of possibility.

Bozo here seems to be under the mistaken impression that these gatherings of morons rated the front page. Just because you named it "tea party" doesn't mean it had anything near the significance of its namesake. It's a bit like a canoe with "USS Constitution" painted on it. The coverage given by major media outlets was quite appropriate, with the notable exception of Fox News' cheerleading. Not really. It just goes to show that PT Barnum knew what he was talking about.

Neither side is blameless. But to pretend that the blame is equal, or that there isn't a major credibility gap moving forward is just foolish. It is the plain truth that one party's ideology bears the bulk of the responsibility for the present mess, that this same party is now doing nothing to fix it, and is running interference as the other party works to repair the damage.

I didn't say their obstruction has been entirely successful. Just that it's where they're directing their efforts. Not a single House Republican voted for the stimulus bill, even after getting some concessions. We're in a crappy situation, folks. And the solution is ugly. No one is denying that the bailouts will benefit some people who don't deserve it, and that the huge deficits will have painful and long-lasting consequences. But do you think that just letting the country sink into a full fledged depression wouldn't also have long-term consequences? Not to mention being a near-term disaster. These are the cards we've been dealt. It stinks. But the Republicans have completely failed to come up with any viable alternative. They just pretend that the same failed philosophy that got us here will magically work this time if we just give it another chance. Republicans seem to think that since their tax cuts for the rich didn't produce the economic boom that their faith-based economics predicted, we need to give the rich even bigger tax cuts. Here's a clue, Republicans: When flogging fails to improve morale, it does not mean that you're not flogging enough. Bipartisanship is a nice idea, but it isn't working. The Republican party has descended into idiocy. And that's a real shame, because we really do need an opposing side to keep the party in power honest. But an opposition that has lost its mind is useless. It's time to stop making concessions. It's time to just do what needs to be done for the good of the country. The Republicans can join in and help when they're done throwing tantrums. But we can't afford to just stand around doing nothing in the mean time. Have you ever seen a tractor-trailer rig with one of the trailer wheels locked, the tire dragging on the pavement and smoke pouring off of it while all the other wheels are working properly? The truck's movement is impaired, but it can still move. That locked wheel is a pretty good analogy for the role the Republican party has made for itself.

Ok. I'll amend my statement by inserting the word "Unilateral". Secession without either the agreement of the country being seceded from, or a pre-established legal right to do so, would be an act of war. I know that secessionists like to assert that such a legal right exists, but they have failed to establish convincingly (other than convincing themselves) that this is the case. The contrary case is much stronger. The constitutionality of unilateral secession has, in fact, been tested by the U.S. Supreme Court (Texas vs. White, which is probably what you're referring to). It failed the test. So, as Texas lacks both the agreement of the union, and any established legal right to unilateral secession, any secession move stronger than asking for permission would be an act of war. Ratifying a declaration of independence, for example. That much is true. And you'll notice that I've not claimed otherwise. Only if the union blesses it. Without that, no such right exists. The last time a group of states (one of which was Texas) tried to unilaterally secede produced a rather well-known war. Notice also that all of them are still part of the union.

The credit for those lies with the Republicans. What you right-wing ideologues have done to your country is a disgrace. And now that you've lost your dominant position because of it, you oppose, deride, and deny every effort to make it right. Every sign of recovery, every improvement in our country's standing in the world, every improvement in our children's education, every gain in our scientific prowess, every reduction in our dependency on foreign oil, will now be a reminder of the failure of your ideology. Those are the things the US is now working to create. That is what we have to celebrate. And you guys can't stand it. It is glaringly obvious that you care more for your ideology than for your country. Like Rush Limbaugh, you want Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress to fail. You'd rather see your country stay mired in your mess than to have the other guys do better than your guys did. And the Republicans who remain in power are trying their best to make that happen. Standing in the way of any and all progress. Fighting against every effort, and offering in return nothing but the same failed ideas that created this mess. They are actively working against the interests of their own country out of fear that the other guys might succeed where they failed. Shameful.

You're lying as usual. The report made no such accusation. The report only pointed out that right wing groups are likely to target returning veterans for recruitment because 1) veterans trend to the political right, and, 2) veterans' military training is something that the more militant groups will find desirable. Most veterans are not secessionists or militia members, and the report did not claim otherwise. But those groups do have a motivation to recruit veterans. Whether you take offense at it or not, it is just the plain truth that this is one of the factors that makes the current political climate ripe for an upswing in right-wing radicalism. It's a "few X are Y, but many Y are X" kind of thing. Sheesh. Are you a compulsive liar 2smart? http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/15/phi...iref=newssearch http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30227452/ http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-te...0,5379706.story http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/polit...arty&st=cse http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/...ea-parties.html http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...=009&sc=230 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/t...s_n_187249.html This is just a representative sampling. There are many, many more. Perhaps 2smart has confused the word "cover" with "shameless promotion", as Fox News has done. It's true that the current deficits are a record high. But it is also true that: A. GWB and the Republican dominated Congress also shattered all previous records. As did GHWB and Ronald Reagan before them. and B. The size of the current deficit is necessitated by an economic disaster created by the Republicans' failed economic theories. So, I have a couple of questions for all you tea party idiots: Where was your outrage when the Republicans were running the biggest deficts in history? Where is your outrage against the Republican's for the central role they played in creating the current massive deficit? One thing is clear in all of this. The stated motivation for these tea parties is not the real motivation. It is complete nonsense, and is nothing more than an excuse for venting anger driven by a mix of other factors. These motivations include: fanatical adherence to discredited economic theories, sour grapes for having been booted out of power by voters, and religious, racial, and political bigotry. But deficits and taxes? That's not an element of the set of credible explanations. If that was your true motivation, you would have staged these protests when GWB, GHWB, and RR were in office, or would be directing the bulk of your ire at them now.

