Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Presidential Politics & Antievolution

Pages: (63) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,17:27    Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,16:20) Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,11:42) So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any trouble choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)? Well, the way it is worded I would have one problem, that of the hungry mule halfway between two equally delicious buckets, one of oats and one of corn. I'd starve from frozen indecision since there is no way to choose. But I think you are asking if I would take race into account, and the answer is no. There are more important factors beyond race that would permit me to identify with one over the other, such as demeanor--For example I am immediately drawn to down-to-earth types as opposed to scholarly-acting types. Well, I'm glad that we have people like you who will look at the issues and vote...oh wait... Y'know, it's attitudes like this that put shrub in the office.  How many people said they voted for him because Gore was too smart or not likeable enough, or that they felt they could have a beer with shrub? Sad.

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,17:57    Quote (GCT @ Sep. 02 2008,17:27)     Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,16:20)     Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,11:42) So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any trouble choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)? Well, the way it is worded I would have one problem, that of the hungry mule halfway between two equally delicious buckets, one of oats and one of corn. I'd starve from frozen indecision since there is no way to choose. But I think you are asking if I would take race into account, and the answer is no. There are more important factors beyond race that would permit me to identify with one over the other, such as demeanor--For example I am immediately drawn to down-to-earth types as opposed to scholarly-acting types. Well, I'm glad that we have people like you who will look at the issues and vote...oh wait... Y'know, it's attitudes like this that put shrub in the office.  How many people said they voted for him because Gore was too smart or not likeable enough, or that they felt they could have a beer with shrub? Sad. Democracy sucks. Maybe you could institute a "you must cogently explain the issues'' voting poll to weed out those unprofitable citizens like me who trust our gut (sometimes resulting in utter failure) more than those who trust the issues (because candidates always tell the truth about what policies they will pursue.) Edit: typo -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,18:00    Quote (GCT @ Sep. 02 2008,15:27) Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,16:20) Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,11:42) So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any trouble choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)? Well, the way it is worded I would have one problem, that of the hungry mule halfway between two equally delicious buckets, one of oats and one of corn. I'd starve from frozen indecision since there is no way to choose. But I think you are asking if I would take race into account, and the answer is no. There are more important factors beyond race that would permit me to identify with one over the other, such as demeanor--For example I am immediately drawn to down-to-earth types as opposed to scholarly-acting types. Well, I'm glad that we have people like you who will look at the issues and vote...oh wait... Y'know, it's attitudes like this that put shrub in the office.  How many people said they voted for him because Gore was too smart or not likeable enough, or that they felt they could have a beer with shrub? Sad. In defence of dheddle, I think almost everyone does this on some level.  Not everyone is honest enough to admit it.  It's why so much effort and money is put into cultivating a candidate's image.   Presenting a Yale-educated scion of one of Connecticut's wealthiest families as a horny-handed Texas brush-clearer wasn't done on a whim, and it wasn't done just to lure the mouth-breathing rednecks - there aren't that many of them, and most of them don't vote. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,18:00    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 01 2008,23:31) Advice to Sarah Palin: Whatever they offer, don't accept that offer of a special guest appearance on "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?" Advice to Joe Biden, if you are on "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?" it would be considered gauche to challenge one of the kids to an IQ face-off. -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,18:09    Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,16:59) You're right it's a race question, and like I said, I didn't expect you to have any issue other than the one you mentioned ("lucky donkey" problem). Also like I said, I'm trying to map the extent of this "vote for the candidate like me" idea. It strikes me as an awfully daft way to vote, but then no doubt there is some subtlety I'm missing. Are religion, class and demeanour the only "personal" factors that matter to you? No subtlety. Maybe just an acknowledgement that the strategy has limitations. There are positions outrageous enough that no matter how much I identified with the candidate I wouldn't vote for him or her. BTW, same answer for the other groups you mentioned. No, I also like someone who looks like they can speak extemporaneously. Obama seems pretty good, McCain less so, and Biden most susceptible, at toxic concentrations, to foot-in-mouth. Palin seems quite good based on the few interviews I've seen--time will tell. -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,18:37    i'm with you as far as democracy sucks.  i would like a scale dependent caveat on that though. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,19:14    Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,18:57) Quote (GCT @ Sep. 02 2008,17:27)     Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,16:20)       Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,11:42) So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any trouble choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)? Well, the way it is worded I would have one problem, that of the hungry mule halfway between two equally delicious buckets, one of oats and one of corn. I'd starve from frozen indecision since there is no way to choose. But I think you are asking if I would take race into account, and the answer is no. There are more important factors beyond race that would permit me to identify with one over the other, such as demeanor--For example I am immediately drawn to down-to-earth types as opposed to scholarly-acting types. Well, I'm glad that we have people like you who will look at the issues and vote...oh wait... Y'know, it's attitudes like this that put shrub in the office.  How many people said they voted for him because Gore was too smart or not likeable enough, or that they felt they could have a beer with shrub? Sad. Democracy sucks. Maybe you could institute a "you must cogently explain the issues'' voting poll to weed out those unprofitable citizens like me who trust our gut (sometimes resulting in utter failure) more than those who trust the issues (because candidates always tell the truth about what policies they will pursue.) Edit: typo At least looking at their stances on the issues whether they are telling the absolute truth or not (and many times you can tell) is better than voting based on how they look or some other superficial trait.