WilliamK

You "under God" defenders really need to get your story straight. On the one hand, some of you argue that "under God" doesn't constitute an endorsement of religion or exclude anyone because it doesn't specify which god. Then others among you (presumably, as the same people arguing both points would be profoundly stupid) argue that it belongs there because this is a "Christian nation". Though wrong about this being a Christian nation, I do have to give the latter group some credit for at least being truthful about the motivation. "Under God" is a government endorsement of religion. And specifically the Christian religion. Does anyone actually believe that the people who voted it into the pledge had in mind to acknowledge any God but the Christian one? If so, were you born yesterday? They may have had the feigned non-specificity in mind as a way to defend what they were doing, but you'd have to be an idiot to believe that "under God" was really intended to refer to Vishnu, Zeus, or Gaia. You'd have to be even more of an idiot to believe that it wasn't intended to marginalize anyone because of their religious beliefs. Given the historical context of the cold war and McCarthyism, it was clearly meant to draw a distinction between the US and the "godless communists", particularly the "godless" part. "Under God" was put in the pledge for the purpose of making a government endorsement of a specific religion and marginalizing atheism, and by extension atheists. It is indefensible against the first amendment other than by pretending it to be something other than what it clearly is. Of course you do. You're a bigot. And that's what bigots do. Are you sure you're not really an atheist trying to make Christians look bad?

Newdow is very much alive, no thanks to the numerous Christians who displayed the sincerity of their commitment to the kindness and love of Jesus Christ by threatening to murder him. Will you? For all the lies that you have spread and the bigotry that you have exhibited and promoted? And will it be sincere, or just a pretense to avoid the consequences of action's you would gladly do again if you thought you could get away with it? Do you really think that you would be in any better standing at the pearly gates than Newdow?

Some free fall. Latest Zogby poll has Obama favored over McCain 47% to 37%. http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1511

Radios are faster than dirt bikes. You're not helping its image any yourself.

Religion is superficially about belief in God, revealed knowledge, and a moral code. But fundamentally, religion is belief in belief. It is the promotion of what one desires to be true over what actually is true. It is a promotion of faith and a corresponding subjugation of reason. In this mindset, a belief is judged on the comfort, utility, or other perceived benefit of believing it, not on whether it is actually true. The Christian and the Muslim will both insist that they believe what they believe because they know it to be literally true. They'll insist that they would not believe it otherwise. They can't both be right, and I see no reason to believe that either is right. The reality is that both chose their religion because it is what their parents and/or society taught them, and they continue to believe it only because they desire it to be true. Truth doesn't factor into it at all. It's just a label applied on the surface to create an illusion of legitimacy to protect their precious faith from the threat of unfettered reason.

I don't think that is nearly as significant as some are making it out to be. The "who would you vote for if the election were held today between candidate X and candidate Y" type of polls inherently already account for that, and most of them show both Clinton and Obama beating McCain by very thin margins. If it's neck-and-neck with the "sour grapes" turncoats already in the mix, then there's a very real potential for that margin to improve once the primary battle is over and there have been a few months for the losers' wounds to heal. There are numerous unknowns that could dramatically shift the odds between now and November. Running mates is a big one. If McCain chooses Huckabee for VP, that might make the far right happier about voting for McCain. But it might not help much, as most of them would have voted for him anyway. They're highly unlikely to cross over and vote for Clinton or Obama. Still, he might get a few who would have stayed at home. But thinking of those sour grapes democrats again, while some of the disappointed Clinton or Obama supporters may have been willing to make a cross over vote for the moderate John McCain, I very much doubt that many would be willing to vote for the much further right Mike Huckabee, even as VP. Some might stay home and not vote at all, but I'd bet that a significant number would end up voting for the other democrat after all, despite their previous bitterness over the primary battle. I really think McCain would have a better chance in the general election by teaming up with someone similarly moderate, rather than trying to appease the far right with his VP choice. He'd likely have a more effective presidency that way too, by not wasting so much time butting heads with a philosophically incompatible VP. Obama's choice of VP (yes, I'm pretty much counting Clinton out now) could be a big factor too, pro or con. Unlike McCain, Obama could actually benefit by choosing a complementary running mate, at least in one regard. Teaming up with someone with long experience could diminish (not eliminate, just diminish) the effect of the "greenhorn" criticisms. I still think he'd do will to choose someone who is otherwise more supplementary than complementary though.

Relax, Guest. It sounds like SAM is either spinning a yarn, or doesn't know the whole story and may be jumping (or, intentionally or unintentionally, leading others to jump) to some faulty conclusions. I don't for a moment believe that people were being arrested merely for being residents of a particular town. The list (assuming this whole thing isn't a fabrication) obviously isn't a list of all Kearny residents, as Sam wasn't on it, and as fitting 40,000 names on a 5 or 6 page list would have required some ridiculously small print. Was the court clerk wielding a big magnifying glass or jeweler's loupe by any chance?

Reading comprehension must not be your forte'. It was obvious that what I was saying should come as no surprise was the decline of newspaper readership in general. As for Jason Blair, does it not occur to you that picking out the most glaring exception is not a valid way to define the rule? The NYT handled that situation very responsibly. Did you not notice that, or are you just trying to pretend it away? To put it bluntly, guest, you are in no position to criticize anyone's integrity, journalistic or otherwise, as you've just exhibited a stunning absence of it yourself.

That's because the "loonys" are far more honest and intelligent than you. You see, contrary to your imbecilic blathering, newspapers in general are losing both readership and ad revenue. Unless one is a complete moron, this should come as no great surprise. http://www.pinnycohen.com/2007/11/20/marke...ing-in-q3-2007/

Global warming, as the name suggests, is about global temperature trends, not localized ones. Surely you don't think that variations in local trends would disappear just because the global average goes up, do you? The rate of change for local trends is much faster than for global ones, so it's very easy for local trends to move in the opposite direction. I don't mean to pretend that I have any expertise at all in climatology (I don't). But you don't have to be a scientist to figure this one out. It's patently obvious. Global warming deals with temperature changes of a fraction of a degree per year. But I know from experience that locally, some summers, for example, are dramatically hotter, cooler, wetter, or drier than preceding ones. Same with winters, springs, and falls. It would be silly to expect global warming to remove these inconsistencies.

I always thought that to "bring up the point" meant to make first mention of it, not just to comment on a point that has already been brought up by someone else. Does the phrase mean something different to you? Or by "bring up the point" do you mean Paul's bringing up the point about the article bringing up the point? Plausible, I suppose, though it seems slightly bizarre. And it's odd that you think that Paul's commenting on it was applying a twist even though he was setting the record straight, yet you did not level that same criticism at the original article which did make a false implication by "bringing up the point". You seem to be of the opinion that the article is innocent of that. But I disagree. It may or may not have been intentional, but the article did very effectively plant the suggestion that someone (presumably Matthew and/or the CFI) was trying to get the book pulled from classrooms. It didn't state it, but the inclusion of a defense against pulling the book implies that there is such a thing to defend against. You might have missed that, but Paul obviously saw it, and so did I. And I didn't even know the implication was false until Paul pointed it out. So, regardless of whether it was intentional, it is spreading misinformation and Paul was right to point it out.

Mysteriously? Yes, of course. That's what unknown things are. A mystery. The fundamental philosophical difference between atheists and theists is that for the atheist, the answer to questions unknown is simply "I don't know", while for the theist, the answer is "God". The theist and the atheist are equally ignorant, but the atheist acknowledges his ignorance, while the theist hides his behind a mythology in an attempt to deceive everyone, but especially himself, that he is not ignorant. This is understandable, really. None of us is proud of our ignorance, but each is possessed of vast quantities of it. I think that most atheists and theists alike would agree that the set of things that we don't know is vastly larger than the set of things we do know. It isn't difficult to admit this ignorance in the general sense. But, when faced with specific questions, it becomes more difficult. Especially the philosophically significant questions that affect how we see the world and how we live our lives. I would like very much to have answers to fundamental questions such as "How did we come to be?" "Why did we come to be?" "What is the purpose of life in general?", "What is the purpose of my life in particular?", "Why is there anything at all?", and many others. But, as comforting as it would be to believe that I have answers for those questions, answers that would provide some purpose and philosophical grounding for my life, I still prefer the atheist position. Which is that the unknown is simply unknown. That it is better to admit that I don't know what the absolute purpose of life is than to pretend that I do. That it is better to accept that there may not be one than to pretend that there must be. Why? Because by admitting my ignorance, I can work towards reducing it. By not depending on a belief in an external source of purpose, my purpose becomes my own.

The extreme end? Do you propose that there is only one? Paszkiewicz' views are rather extreme as well (fire breathing dinosaurs on Noahs ark, hunted to extinction by humans). Do you think that extremity in that direction doesn't count? And what's so extreme about Paul's views anyway? Do you think disbelief by itself is inherently extreme? When a teacher decides it's ok to make the rest of us pay him to teach OUR kids HIS religion, is it extreme to say that it is not his place to do that and to take him to task for it? Just what are these extreme views that you accuse Paul of expressing?

Obama served in the Illinois State Senate from January 1997 to November 2004. I believe that counts as "elected service". Are you planning to erase GWB's time in state government from his resume' as well? Or Rudy Giuliani's time as Mayor? What S.501 are you referring to? There are only two S.501's during Obama's time as a U.S. Senator. This one: S.501 Title: A bill to provide a site for the National Women's History Museum in the District of Columbia. Sponsor: Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] (introduced 3/3/2005) Cosponsors (23) and this one: S.501 Title: A bill for the relief of Ilko Vasilev Ivanov, Anelia Marinova Peneva, Marina Ilkova Ivanova, and Julia Ilkova Ivanova. Sponsor: Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ] (introduced 2/6/2007) Cosponsors (None) Private bill Neither is "a resolution honoring those soldiers who have fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan". I checked if there might have been an Illinois Senate bill (even though you apparently don't think that counts as "elected service") numbered 501 that fits your description. There were several SB0501's during Obama's time in office there, but none of those have anything to do with honoring fallen soldiers either. Obama was an Illinois Senator for 8 years before becoming a U.S. Senator. That makes 11 years of elected experience. He stated no such thing. Guest was obviously wrong in saying that the examples were from Obama's first year, but that is not the same as stating that Obama's first year was 2006. At least one of the bills was from 2007, so why not accuse him of stating that Obama's first year was 2007?

There are many questionable, erroneous, or just plain bogus quotes that appear in lots of places. It's a good idea to check the accuracy of a quote before citing it no matter how often it appears. It's an even better idea to check the accuracy before defending one that has been challenged. The one in question is most likely a paraphrase of this: "So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you." and this: "And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him." Both of these appear in their full context here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20020313-8.html. The paraphrase is reasonably accurate if expressed as a paraphrase. But it is inaccurate to cite it as a direct quote.

A valid criticism. Why not direct it at the idiot and hypocrite who authored these gems as well: http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=75988 http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=74043 http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=81059 http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82259 http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=72511 http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=72001

5 out of 6 is not > 90%, no matter how many exclamation marks you append.

You can read about it here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/. I think you'll find it noticeably similar to this one: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/. There are differences in the details, but the underlying positions are essentially alike. Both want to increase funding for basic energy research. Both want to increase automobile efficiency standards and offer help to U.S. Automakers for the retooling costs to meet those standards. Both want to promote development of alternative energy technologies by encouraging private investment as well as through public funding. Both favor job training programs for the jobs created by alternative energy technologies and the shift from foreign to domestic energy production. Both favor a "cap-and-trade" program for reducing industrial pollutants. A complete list of what they have in common would be a nearly complete list of both of their energy platforms. This is a pattern you'll see over and over when comparing their positions on many issues. The Iraq war, torture, health care, government transparency, net neutrality, funding of basic research, etc. They are largely in agreement on nearly every issue. The problem is that this is still a contest between the two of them and not much with McCain yet, so the focus is naturally on the things that differentiate them, not the things they have in common. These are things like Sen. Obama's ability to inspire and unite vs. Sen. Clinton's greater experience and more established political connections. Things like electability. Things like how he or she will affect America's image internationally. Things like whether he or she will be able to win some cooperation across political boundaries or be incapacitated by polarization. Their positions on the issues are out there. But you have to go looking for them on their web sites and in longer and less publicized speeches or interviews like the one Obama did at Google. Until this becomes a contest between democrat and republican rather than democrat and democrat, you won't see much more than sound bites about issues in the regular stump speeches or expressed by supporters. Positions on issues are important to why a person might favor democrats or republicans. But it plays a very minor role in why democrats favor Clinton or Obama. This is not due to shallowness or ignorance. It just isn't what differentiates the two candidates.

Keith, you unhinged fever-swamper! Jane, you ignorant ****!

Citation, please. I've seen where he denied having seen some specific sermons that have aired, but I have not seen where Obama denied all knowledge of Wright's controversial views.

That's very decent of you, Bryan. (edit: Corrected embarrassing spelling error.)

A bit touchy, Bryan? I'm pretty sure that he was referring to 2Smart, Patriot, Bushbacker, and possibly a few others who do, in fact, make obnoxiously frequent use of that particular slur. Without inserting an unwarranted assumption that "some" must necessarily include Bryan (or any other person who doesn't use "looney lefty" or a close variant), his assertion is demonstrably true.

Why would it be? Taking issue with the relevance of a claim and taking issue with the fact of a claim are two different things. It's entirely possible for a statement to be both true and irrelevant, or any other combination of truth and relevance. Your "then" doesn't follow from your "if". A) Yes. But that's not exactly what you said before. The key word is "unequivocal". "B") (quote marks to avoid the unintentional emoticon) The "stringing you along" one, of course. Isn't that essentially what you're saying in "A)" above? I don't understand why you say this. My point all along has been that this is exactly the intent, and that this did address your point. Undermining your assessment IS addressing your point. Heh. It rather looks to me like you've painted yourself into a corner. Your "A)" claim is an implicit acknowledgment that he was addressing your primary point. Then you say that he denied the ancillary point. I think he only denied its relevance, not its truth. But either interpretation addresses the ancillary point. So, just what point do you now contend that he didn't address? This would be a good time to retract that accusation. You have no legs left to stand on. I have not conflated support with proof. I said support, and I meant support. EVERY candidate would have given a similar answer to that question. The alternative would be just stupid for the honest and the dishonest alike. Without correlation, it isn't support.

Quoting myself: "The evidence, o man without honor, was provided in the very same post to which you replied." In case you're wondering what the location of THAT is, well, once again it's in the very same post to which you replied. And this time I even cut-and-pasted it to save you the apparently insurmountable work of scrolling up or looking back a page or two. Tutorial not needed. But thank you for the kind offer. You're such a gentleman. Here's some cutting and pasting, as requested: "Twizzler did address your point, Bryan. Your accusation to the contrary is dishonest. And your attempt to move the focus to some minor ancillary point in order to make that accusation happens to be a great illustration of your "playing with words"." You may have in mind to point out that the above is only my description of some evidence, rather than the evidence itself. But, from earlier in the same post from which this is taken, I cited this quote from you: "They're both stringing you along. They both realize that a sudden withdrawal would be practically impossible as well as disastrous[...]. They talk against the war because they know that you love it that way.". That is evidence. That is the claim that you made, and that Twizzler addressed, and that you pretended he didn't. And when called on this, you pointed at some other point that wasn't even the one contested, and pretended that this validated your accusation. That whole exchange is evidence of you playing with words, but there are limits to how much cutting and pasting I'm willing to do for you. This post makes twice I've gotten "around to that". But feel free to continue asserting otherwise. I've come to expect no better from you.

Indeed it is. Liar. I challenge you to either prove that or retract it. Only in your fantasy, Bryan. No one has challenged that point outside of your own imagination. Only its relevance to your primary claim. Wow, Bryan. Three lies in one sentence. I'll address them separately. 1) Twizzler did not attempt to make Obama's intent seem unequivocal. He merely challenged the validity of your claim. 2) Twizzler's method did not consist of denying the ancillary point, but of explaining why it doesn't support your claim. 3) I never "noted" that Twizzler did what you claim. On the contrary, I contend that he did not. He made no such attempt. You're just flat out lying, Bryan. There is no need to undermine the ancillary point. That it does not support your claim is independent of whether it is true. And the only stupidity you've managed to indicate is your own.