Unpatriotic is an understatement. A secession attempt would be an act of war against the United States. As to hypocrisy, how much would you want to bet that a significant portion of that 31% are self-proclaimed "patriots" who can be found waving the stars-and-stripes at republican rallies? Whether he takes secession seriously or not, Perry is playing a very irresponsible and dangerous political game with this. It will appeal to the wingnut base, which is pretty large in Texas. It is hard to predict at this point, but this might improve his odds in a primary against Kay Bailey Hutchison, who so far appears to have a significant edge. But it also "stirs the pot" of far-right extremists at a time that is ripe for that particular flavor of radicalism. Though still around, the Republic of Texas secessionists have pretty much disappeared from public view in the time that has passed since one of their factions made headlines in a hostage-taking and standoff with the law back in '97. Now their cause is getting attention again, and these groups may be reinvigorated by this.

That was just amazing. This reminds me of another "lump of coal" who wowed 'em a while back.

I hadn't noticed that until you pointed it out. It was inconspicuous amidst the other stupidity in your post.

That's right. It was surely all designed by a beautiful and amazing intelligent designer that only an even more intelligent designer could have created. I'm not sure which is more compelling. Intelligent design, or "turtles all the way down".

Yes indeed. The very same "flaw" that keeps us from "seeing" that the flat earth rests on the back of an enormous elephant (or turtle, take your pick). When you see things that someone else does not, it doesn't necessarily mean that you possess superior vision. Sometimes it just means that you're hallucinating.

A very good point. But, for the current discussion, I'm fine with using a looser definition of "scientist" that is inclusive of natural philosophers.

You have it backwards there. To the rational, the unexplained is simply unexplained. It is the religious who cannot accept that. To them, the unexplained MUST have some kind of answer attached to it, even in the absence of any actual knowledge. And religion provides a way to do that. Since "God" is defined as omnipotent, "God did it" is a universal explanation for everything. It protects the the believer from the discomfort of accepting that they live in a world of unknowns, including some of their deepest questions. The problem is that it merely hides their ignorance, and often only from themselves, but does not reduce it.

An interesting assertion. Do you believe it's true? Can you back it up? Sometime around 250BC, the greek scientist Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth with good precision. But he already knew that it was a sphere. This seems to have been common knowledge among scientists, even 2200+ years ago. Still, it is possible that some scientist at some time might have believed that the earth was flat. It might be hard to prove, since the further back you go, the fewer scientists you're likely to find, much less to find good information about what they believed. But still, it is not implausible. But what is implausible is that such a belief could have been a product of science itself, as evolution is. If any scientists ever did believe that the world was flat, it was more likely just a case of an assumption that they had not thought to test. Sort of like the assumption that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones. In the distant past, many scientists believed that. It seemed intuitively obvious. But when Galileo decided to investigate that idea scientifically, the assumption was revealed false. My point is that just because some scientist somewhere, sometime, believed something, that does not mean that that belief is the product of science. Yours is an apples to freight trains comparison. Comparing evolution, a scientific theory supported by a vast body of knowledge and research, to some non-scientific and untested assumption that some unnamed scientist hundreds or thousands of years ago *might* have believed.

Is that troll manure that I smell?

Because of the deep ignorance and general dishonesty that you've exhibited here, I won't take your word for it. But it hardly matters. Well educated or not, it is painfully obvious that whatever education you have hasn't stopped you from being supremely ignorant. Oh my. What a remarkably stupid comment from one who deems himself "2smart4u". Abiogenesis is much more speculative than evolution (which, contrary to your protestations, is firmly established), but it is very much in the domain of science. It has multiple competing theories, at least some of which will no doubt eventually join the likes of phlogiston theory on the scientific scrap heap. But far from meaning that it isn't science, that is exactly how science is done. Of course you will. When your central goal in life is to prop up your faith, reason and knowledge are your enemies. There are three paths when it comes to the balance between reason and faith. 1. Give reason precedence over faith. (the path of the atheist/agnostic) 2. Compartmentalize reason and faith, giving each authority over its own domain. (the path of the rational believer) 3. Give faith precedence over reason. (the path of the ignorant and superstitious) It's obvious which path you've chosen.

Sure there is. Not the least of which is that the attribution is false. http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/proudwhite.asp http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/dubiousqu...aelrichards.htm

You are, of course, an absolute moron.

That's it, little monkey. Keep on flinging that poo. Show everyone what you're made of.

50% is Miss Spent? What's the other 50%, Miss Demeanor?