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,19:17    Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 02 2008,19:00) Quote (GCT @ Sep. 02 2008,15:27)   Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,16:20)   Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,11:42) So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any trouble choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)? Well, the way it is worded I would have one problem, that of the hungry mule halfway between two equally delicious buckets, one of oats and one of corn. I'd starve from frozen indecision since there is no way to choose. But I think you are asking if I would take race into account, and the answer is no. There are more important factors beyond race that would permit me to identify with one over the other, such as demeanor--For example I am immediately drawn to down-to-earth types as opposed to scholarly-acting types. Well, I'm glad that we have people like you who will look at the issues and vote...oh wait... Y'know, it's attitudes like this that put shrub in the office.  How many people said they voted for him because Gore was too smart or not likeable enough, or that they felt they could have a beer with shrub? Sad. In defence of dheddle, I think almost everyone does this on some level.  Not everyone is honest enough to admit it.  It's why so much effort and money is put into cultivating a candidate's image.   Presenting a Yale-educated scion of one of Connecticut's wealthiest families as a horny-handed Texas brush-clearer wasn't done on a whim, and it wasn't done just to lure the mouth-breathing rednecks - there aren't that many of them, and most of them don't vote. Of course they did, because image is everything in a world of too-lazy, sound-byte wanting public that would rather have an average joe in the most powerful office in the world than someone who is smart, level-headed, and all that.  I mean, c'mon.  If you are going to vote based on perception politics, at least go with the guy who you perceive is best for the office, not the one you think is the most mediocre.  People voted for shrub exactly because he was mediocre.  Now, people are going to vote for McCain because Palin goes to the right church? ETA:  And, there's no reason to defend Heddle on this.  In fact, I hold him in lower regard than the uneducated, backwoods guy, simply because Heddle DOES have the education and should have the ability to make informed decisions.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,19:54    GCT choosing between a runny turd and a lumpy turd ain't exactly free will.  How can you hold coerced people responsible for decisions that have no effect on any perceivable endpoint I find hard to understand. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,21:17    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 02 2008,20:54) GCT choosing between a runny turd and a lumpy turd ain't exactly free will.  How can you hold coerced people responsible for decisions that have no effect on any perceivable endpoint I find hard to understand. Yeah, we never have the best people running, but I hardly find that to be a legitimate excuse for voting for someone like shrub, especially when he was voted specifically because he wasn't as qualified for the job. And, I fail to see what you mean by coerced people.  Heddle can look up the issues instead of voting for McCain simply because Palin goes to the right church. And, yeah, the platforms are pretty well similar, but there are some differences, and some important ones.  Roe v. Wade?  War in Iran?  Continued presence in Iraq?  You don't have to agree with me, but at least have the decency to look up what's being debated.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,23:16    no my friend it is not about decency or agreeing with you.  I'm sure we agree on a lot of things, but apparently the point where we disagree regards the importance of participating in the process.  I refuse to legitimize this miserable failure of a circus with my input, and I won't shoulder the blame (nor do i accept "can't complain if you don't vote" because that presupposes so much that is an affront to the senses and reason that I am astounded that it passes for argument, in some circles). I don't know your politics but such a nonsensical dichotomous 'choice' (for what, even to the average fundie, only passes for leadership) is to me validation for the contention that one should expect the absolute worst form of self serving imperialist bipartisan hegemony when considering the possible constitution of the next electorate.   the worst part is, the rest of the world is now trying to adopt this model.  at least the resource extraction industrial countries.  they turned the enlightenment around on it's head and ignored william blake. Every harlot was a virgin once. Now back on OT:  i know yosemite mcsame is paying lip service to intelligent design and i know he is a panderer just like all these other douchebags.  how organized is this new front of inserting creotard asshattery  state-by-state into school curriculum and textbooks?  How many other states are doing what LA is getting ready to do, if only the get the green light from a new Republican administration?   to be honest i can't see democrats not doing the same thing if it would get them votes.  they are all unprincipled, after all. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2008,23:21    To be fair, I don't think the system is conducive to idealists - and we may not want one to the extent that idealism is at odds with pragmatism. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,04:13    Quote (GCT @ Sep. 02 2008,21:17)       Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 02 2008,20:54) GCT choosing between a runny turd and a lumpy turd ain't exactly free will.  How can you hold coerced people responsible for decisions that have no effect on any perceivable endpoint I find hard to understand. Yeah, we never have the best people running, but I hardly find that to be a legitimate excuse for voting for someone like shrub, especially when he was voted specifically because he wasn't as qualified for the job. And, I fail to see what you mean by coerced people.  Heddle can look up the issues instead of voting for McCain simply because Palin goes to the right church. And, yeah, the platforms are pretty well similar, but there are some differences, and some important ones.  Roe v. Wade?  War in Iran?  Continued presence in Iraq?  You don't have to agree with me, but at least have the decency to look up what's being debated. You have made a mistake. I don't need to look up the issues. I know about the issues. Why, I bet my issues IQ is higher than yours! I didn't say that I don't know the issues. No, the point is twofold: in a aggregate sense I don't see much difference--that is on some issues I tend to be Republican, some Democratic, and it more or less is a wash. (Other libertarian leaning voters will recognize the problem--we don't fit in either major party.) Then there is the fact that once elected candidates tend to give in to expediency anyway. How many Republicans have promised to reduce government, and how many have succeeded? No my friend, it is not that I don't know the issues, it that I choose (to a limited extent) not to vote by them. Issue voting will break your heart everytime. [Aside: Palin goes to the right church? She has switched to a Reformed Baptist Church?] -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

dnmlthr Posts: 565 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,04:35    Note: I'm a dirty jurropean, so I won't even pretend to understand US electoral politics. There are however other metrics than issues or personality that you can vote by. Who are their backers, financially and politically. With only two major parties, from which faction within the respective parties do the candidates come? -------------- Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,05:14    Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 03 2008,10:13) [SNIP] No my friend, it is not that I don't know the issues, it that I choose (to a limited extent) not to vote by them. Issue voting will break your heart everytime. [SNIP] Ahhhh good. I knew I was being overly pessimistic about your voting strategy. Faith in Heddle restored, such as it was! ;-) I don't agree with you as a matter of personal responsibility, issue voting might break my heart but it's my job to do it, but at least I understand where you are coming from. Personally, I think giving into the politics of despair is an abrogation of one's democratic duties. YMMV. Oh and it ain't just libertarians, or USAians, who find the "two(ish) party" political model unsatisfactory on several levels. There is no party that represents me in pretty much any nation (and I've looked!). Hence why I advocate no small measure of political and social change..... But that's another story. Louis ETA: Ok ok so I'm going to comment further dammit. I tried to avoid it, but meh, I'm a total bastard, might as well not break the habit of a lifetime. This (perhaps limited) abandonment of your political and intellectual duties annoys me for its pathetic fatalism, Heddle. Yes politicians make promises they don't keep. Yes politicians make claims about the issues they later on forget. Yes the systems of government we have are not perfect. So? Unless we as the electorate actually make the effort to change things (and let's be blunt, it ain't that big an effort) then we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past forever. We are going to get fucked over, we are going to get lied to and we are going to elect politicians that go back on their campaign promises. The only way to make this happen less is to ENGAGE in the political process to an extent that it causes personal cost. Claiming you "know the issues and don't need to investigate them further" is an abrogation of your duty as a capable citizen. I'd go as far as to say it is an abrogation of your civic duty as a scientist and an academic. I seriously doubt, no matter how high you claim you "issues IQ" to be, that you are conversant with all the details of all the relevant issues, or even anything approaching 50% of them. I seriously doubt anyone is. Reducing any part of your decision on who to vote for to the popularity contest style you advocate above is worse than merely shrugging your shoulders, it's active participation in the very causes of your own fatalism. I speak as someone who used to do this as a younger bloke out of a combination of apathy and identical fatalism. Comedy slogans abound "Don't vote, the government might get in", "Don't vote, it only encourages them" etc. I even stood in a mock election as the Monster Raving Loony candidate (an election I won by a landslide I might add) to mock the futility of the political process. My views on futility and "satirisability" have not changed, my acknowledgement that I have a very hard won duty has. The more I read about politics and history the stronger that duty weighs. So it's my job to protest at policies I disagree with. It's my job to investigate the issues as thoroughly as I can and vote with the best available evidence. It's my duty to reach out where possible and inform others (if needs be). It's especially my job to do so honestly on scientific matters (as a professional scientist) especially those closely linked to my own area of research. It's even more especially my job to chase down any semblance of uncriticised dogma or belief on my part and justify it on a rational basis if possible, or abandon it. That's as true of politics as it is of science. To abandon any of that with a fatalistic shrug of the shoulders to any degree is an abandonment of my responsibilities as a citizen. Worse, to realise this AND THEN to abandon it, is as gross a dereliction of my democratic duties as is imaginable. -------------- Bye.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,07:48    Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 03 2008,04:13) Issue voting will break your heart everytime. And values voting will break the country. Good choice. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,07:54    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 03 2008,07:48)   Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 03 2008,04:13) Issue voting will break your heart everytime. And values voting will break the country. Good choice. Well, I do tend to be Calvinistic about these things. -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

dnmlthr Posts: 565 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,08:50    Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 03 2008,13:54) Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 03 2008,07:48)   Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 03 2008,04:13) Issue voting will break your heart everytime. And values voting will break the country. Good choice. Well, I do tend to be Calvinistic about these things. In the sense of unconditional election or total depravity? -------------- Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,09:26    heat death. i'd rather go fishing. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,09:51    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 03 2008,15:26) heat death. i'd rather go fishing. Meh, who wouldn't?* The sad thing is: cunts abound, ergo we can't fish all the time. That's the tragedy of reality. Louis *For those who don't fish, and I'm one of them, insert your favourite activity. I fished as a kid, dammit I AM from the coast after all. But nowadays.....not so much. -------------- Bye.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,17:28    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 03 2008,00:16) no my friend it is not about decency or agreeing with you.  I'm sure we agree on a lot of things, but apparently the point where we disagree regards the importance of participating in the process.  I refuse to legitimize this miserable failure of a circus with my input, and I won't shoulder the blame (nor do i accept "can't complain if you don't vote" because that presupposes so much that is an affront to the senses and reason that I am astounded that it passes for argument, in some circles). Then why defend Heddle for "legitimiz[ing] this miserable failure of a circus with [his] input" especially when his input plays into the lowest of the lowest common denominator?  That's the point.  If you are taking a principled stand against voting because you refuse to vote just to vote against someone, then that's one thing.  I used to do that myself until I changed my mind and decided that having shrub in office was just too dangerous and that I could hold my nose long enough to vote for the other guy (based on the issues I might add).  Whatever.  But, that's certainly not what Heddle is doing.  He's doing his part to make this even more of a circus by doing exactly what they want him to do, and that is vote for their guy simply because he likes the cut of their guy's jib (or simply because their woman goes to the right church).  If you object to our electoral system because it has been made into a mockery, then you should surely object to Heddle's participation making it into even more of a mockery!   Quote I don't know your politics but such a nonsensical dichotomous 'choice' (for what, even to the average fundie, only passes for leadership) is to me validation for the contention that one should expect the absolute worst form of self serving imperialist bipartisan hegemony when considering the possible constitution of the next electorate.   the worst part is, the rest of the world is now trying to adopt this model.  at least the resource extraction industrial countries.  they turned the enlightenment around on it's head and ignored william blake. I'm not even going to try and argue with this, because I happen to agree with pretty much all of it.  The only thing I disagree with is that there are some differences (however small) between the parties and these are important differences.  It might not be filet mignon, but there's a difference between eating some edible and eating rocks (or sh*t).

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,17:31    Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 03 2008,05:13) No my friend, it is not that I don't know the issues, it that I choose (to a limited extent) not to vote by them. Issue voting will break your heart everytime. And this helps your argument how?

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,17:35    Quote (dnmlthr @ Sep. 03 2008,05:35) There are however other metrics than issues or personality that you can vote by. Who are their backers, financially and politically. With only two major parties, from which faction within the respective parties do the candidates come? I tend to lump that sort of analysis in with the issues.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,17:37

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,20:40    i suppose my disagreements with those folks are on axes orthogonal to the 'issues'.  i am not defending heddle for voting for whoever whenever whatever, i am saying when voter participation is such a scam you might as well frikkin vote for whoever.  it doesn't matter what brand of lunatic is in there, i don't think.  they are all despicable and i wouldn't piss on their grandmothers if their feet were on fire.  any honest man or woman wouldn't want the job.  so i like the fact that it's all a nascar race to heddle, but i suppose there are less titties and no bocephus at his party.  i could be wrong and would be thrilled to be wrong about this as a matter of fact. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,21:23    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 03 2008,21:40) it doesn't matter what brand of lunatic is in there, i don't think. Really?  Do you think we'd be in Iraq right now had shrub not been elected?

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,21:43    I hope she leads better than she names kids. Trig and trix and boff and spug or whatever... -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,22:27    if not iraq somewhere else.  it's good for business you know.  keep on yanking on that window, makes jobs. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2008,22:57    I can't wait for the debates now. I wonder if they'll frame her as a dribbling fundie? -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2008,04:32    Let's get this thread back around to the topic. I'd like to see the focus get back on antievolution in the presidential race specifically. Thanks. Quote Marvel Toilet by Dplanet:: Edited by Lou FCD on Sep. 04 2008,05:44 -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Pages: (63) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard