Bryan

That must explain why the price of oil stayed relatively low during most of the war while going higher once the surge strategy largely calmed things down. But of course I'm the one ignoring the facts. Perhaps you'll bring up Iran, but Iran was very probably trying to develop nuclear power for about as long as Saddam Hussein. And it is Europe that succeeded in accomplishing nothing over a period of years in negotiating the issue with Iran. Bottom line, the Middle East is relatively stable right now except for the Iranian threat. I don't even know that liberals regard Iran as a threat, for that matter. I've heard some claim that Iran has a perfect right to whatever technology it wants and we should just leave them alone. That's true, but the experts expect that the dollar will climb from its recent lows. And if you took away Indian and Chinese consumption then gasoline would probably be pretty cheap. Oil production was way up compared to demand during the 1990s, and oil consumption in China has roughly doubled in that span of time. http://www.epsusa.org/publications/newslet...olas_graph1.jpg Probably the corrupt oil-for-food program helped keep prices down, also. Clinton's economic policies were not Democratic policies, with the exception of cutting back the military and enjoying the peace dividend produced by the end of the Cold War. Clinton presided over a growing economy left to him by George H. W. Bush and a technology bubble, and his two most important economic moves were signing NAFTA (putting the cherry on top of a Republican trade initiative) and instituting welfare reform. The left hated Clinton for both, but they are easily forgotten when it comes time to tout the greatness of Democratic economic policy. I don't see you addressing the point. If you reduce the profit on oil then you will decrease the incentive for production. That will reduce supply and (given relatively static demand) increase the price of oil. Meanwhile, investors across the spectrum of income lose out. I am? Because it's bad policy to execute a windfall profits tax on the oil industry to address high prices? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...s_tax_slap.html Clinton and Obama are the ones decrying windfall profits, are they not? All the while receiving the benefit of windfall profits. I trust I can leave to you any relevant mention of the administration's ties to big oil. Hopefully it's more than just mentioning the supposed relationship and gets to the wrongdoing or resulting damage to consumers. Not very interesting apart from that. It's so much easier arguing without any real support for your argument, isn't it? You're simply under the mistaken notion that the Clinton economy represented the implementation of Democratic policies. Thus you either ignore NAFTA and welfare reform or give us a pretzel. For you, it's a purely ideological issue for which you will sweep any inconvenient realities under endless, utterly biased verbage. Me? I want to make and save more money with higher pay, better return on stock investments, better interest rates on bonds and CDs and cheaper gas. I did that under Clinton, which is why I am not an Obama supporter, even though I agree with him on this issue. Obviously, we're not going to agree. I just don't know what the heck people like you are trying to prove. Nothing to prove--just sticking up for the truth. Bill Clinton did a decent job with the economy by doing very little to mess it up (not counting forcing the reduction of lending standards, which helped precipitate the sub-prime mortgage problem that erupted later). Senator Clinton is more of a doctrinaire liberal, placing government control of healthcare and a bushel full of new and expensive government programs as high priorities for her administration. Obama is slightly more reasonable on healthcare and worse on spending proposals. If either were willing to steer a moderate course like Bill Clinton did as president I wouldn't have dire expectations. But realistically that won't happen. The federal government under either Clinton or Obama will be a unified Democratic government, and nutty policies very harmful to the United States will probably result. There is no Republican-controlled congress to protect us from their stupidity and stimulate Clinton's famous triangulation. Add to that the international damage that will result if winning in Iraq is left to either of the Democratic nominees. Unless (as many experts expect) their rhetoric is insincere and merely designed to string along the hard left voter.

