Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?

On 13 Dec 2006 10:35:24 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

wrote:
...hell, I'd bet big that if you asked 1000 US citizens "who is/was Tom
DeLay," 90% of the answers would be split about equally among something
like "Whuden he that guy ...

If you limit that sample to people who are registered voters and who
actually show up at the polls, I'll take that bet. Out-of-nowhere
netroots candidate Ciro Rodriguez (D) just kicked incumbent Henry
Bonilla's ass (R) in one of the Texas districts Delay gerrymandered.
To which I can only say, ahahahahahahahahahahaha

I don't blame you for disingenuously trying to pretend Delay isn't an R
powerbroker, but anybody who watches the news, even Fox news, knows
otherwise.

If you think DeLay was _ever_ a (real) "powerbroker," you don't know
much about powerbrokers. He was little more than a hired hatchet,
useful while he was useful, who got a little too big for his britches.
His power was on loan, and the loan was called. Do you honestly think a
real powerbroker, Dem or GOP, would be peddling $52USD subs to his
****ant little hateblog AND only getting 100 suckers to sign up?

R

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:03:03 -0600, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

wrote:

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:39:29 -0600, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

I'd say someone who held the position of House Majority leader is a
big name.

...hell, I'd bet big that if you asked 1000 US citizens "who is/was Tom
DeLay," 90% of the answers would be split about equally among something
like "Whuden he that guy Paris Hilton was bangin' in that video?" and

Ah, so because some hypothetical Joe Sixpack doesn't know who DeLay
is, he magically is no longer a major player in American politics?

See my reply to Joe - he was never a real player, at least not on his
own.

R

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:47:39 -0500, GM wrote:

Scott Seidman wrote:

McCain is a has-been before he even starts. He was bitch-slapped by the
Bush campaign during his run for candidacy, and did nothing about it.
Schoolyard rules say this takes him out of contention, and probably should.

You take a guy who the world knows won't stand up for what's right, and
he'll just be jacked up all over the world, kind of like the Sauds are
jacking up GW today by threatening to support the Sunnis in Iraq.



McCain lost me when he said he thought Intelligent Design should be
taught alongside Evolution. I know he was pandering and they all have to
do some of that, but I don't believe he needed to do it then, on that
particular issue. My opinion opinion of him was further diminished when
he folded under pressure on Military Commissions Act 2006.

First, people cannot be "taught evolution" or "intelligent design," they
can only be informed about them (or "taught _about_ them, if you
prefer). That said, I agree that people should be "taught" about both,
as well as about religion. I don't think "intelligent design" is the
way life came about and evolution is the more-reasonable explanation,
but I'm certainly aware of both, and I'd make sure my children were as
well. And I think you'll find that most voters would want their kids as
well-educated as possible, and many of those would truly believe that
intelligent design is the more-reasonable explanation.

Giuliano is polling better then McCain right now.

"Giuliano"...was that the guy in the porno with Paris Hilton, or the guy
Tony, Bruce Springsteen's guitar player, and the guy with the
Fraankenschteen's Bride hairdo whacked in the season finale of the
Sopranos?

HTH,
R

wrote in news:qum0o2975niv3nl54pu7e5gbraqs7d6e8d@
4ax.com:

That said, I agree that people should be "taught" about both,
as well as about religion.

Exactly. Children should learn about evolution in science class, and about
intelligent design in whichever class they learn about Apollo dragging the
sun across the sky with his chariot.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:47:39 -0500, GM wrote:

McCain lost me when he said he thought Intelligent Design should be
taught alongside Evolution. I know he was pandering and they all have to
do some of that, but I don't believe he needed to do it then, on that
particular issue. My opinion opinion of him was further diminished when
he folded under pressure on Military Commissions Act 2006.

First, people cannot be "taught evolution" or "intelligent design," they
can only be informed about them (or "taught _about_ them, if you
prefer). That said, I agree that people should be "taught" about both,
as well as about religion. I don't think "intelligent design" is the
way life came about and evolution is the more-reasonable explanation,
but I'm certainly aware of both, and I'd make sure my children were as
well. And I think you'll find that most voters would want their kids as
well-educated as possible, and many of those would truly believe that
intelligent design is the more-reasonable explanation.

I'd agree. Intelligent design and religion should be taught, but only
in philosophy or religious/world studies types of classes.
Taught alongside all the other creationism mythologies there's a
chance that children will be educated...even if their parents are
not.
- Ken

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
wrote in news:qum0o2975niv3nl54pu7e5gbraqs7d6e8d@
4ax.com:

That said, I agree that people should be "taught" about both,
as well as about religion.

Exactly. Children should learn about evolution in science class, and
about
intelligent design in whichever class they learn about Apollo dragging the
sun across the sky with his chariot.

--
Scott

I'm not sure I agree with ya here Scott. I believe the courts said that
"intelligent design" belonged on the shelves of comic book stores.

Op

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:47:39 -0500, GM wrote:

First, people cannot be "taught evolution" or "intelligent design," they
can only be informed about them (or "taught _about_ them, if you
prefer). That said, I agree that people should be "taught" about both,
as well as about religion. I don't think "intelligent design" is the
way life came about and evolution is the more-reasonable explanation,
but I'm certainly aware of both, and I'd make sure my children were as
well. And I think you'll find that most voters would want their kids as
well-educated as possible, and many of those would truly believe that
intelligent design is the more-reasonable explanation.
R

If you allow your children--heaven forbid that you actually have any--to be
taught "intelligent design," it's no wonder that you say the **** that you
do! And yes, people can be "taught" evolution and they can be taught about
it too.

Op

wrote in message
...
On 13 Dec 2006 10:35:24 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

wrote:
...hell, I'd bet big that if you asked 1000 US citizens "who is/was Tom
DeLay," 90% of the answers would be split about equally among something
like "Whuden he that guy ...

If you limit that sample to people who are registered voters and who
actually show up at the polls, I'll take that bet. Out-of-nowhere
netroots candidate Ciro Rodriguez (D) just kicked incumbent Henry
Bonilla's ass (R) in one of the Texas districts Delay gerrymandered.
To which I can only say, ahahahahahahahahahahaha

I don't blame you for disingenuously trying to pretend Delay isn't an R
powerbroker, but anybody who watches the news, even Fox news, knows
otherwise.

If you think DeLay was _ever_ a (real) "powerbroker," you don't know
much about powerbrokers. He was little more than a hired hatchet,
useful while he was useful, who got a little too big for his britches.
His power was on loan, and the loan was called. Do you honestly think a
real powerbroker, Dem or GOP, would be peddling $52USD subs to his
****ant little hateblog AND only getting 100 suckers to sign up?

R

What meds are you on. I need a re-fill.

Op

wrote in message
...

First, people cannot be "taught evolution" or "intelligent design," they
can only be informed about them (or "taught _about_ them, if you
prefer).

At first glance that sounds about as stupid as the rest of the horse**** you
spout. But when one stops to reflect on the evidence, one can hardly deny
that YOU, at any rate, can't be taught anything. Then again, you can't be
taught ABOUT anything either. Looks like you're still just a punching bag
either way.

That said, I agree that people should be "taught" about both,
as well as about religion.

Sure, people should be taught "about" (hee, hee, hee) all kinds of things.
Trouble is, they aren't interested in learning. Look at you, for instance.

I don't think "intelligent design" is the
way life came about

Oh? Really? You don't think so? Hm.....yet another position I have to
reconsider.

and evolution is the more-reasonable explanation,

Gosh......ya think? Seriously?

but I'm certainly aware of both,

Thus providing yet more ammunition to religious zealots......miracles DO
happen.

and I'd make sure my children were as well.

You're a liar. You'd fill their heads with the same dithering and
blithering angst as your own.

And I think you'll find that most voters would want their kids as
well-educated as possible,

Horse****. They want their children to believe the same crap they do.

and many of those would truly believe that
intelligent design is the more-reasonable explanation.

THAT is true......they noes it in ther hahrts.

Giuliano is polling better then McCain right now.

"Giuliano"...was that the guy in the porno with Paris Hilton, or the guy
Tony, Bruce Springsteen's guitar player, and the guy with the
Fraankenschteen's Bride hairdo whacked in the season finale of the
Sopranos?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Wolfgang

"Opus" wrote in
:


"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
wrote in
news:qum0o2975niv3nl54pu7e5gbraqs7d6e8d@ 4ax.com:

That said, I agree that people should be "taught" about both,
as well as about religion.

Exactly. Children should learn about evolution in science class, and
about
intelligent design in whichever class they learn about Apollo
dragging the sun across the sky with his chariot.

--
Scott

I'm not sure I agree with ya here Scott. I believe the courts said
that "intelligent design" belonged on the shelves of comic book
stores.

Op





I'm particularly sensitive to this issue. History of Science is a hobby
of mine, and I teach it whenever there's an opportunity.

The Scientific Revolution (in the sense of the nickname of the 1450's-
1550's, not the Kuhnian sense) happened because scientists managed to
shed the religious dogma that people like Aquinas managed to wrap around
the Ptolemaic Universe, with its crystalline celestial spheres moving
heavenly bodies in perfectly circular orbits around the earth. Even my
scientific hero, Tycho Brahe (who I named my parrot after, cause his beak
looks a little metallic), fell victim to this dogma, and supported a
geocentric solar system. Read Brahe's wikipedia entry, if so inclined--
he was a real hoot).

Inquisitors teach this kind of intelligent design crap and call it
science. The enlightened do not.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply