Bryan
-
Posts
1,763 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by Bryan
-
-
Of course. Which was why when you brought it up I posted the following:
How did you arrive at the notion that Lamarckian evolution would imply a progression while Darwinism does not?
I'm sure you've enjoyed mauling your straw man though. You've done little else since I clobbered your commie idea. That's why I stopped.You "clobbered" the commie idea by doubling down on your equivocation.
I doubt you could clobber a dessicated planarian.
Awwww-isn't that cute. You actually think this is work for me.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.
Precisely which of these shows that Darwin believed that cultural superiority was inheritable? That was the claim you made, and clearly the one I questioned. Heck-I even quoted you.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 was wrong there, clearly. Technology trumps biology. However, evolution is simply about the ability to survive long enough to reproduce.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.
There is nothing about the 'Master Race' in there.Read again the passage about the higher tribes supplanting the lower tribes.
That might be why the Nazis banned Darwin:http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/bu...s/documents.htm
(The section Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279 #6.
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.
Expelled apparently cannot. Thing is-you already said theat evolution was in the air before Darwin.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
As far as the consequences of ideas go-exactly where did anti-Semitism come from again?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.
Yhe ADL certainly disagrees with the movie:The ADL isn't always coherent.
-
I dunno, this one has to come close:
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.
-
Isn't is curious how Nelson Mandela is still on Bush's terror list today but was a guest at the White House in November 2001?
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.
-
Very astute, except for the fact that the federal gas tax has nothing to do with the run up in gas prices.
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.
Without addressing what actually caused the price increase utterly misses the point, and the band aid of dropping the federal tax does nothing to solve this in the long term.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.
That's why Obama rightly calls this tactic a sham.He's off the mark for the same reason you are.
Of course, apologists like yourself will focus on 18.5 cents that goes to the government and not the $2 that goes to Big Oil.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.
"We'll be in decent shape on the energy front if we cultivate Iraq as a Middle East ally..."And we'll revolutionize the pork transport industry when pigs fly.
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.
-
>>We'll be in decent shape on the energy front if we cultivate Iraq as a Middle East ally,<<
and when do you suppose that's going to happen? Production isn't even likely to rise very much over pre-war levels until the fighting subsides. I don't believe that will happen until sometime after we withdraw.
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
>>tap domestic oil and gas reserves,<<Small gain and not worth the damage, IMHO
Hope you know how to ride a bike.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/>> build a new refinery or two<<
Maybe the oil companies could foot the bill for that themselves now instead of depending on Federal tax breaks? .. or ten billion a week in profits isn't enough?
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
>>and get into nuclear energy bigtime.<<There are many environmentalists who think today's nuclear is a good idea. I'm ambivalent, however, if it can be proven safe, I don't see why not.
Bicycle, my friend. And maybe you can ride one at a factory, too, to help them generate energy with which to produce goods.
>> 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).<<One good thing that has come out of all this is that the idiots who insist on driving Hummers and other gas guzzleing SUVs for vanity are being forced to pay dearly for the perk... and from my observation, that's a lot of people. I drive a little 35 MPG tin can so they get little sympathy from me. Imagine that, Capitalism forcing people into fuel efficiency. What a concept! I think it's a great idea ... but Bryan, you want the government to step in and, essentially, subsidize gas prices? I'm shocked!
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 we could save in the long run if we let this summer vacation season tank because of gas prices instead of having the government put a temporary bandaid on a gaping wound, to me anyway, would be for the greater good.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.
I don't think anyone agrees with me on this one, however. .. not even Obama.He might be inclined to agree with you, but his economic advisers would be against such rampant silliness.
-
Jimmy Carter did not get us into an unnecessary war based on a lie.
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.
Jimmy Carter was not able to overcome the political inertia that caused some economic problems, but those problems were not nearly as severe as those caused by Bush, and unlike Bush, Carter did not affirmatively cause the problems.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.
If we had listened to Jimmy Carter 30 years ago and started a real energy independence program, we wouldn't be in this mess today.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
Jimmy Carter's main problem is that he was ineffective. He tried to buck the Washington establishment and it shot him down. That compromises his legacy, but he did not do anything like the damage Bush has done.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.
-
John McCain and Hillary Clinton are now engaged in an act of political prostitution. They are pandering to the least informed voters, promising a gas tax holiday for the summer. Some voters, who are stupid enough to buy this, and petty enough to allow their vote to be bought with a lollipop, probably will jack up Hillary's numbers this coming Tuesday.
If these voters had any brains, they would realize that the price of gas at the pump is set by supply and demand. Take off the 18-cent gas tax, and the oil companies will just add 18 cents onto the price. You won't save a penny.
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).
Oh, but it will effect you economically. The money you will have given to the oil companies could have been used to offset your taxes, but since there's no such thing as a free lunch, you're going to have to make up those revenues - the roads are not going to fix themselves and the tooth fairy isn't going to do it.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.
In addition, without the gas tax, roads and highways won't get needed repairs, which means that you'll be sitting in longer traffic lines all summer and into the fall. This is also going to cost you economically, not to mention the cost of your time and inconvenience. There are also going to be more accidents because now the roads will be in worse shape. Even if you're not one of the people involved in one of those accidents (if you are, that's even more costly to you personally), there's an economic cost to your lost time, too, including whatever number of days you are late getting to work.Now you're really straining.
Not one expert in economics or public policy supports this ridiculous free-lunch idea.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.
This is pure political pandering.It's arguably a form of Keynesian stimulus, actually.
But that didn't stop Hillary or McCain. Only one remaining presidential candidate had the integrity to say no. I hope he survives this primary season and becomes the Democratic nominee, then President. If he does not, then we are headed for four more years of the same political folly that landed us in this mess in the first place.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
-
Bush has been emperor for almost eight years. THAT'S A LONG TIME to keep Nelson Mandela (and hugely numerous other targets) in the "axis of evil" doghouse.
Let's examine the Bush II regime timeline on matters of labeling people as terrorists:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coun...errorism_Center
The precursor organization of NCTC, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC), established on May 1, 2003, was created by President George W. Bush by Executive Order 13354.
NCTC Goals:
Products, such as detailed lists of terrorists, terrorist groups, and worldwide terrorist incidents.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here's the last paragraph in the USA Today article that I posted to start this thread:
When ANC members apply for visas to the USA, they are flagged for questioning and need a waiver to be allowed in the country. In 2002, former ANC chairman Tokyo Sexwale was denied a visa. In 2007, Barbara Masekela, South Africa's ambassador to the United States from 2002 to 2006, was denied a visa to visit her ailing cousin and didn't get a waiver until after the cousin had died, Berman's legislation says.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now after eight years, with monkey boy in the last days of his disastrous dictatorship, do you REALLY think Bush has any innocence concerning Nelson Mandela included on the terrorist list that was a pillar in his intimidation and FEAR MONGERING?
Show the forum how desperate you are, Bryan. It's slightly satisfying to witness the Bush deadenders as scurrying sophists at this late date.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED FIVE YEARS NOW!!!
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.
-
The hell are you talking about, fool?
He's probably talking about the fact that I met autonomous' challenge regarding Darwin's Lamarckianism, after which autonomous has been scarce.
Bryan goes on and on forever without really saying anything, and the obvious flaws in his arguments have been pointed out by probably over a dozen posters already.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?
-
HA! Autonomous can't even respond to Bryan now! Bryan wins!
He'll respond. He'll post to tell me he's not avoiding addressing anything.
-
This is an interesting feature of many theists, and explains many of their positions on atheists.
Not believing something is not objecting to it.
I don't believe you're correct.
I do not believe that God exists (please note "I do not believe" does not equate to "I know"-I'd really rather not rehash that crap again).I don't believe you're dealing seriously with the issue that Gene and I were discussing.
That does not mean I object to the idea, it simply means I don't accept it.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.
-
What is happening to the defeatocratic party ?? First Obama is interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News
Sunday and then Hillary appears on the O'Reilly Factor tonight. The George Soros faction of the Loony Left
won't be happy with them.
Obama is worried, he dosen't smile any more, his luster has worn off. Here's a guy that was elected to
the senate in Illinois because he was black. After one term he becomes a defeatocratic presidential
candidate because he ......... is black?
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?
What else, he hasn't done or accomplished anything in his one term.People are starting to question just what "Change we can believe in" means. My guess is it means
"change" is all you'll have left out of your paycheck when he's done raising your taxes.
I think Hillary is the better choice. With her you get more bang for your buck (or vote), 2 for the price
of one. I'll vote for McCain but my second choice is Hillary, I kind of look forward to seeing Bubba back
in the White House doing his thing with the interns.
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!
-
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...,0,247646.story
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...0,5311132.story
Wilson's response is very defensive, not to mention much of it isn't true. The CFI report quotes the text verbatim.
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.
-
Bryan,
I want to say up front that I'm deeply touched by your concern about the mechanics of the Democratic Party selection process. I can't understand why your imagination isn't staggered by the fact that the Republican National Committee stripped Florida of half of it's delegation for the same reasons.
It's only roughly half as bad, of course. Tu quoque fallacies are great, aren't they?
Somehow when they do it it's not disenfranchisement. Of course, no one's going to notice the Florida shortage at the Republican Convention because the nominee has already been decided.Exactly what the Democrats expected when they did double the disenfranchising.
Michigan and Florida will be represented at the Democratic Convention after the Democratic nominee has been decided also.Wow. That is so wonderful!
That will likely be by mid June. It will be Barack Obama.Probably correct.
I'll give the odds at this battle going to the Convention about 10-1 against. (Sorry, Bryan.)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.
The party will unite around him.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).
There will be some who walk away, just as some Republicans have walked away from John McCain. However, for the most part, the party faithful will line up behind their respective candidates and move forward....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.
As far as popular vote in the Democratic Primaries are concerned, the only way Clinton can claim she has won it is by including Michigan where Obama got '0' votes because he was not on the ballot. I'm sure if he were on the ballot he might have gotten a few more.Incorrect. The analysis I linked had Clinton turning out the winner based on winning future primaries not including Michigan or Florida.
He has more delegates. He has more of the popular vote. He will be the nominee.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.
-
Well, we have the delegate system for a reason. They should support whichever candidate has the most pledged delegates.
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.
Maybe we shouldn't have a delegate system, but until/unless that system is changed, that is what the supers should do, as delegates are what decides which candidate is ahead in the current system.The Florida and Michigan situation is a negative for BOTH Democratic candidates, so it's irrelevant here. The outcome of the actual voting shouldn't count because Obama wasn't even on the ballot, and there was no campaigning going on. Democrats in general were disenfranchised, not just Clinton supporters.
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.
-
And the pot calls the kettle the pot.
I love the way you dealt with the bulk of my post (cut it away and ignored it), you craven "Guest."
-
First, you have to look at the growth of Ear Marks over the course of the last seven years. I use this time frame because the Republicans were in control for six of those year and were responsible for the large increase since they could have stopped them. But to be fair, both parties use them.
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, of course you have to look at what ear marks are and how they come about. And I do give Mc Cain credit for trying to reign them in. Sadly though, it didn't happen until this year. Some ear marks like the ones I mentioned went for appropriate reasons. And in large measures most of our elected officials use them to benefit their constituants.And happy constituents leads to re-election. It all makes good sense in a crazy sort of way.
Then there are those ear marks that are specifically requested through lobbyists. This is what got De Lay, Ney and Cunningham in trouble. These are the ear marks that should never be approved since they are a product of pure greed.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.
But let me ask you this, do you consider the Presidents request for $20,000,000 for the Laura Bush Librarian Program to be pork, an ear mark or a waste of tax payers money.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.
Also, how do you feel about the Laura Bush Hospital being built in Iraq, one block from an Iraqi Hospital.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.
-
The superdelegates would be committing political suicide if they did anything than go with the will of the people. They wouldn't do that. They will support Obama as they should.
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?
-
Care to cite your claim about Darwin's belief? From Darwin, if you please.
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
:lol: God you're an idiot. Natural selection favors those able to reproduce, it has nothing to do with master races or weaker races.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.
Here's the thing-even if Darwin believed everything you think he did, he's about as responsible for Hitler as the Wright brothers are for 9/11.Because we cannot ever separate personal responsibility from the consequences of an idea?
-
We've been trying to find out when the eleventh edition came out.
You're helping Matthew with his research?
It's still not available on Amazon.com. The only place we can find it being available is on Houghton-Mifflin's own site. We don't know when they made it available.Matthew will probably have that figured out later this week.
-
Of course Bush never made a connection between Hussein and 9/11, there never was one.
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.
What you conveniently neglect to mention is that Bush never missed an opportunity for fear mongering and implying a connection between Hussein and 9/11.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.
-
I guess I must be making this stuff up!! LOL!!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/elec...ll_N.htm?csp=34
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.
:lol: God you're an idiot. Natural selection favors those able to reproduce, it has nothing to do with master races or weaker races.
"gas tax holiday"
in Kearny
Posted
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.