How did you arrive at the notion that Lamarckian evolution would imply a progression while Darwinism does not? You "clobbered" the commie idea by doubling down on your equivocation. I doubt you could clobber a dessicated planarian. I know for a fact that it is difficult for you because of the results you achieve, though my comment was intended to tweak you for not looking up the information for yourself (which you could assuredly do if it was easy for you). You give another example of horrendous results in your current post. More on that in a moment. Meh. You quoted me generally (using quote tags around my response as I did with yours above) but not in your question. You asked me to support my claims about Darwin's beliefs without specifying what you were talking about. Lastly, habit in the individual would ultimately play a very important part in guiding the conduct of each member; for the social instinct, together with sympathy, is, like any other instinct, greatly strengthened by habit, and so consequently would be obedience to the wishes and judgment of the community. These several subordinate propositions must now be discussed, and some of them at considerable length. http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...chapter_04.html Now, if some one man in a tribe, more sagacious than the others, invented a new snare or weapon, or other means of attack or defence, the plainest self-interest, without the assistance of much reasoning power, would prompt the other members to imitate him; and all would thus profit. The habitual practice of each new art must likewise in some slight degree strengthen the intellect. If the new invention were an important one, the tribe would increase in number, spread, and supplant other tribes. In a tribe thus rendered more numerous there would always be a rather greater chance of the birth of other superior and inventive members. If such men left children to inherit their mental superiority, the chance of the birth of still more ingenious members would be somewhat better, and in a very small tribe decidedly better. Even if they left no children, the tribe would still include their blood-relations; and it has been ascertained by agriculturists* that by preserving and breeding from the family of an animal, which when slaughtered was found to be valuable, the desired character has been obtained. http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...chapter_05.html The same conclusion may be extended to man; the intellect must have been all-important to him, even at a very remote period, as enabling him to invent and use language, to make weapons, tools, traps, &c., whereby with the aid of his social habits, he long ago became the most dominant of all living creatures. A great stride in the development of the intellect will have followed, as soon as the half-art and half-instinct of language came into use; for the continued use of language will have reacted on the brain and produced an inherited effect; and this again will have reacted on the improvement of language. As Mr. Chauncey Wright* has well remarked, the largeness of the brain in man relatively to his body, compared with the lower animals, may be attributed in chief part to the early use of some simple form of language,- that wonderful engine which affixes signs to all sorts of objects and qualities, and excites trains of thought which would never arise from the mere impression of the senses, or if they did arise could not be followed out. The higher intellectual powers of man, such as those of ratiocination, abstraction, self-consciousness, &c., probably follow from the continued improvement and exercise of the other mental faculties. http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...chapter_21.html Darwin didn't see it that way, obviously, and his Lamarckian notion of acquired characteristics (capable of being passed on) demonstrates this. Moreover, he saw evolution as progressive in man. Many of the faculties, which have been of inestimable service to man for his progressive advancement, such as the powers of the imagination, wonder, curiosity, an undefined sense of beauty, a tendency to imitation, and the love of excitement or novelty, could hardly fail to lead to capricious changes of customs and fashions. http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...chapter_03.html Progressive advancement. Read again the passage about the higher tribes supplanting the lower tribes. 6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel). http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/bu....htm#guidelines You're a poor researcher. Which of Darwin's works were "philosophical and social"? Haekel's Monism was certainly that, and was opposed by the Nazis (with Haeckel's Monist society banned in 1934 as a result. Grouped as they are, "primitive Darwinism" as a philosophical/social notion probably represents something similar. In short, you have provided no reasonable evidence that any book by Charles Darwin was banned in Germany. It was, and Darwin put it over the top giving it incredible social momentum. The subtitle "THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE" on such a best-selling work naturally got people to thinking how their race stacked up in the struggle for life. http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frames...3&pageseq=2 For Hitler, Jews represented a competing race and a challenge to the survival of the Aryan race represented by Germany. For Luther they represented a religious group opposed to an orderly society. The Nazis made use of the historical German antisemitism (which also predated Luther) but set the concept in a Darwinian frame. Science was used to provide the ad hoc justification for antisemitism. The ADL isn't always coherent.

Heh. Way to go with the sour grapes. The link you supplied features a relatively brilliant reductio ad absurdum that sinks the silly argument (by you) to which I had replied.

No. Not unless it's also curious that Mandela met with Bush at the White House in 2005. News & Notes , May 17, 2005 · President Bush meets with former South African President and Nobel Laureate Nelson Mandela Monday. The two men are to discuss a range of topics, including Mandela's efforts to promote universal education in Africa and how to stem the growing AIDS crisis, particularly in South Africa. The meeting also culminates a weeklong American visit that Mandela admits he may be too frail to make again. Allison Keyes reports. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4654914 18 May 2005 Former South African president Nelson Mandela and US President George Bush discussed the battle against Aids in Africa and ways to reduce developing country debt in a meeting on Tuesday. Mandela, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, met Bush at the White House during a private visit to the United States, the SA Press Association (Sapa) reported. The visit was to promote the Nelson Mandela Legacy Trust, which supports Mandela's African-based charities. http://www.southafrica.info/what_happening...bush-180505.htm Obviously your manties are in a twist. Your arguments are some of the most pathetic arguments ever.

That's certainly a voluminous attempt to distract attention from your ridiculous "time line" (your own term) that had Bush organizing to make a terrorism list in 2003 while one of your examples was barred from travel in 2002. Face it: You blundered big-time.

I didn't say that it did. The run up in gas prices has to do with higher demand (especially in China and India), speculation, and a recent pipeline problem in Nigeria. The gas tax holiday is not advertised as a solution for higher gas prices. It is touted as a form of temporary relief for consumers, and it fits that bill. He's off the mark for the same reason you are. 18.5 goes to the federal government, and more than that typically goes to state governments (as has already been shown). I'm happy to focus on oil company profits. Profits are what make oil exploration worthwhile, and profits are what make 401k and retirement investments in oil companies a boon to retirees (even if they're not retired yet). Take away the profit motive and why should an oil company bother to bring oil to market? The market incentive is gone. At that point, it is better for an oil company to allow the supply of oil to shrink and allow demand to increase. If the government refuses to budge, then get out of oil production and get into something more profitable, like publishing books like the ones Clinton and Obama wrote (funny how they're not against windfall profits when they're the ones profiting, isn't it?). Ever calculate how much they made on their books in relation to the time spent producing them? So what does Hillary propose? Go after the profits. That will cause the supply to shrink, which will result in higher prices (unless the government institutes price controls, in which case we'll end up with shortages). People have forgotten how bad are the economic policies of liberals. Obama or Clinton will remind you. The reason for your skepticism isn't clear. We've already got a good working relationship with the Iraqi government, particularly compared to other nations in the region. But then you're an Obama supporter, so I shouldn't expect good reasoning.

It'll start to happen once Iraq controls Basra, the main oil export city in Iraq. Oh, look. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle3671861.ece Hope you know how to ride a bike. The oil companies don't mind building the refineries. But they need the OK from government. Some in government think it's "not worth the damage," to borrow your phrase. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb48...05/ai_n18004214 Bicycle, my friend. And maybe you can ride one at a factory, too, to help them generate energy with which to produce goods. Meh. Non sequitur. Removing taxes on gasoline is not subsidizing gas prices. Paying gas companies to produce gasoline would be subsidizing gas prices. There is a weak argument that allowing gas companies access to public lands for drilling is a type of subsidy--but how else are you supposed to make use of the energy? Wait for the crude oil fairy to delivery it to the refinery? The government gets its cut by taxing gas at the end of the line instead of charging for access to the raw material. What a laugh. As if the greater good is served by a recession aggravated by government intervention at the risk of spiraling inflation. That's the hilarious thing about Democratic campaign rhetoric. They're trying to act like they'll improve the economy, but their policies spell shrinking economy and penalties for investment. But they can trust you to blame Bush when they screw up. He might be inclined to agree with you, but his economic advisers would be against such rampant silliness.

The implication seems to be that Bush lied, but you people always trip over your own feet and tongues when you try to get specific. Giving Carter the benefit for his honesty, he may be ultimately responsible for touching of Islamic terrorism. His kid gloves approach to Soviet communism emboldened the USSR to invade Afghanistan without provocation. Carter's response was ineffectual. It was others in Washington who turned Afghanistan in the Soviets' Waterloo. And Jimmuh also allowed the rise of the Iranian mullahs with his vacillating response to the Iranian revolution. It's true that Nixon was in on the price control nonsense before Jimmy got into office--but you should give Carter his due: He succeeded in making the problems worse through his policies. Carter thought we'd run into oil shortages in the 1980s. What a guy. What a genius. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html Carter was ineffective, but his policies were bad. He'd have had the US tightening its belt and sacrificing instead of recovering economically during the 80s and booming in the 90s. His economic prediction of loss of jobs because of oil imports was all wet. Free trade creates jobs all around and benefits the trading partners. If Carter had been an effective leader in terms of implementing his policies then his legacy would be even blacker than it is.

No, it doesn't work that way--you're the one with no brains. It's easy enough to prove it. Just look at two adjacent states that charge a different tax on gasoline. Rather than the market evening out the price between the two states, you can find a marked jump in price from one state to the other. http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/245.html According to AAA, the average price for a gallon of regular unleaded in Arizona is $3.318. That's up about 9 cents from one month ago, and 37 cents a gallon higher than one year ago. [...] Gas prices in California, which leads the nation in pricey fuel, broke $3.80 a gallon. New Jersey, the state with the cheapest gas, remains the only place with prices below $3.20 a gallon. http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories...14/daily14.html The price of gas will rise somewhat if the tax is lifted, but that's because higher demand will likely result from the initial lowering of the price. Consumers will pay less for gas if the tax is lifted, however. If voters want lower gas prices, lifting taxes on gas is one way to deliver on that issue. You can compare the price of cigarettes, also. Cigarette makers could sell cigarettes for less and double their profits if the taxes on cigarettes were lifted--all the while charging a lower price. In the case of cigarettes, competition would keep prices low (and the profit margin fairly stable across the industry). True, but killing vacations is no way to stimulate an economy. If people go on vacation they tend to spend money--and that generates tax revenue where the money is spent (in sales and corporate taxes). And whether the White House and Democrats will admit it or not, the increased emphasis on biofuels (both here and in Europe) is having a pronounced effect on food prices. Now you're really straining. No worries. The free lunch thing is just your straw man, anyway. There is a cost to lifting the gas tax for the summer, and it's probably worth the cost. It's arguably a form of Keynesian stimulus, actually. We'll be in decent shape on the energy front if we cultivate Iraq as a Middle East ally, tap domestic oil and gas reserves, build a new refinery or two and get into nuclear energy bigtime. The Democrats tend to be against all of that. Hope you like expensive fuel and bread, because that's what Obama will give you (unless he betrays his hard-left supporters in the radical environmental movement). http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_en...uivocations.php

Your own research indicates that Bush formed his list-making organization in 2003, while one of the ANC folks you listed was detained in 2002. If that doesn't tell you you're an idiot then you may be too stupid to understand.

He's probably talking about the fact that I met autonomous' challenge regarding Darwin's Lamarckianism, after which autonomous has been scarce. The obvious flaws in the supposedly "obvious flaws" have also been pointed out. That's why anonymous Guests like you have to show up to just repeat the refuted argument as if it was gold. Seriously, now. It's obvious that Darwin sustained Lamarckian beliefs, isn't it?

He'll respond. He'll post to tell me he's not avoiding addressing anything.

I don't believe you're correct. I don't believe you're dealing seriously with the issue that Gene and I were discussing. I don't believe you have any idea what you're talking about. Obviously I'm not objecting to anything you say ... *** This illustrates the disingenuousness of some atheists.

No, no, no. Obama is the rockstar because he opposed the war without having access to the intelligence regarding Iraq. That shows that he has excellent judgment. Understand now? Clinton would be better than Obama on foreign policy, I think. But either Democrat will be an unmitigated disaster for the economy. Their policies will drive up energy and food prices, perhaps touching off spiraling inflation. Increased unemployment may follow. But the greens in the party will cheer. A shrinking economy will tend to diminish carbon dioxide production. If we kill off enough humans through starvation and the like perhaps we can yet save the world!

The CFI report quotes very little of the text, often employing ellipses. Which parts of Wilson's response are not true, LaGuest?

If you read the article you should come away with the implication that Mandela and other ANC members have been on the list for a very long time. In other words, the with us or against us rhetoric you're using is very probably a lie, as Madela's appearance on the list is a relic of earlier administrations, not a result of the actions of the recent Bush administration.

It's only roughly half as bad, of course. Tu quoque fallacies are great, aren't they? Exactly what the Democrats expected when they did double the disenfranchising. Wow. That is so wonderful! Probably correct. I don't know why you'd apologize, unless you just happen to agree with me that he's a worse candidate than Clinton. McCain should compete well against either one. I think you may want to adjust your odds, though. The Gallup daily tracking poll has Clinton even with Obama among Democrats (47-47), and she has a realistic shot of overtaking him with the popular vote. That was the argument many have been using to support Obama's candidacy. It will be tough to reverse field on the basis of pledged delegates alone. Exits polls such as those in Pennsylvania suggest that might not be the case. Relatively high percentages of Clinton voters said they would not vote for Obama, and a smaller but considerable percentage of Obama voters said that they would take McCain over Clinton. Not the stuff of which united parties are made. Obama now appears as damaged goods, and Clinton has simply made herself decreasingly likable even while drawing even in the polls. Though early national election polling means relatively little (since much can change), McCain is extremely competitive against either Democratic candidate. http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvC.php http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvO.php Politically savvy Democrats are beside themselves that the national polling is as close as it is, and self-preservation will motivate quite a few superdelegates (you know, those delegates that the Democrats created especially in their party to overrule the voters when the voters don't vote at the party leadership would prefer--good luck with a tu quoque on that one). ...forward into the past of failed socialist policies. The ones Europeans are now realizing have kept them from being economically competitive with the U.S. for years even though they lean so heavily on us for their military needs. Oh, goody. If the electorate is stupid, the Dems win. If enough are educated regarding the damage Dem policies will do to our economy and international standing then McCain wins. And that outcome is more likely if Obama is the nominee. Obama is a radical leftist, not a centrist. McCain is the only candidate with a reasonable claim of being a centrist willing to work both sides of the aisle. Obama is wearing the label, but it doesn't fit him. Incorrect. The analysis I linked had Clinton turning out the winner based on winning future primaries not including Michigan or Florida. He now has more baggage, astoundingly. His friendships with radicals Wright and Ayers (including board service) and his association with Bernadine Dohrn (aka Mrs. Ayers) have begun to reveal him as a radical leftist. The press is starting to turn on your golden boy. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/HughHew...p;comments=true It won't worry me if Obama is the candidate unless he wins the general election. That's bad news for America and the rest of the Western world if that happens. It might be very good for Syria and Iran among others, however.

No doubt you've never made a peep about Gore winning the popular vote in 2000. But seriously--kudos if you really didn't make a peep about it. Obama was not on the Michigan ballot. Obama was on the Florida ballot. The irony that the party that whined so loudly about voter disenfranchisement disenfranchised the voters of two large states via party rules continues to stagger the imagination.

I love the way you dealt with the bulk of my post (cut it away and ignored it), you craven "Guest."

If all Republicans were opposed to earmarks then that would work. They tried that kind of reform back in the 1990s and it didn't fly. And there weren't enough Democrats helping out to make up for the Republicans who wouldn't get behind the reform). Meanwhile, Democrats bellied up to the table for their pork second to none despite their minority status. And happy constituents leads to re-election. It all makes good sense in a crazy sort of way. There's nothing wrong with proposing legislation requested through lobbyists, per se. The crime is in accepting undue influence (big money in Cunningham's case, tit-for-tat in Ney's case --I'm not sure why you included DeLay unless it's just a Democrat tradition to name him among crooked politicians). Bribery isn't allowed regardless of how the legislation gets passed. Earmarks stink because they make the mechanics of corruption so downright easy. Neither of the first two, possibly the third depending on implementation. Primarily I don't think it's the proper purview of the federal government. Such programs should be instituted at either the state level or (even better) privately. A children's hospital adjacent to a general hospital? There shouldn't be any issue of competition. The location of children's hospitals relative to other hospitals (except other children's hospitals) seems irrelevant. It seems like a good investment in the future relationship between the West and Iraq, in the spirit of the Marshall Plan. Inefficient or criminal business practices by contractors involved in the construction is a separate issue, in my view.

Clinton may yet capture the popular vote. This would eliminate Obama's current popular vote margin, without including Florida and Michigan totals and even if you use imputed vote totals for the four caucus states (Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington) where Democrats did not disclose vote totals. The current popular vote margin for Obama on realclearpolitics.com is, under those favorable assumptions, 827,498. My spreadsheet numbers would give Clinton a 106,186 margin. The Obama margin if you don't give him his imputed margin in those four caucus states is 717,276. My results would convert that to a Clinton popular vote margin of 216,408. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/3/...gate-count.html Worried?

What's the matter? Did Ask.com crash or something? Darwin's Origin of Species proposed natural selection as the main mechanism for development of species, but did not rule out a variant of Lamarckism as a supplementary mechanism.[1] Darwin called his Lamarckian hypothesis Pangenesis, and explained it in the final chapter of his book Variation in Plants and Animals under Domestication, after describing numerous examples to demonstrate what he considered to be the inheritance of acquired characteristics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism The recent historiography of science has too readily dismissed this instance of Darwin's theorizing as too patently ad hoc to merit serious attention. But the strength of such criticism is undermined by closer examination. It must be seen that it was Darwin's firm conviction that no general theory of inheritance was acceptable unless it equally explained important, exceptional phenomena. These he initially listed as: instances of noninheritance; dominance simultaneous with blending; exact duplica-tion of parent through both sexual and asexual repro- duction; inheritance of the effects of use, disuse, and habit; atavism; and saltations. http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv2-69 Page one confirms Darwin's lingering Lamarckism: http://www.esp.org/books/darwin/variation/...n-chap-27-i.pdf Man prompted by his conscience, will through long habit acquire such perfect self-command, that his desires and passions will at last yield instantly and without a struggle to his social sympathies and instincts, including his feeling for the judgment of his fellows. The still hungry, or the still revengeful man will not think of stealing food, or of wreaking his vengeance. It is possible, or as we shall hereafter see, even probable, that the habit of self-command may, like other habits, be inherited. http://www.online-literature.com/view.php/.../4?term=culture How are such races distributed over the world; and how, when crossed, do they react on each other in the first and succeeding generations? And so with many other points. The enquirer would next come to the important point, whether man tends to increase at so rapid a rate, as to lead to occasional severe struggles for existence; and consequently to beneficial variations, whether in body or mind, being preserved, and injurious ones eliminated. Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct? We shall see that all these questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals. http://www.online-literature.com//descent_man/1/ Perhaps you'll argue that extinct races continue to be able to reproduce. I suppose we'll see. Because we cannot ever separate personal responsibility from the consequences of an idea?

You're helping Matthew with his research? Matthew will probably have that figured out later this week.

Meh. More word games from a craven "Guest." Bush never claimed that Iraq or Hussein was responsible for 9-11. Simple as that. Your dancing is futile. You're the one implying that Bush implied a connection between Hussein and 9-11. It didn't happen. His administration flatly stated on many occasions that there was no evidence of complicity by Hussein or Iraq with respect to the 9-11 attacks. The connection Bush did make was that 9-11 demonstrated how much damage could occur through terrorist tactics--tactics that Iraq could have greatly assisted with WMD or WMD technologies. The dishonesty of the Democrat leadership, a large number of American liberals, and a large segment of the mainstream press on this issue has been absolutely appalling.

It just shows how the Politico story is on-target in portraying the media as gung-ho for Obama. The story completely downplays the daily tracking poll that I cited directly from Gallup in favor of (apparently) a composite poll that rolled up a spread of recent results into one total that was more favorable to Obama. Though it would have been fair for you to note that Gallup's latest daily tracking poll shows Obama leading Clinton again (49-42 +/- 5%). But still trailing in Pennsylvania.