T1B

Dinsdale wrote: When it's involuntary, and done on any sort of real scale, it becomes quite the joke.

Depends on what you expect, really. I'd call it a triumph.

Dr_Phibes wrote:He made tactical adjustments to the 'two stage revolution' theory - and it worked, there is no arguement against this. History proves it and Stalin was a great part of it.

Yes, I see it was a stunning success. At least the USSR outlasted the 1,000 Year Reich.

Dr_Phibes wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote: If he did, then he most certainly didn't put it into practice. Russia didn't have the necessary antecedent capitalist period. Tell me you knew.

Also, the Communist Manifesto actually proposed a stateless society. Not exactly Stalin's cup of tea.

Yeah, I know. In the early century, there were Marxists who actually supported the Tsar and industrialisation projects so it would fit in with 'prophesy' rather than 'Premature revolution'.

But remember, Marxist writing isn't a bible study, it's not rigid and inflexible, it's an evolving set of theory that Lenin took and adapted to a turn of the century Russian setting. Think of it as a cornerstone that you build upon. He made tactical adjustments to the 'two stage revolution' theory

Hmmm.

Marx: Capitalism is a necessary precursor to communism.
Lenin/Stalin: Capitalism is not a necessary precursor to communism.

Doesn't sound like an "adaptation" or "tactical adjustment" to me. It sounds more like a 180.

- and it worked, there is no arguement against this. History proves it and Stalin was a great part of it.

I'll let BSmack's deconstruction of that point stand alone.

And 'Socialism in one country' didn't quite fit in with what Marx anticipated, but it certainly doesn't negate anything he projected. A stateless society doesn't come about the way you would order a pizza.

Something tells me that if the time had come during Stalin's lifetime, he would not voluntarily have abdicated power in favor of the greater good. Call it a hunch.

Christ Terry, you sound like a Trotbot.

Let's get something straight. I'm not a socialist or a communist, never have been. As I told Dinsdale, I'm a Keynesian (not that I expect most on this board to really know what that is.) However, I was an International Relations major in college, and I did attend college during the Cold War period, so I did study Marx and the Soviet Union.

There are a number of reasons why communism cannot work, including one HUUUUGGGEE one: communism is contrary to human nature. As anyone who has ever reproduced knows, when your precious little bundle of joy reaches the point in life where he/she begins to talk, the very first word out of his/her adorable little piehole, right after "mama" and "dada," will be "mine." And he/she will apply that particular possessive pronoun to any desirable object in his/her field of vision, regardless of the accuracy of said application. You won't have to teach your child that word. You will, however, have to teach your child how to share his/her toys with other kids.

Marx's idea was an unrealistic pipedream. Stalin's was more like a nightmare. Someday, maybe, you'll understand what I'm saying.

Dinsdale wrote:I'd like public officials to at least believe in some basic science, such as evolution, and the accuracy of DNA testing (which has proven Smith's teachings to be false).

Sorry Dins, but Ron Paul has been outed as not believing in evolution:

During the Values Voter Debate in September, Tom DeRosa, president of the hardcore anti-evolution Creation Studies Institute asked the candidates: "Will your office support and encourage a more open approach to education in the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?" Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.), Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.), and Huckabee all answered yes. A reasonable interpretation is that they favored allowing creationism to be taught in science classes. The debate was not attended by McCain, Romney, Giuliani or Thompson.

In a South Carolina forum, Paul was asked about his views on evolution, to which he replied, "I think it's a theory, the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory." He also said that he thought it was an inappropriate question to be asking presidential candidates.

Sorry, but that is a deal-breaker for me.

Either Paul was IS convinced by the evidence for evolution and was just saying what he thought that the rubes in South Carolina wanted to hear (which would make him a "typical" politician), or he's being honest, in which case, I absolutely cannot, will not, support him in any way.

Ron Bailey in the REASON article wrote: Does it matter what presidential candidates believe about biological evolution? After all, they are running for commander-in-chief, not scientist-in-chief. For example, why not practice educational federalism as many Republican candidates suggest and let local school boards and individual states decide what should be taught in science classes? This may seem like an initially appealing option until one considers that schooling is mandatory.

The problem is that creationism and its latest intellectual spawn, intelligent design, are clearly religious teachings. So a local school board or state would be imposing religious teachings on all students if they required the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in public schools. The U.S. Supreme court acknowledged this fact in 1987 when it ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard against a Louisiana law that required the teaching of creationism whenever evolutionary biology was taught. The Court struck down the Louisiana law because it "impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind." In 2005, a federal district court found in Kitzmiller v. Dover that the goal of the local school board's mandate that schools teach intelligent design "was to promote religion in the public school classroom."

Americans simply would not tolerate it if public schools were required to teach their kids religious doctrines with which they disagreed. One way out of this morass would be a thoroughgoing privatization of elementary and secondary education. But until that glad day dawns, it is not acceptable for presidential candidates to argue that teaching religion in the guise of creationism and intelligent design in public schools should be just a local matter. Furthermore, as the foregoing court cases highlight, it is essential that a president nominate federal judges who understand the importance of maintaining the separation between church and state.

A larger question is whether a candidate's belief about the validity of evolutionary biology has anything to say about his or her ability to evaluate evidence. A January 4, 2008, editorial by Science editor Donald Kennedy correctly argues, "The candidates should be asked hard questions about science policy, including questions about how those positions reflect belief. What is your view about stem cell research, and does it relate to a view of the time at which human life begins? Have you examined the scientific evidence regarding the age of Earth? Can the process of organic evolution lead to the production of new species, and how? Are you able to look at data on past climates in search of inferences about the future of climate change?" Kennedy concludes, "I don't need them to describe their faith; that's their business and not mine. But I do care about their scientific knowledge and how it will inform their leadership."

Since science and technology policy issues are only going to become more important as the 21st century unfolds, we should all care how scientific knowledge informs a president's leadership.

There's no frigging way in hell that anyone who is so dick-in-the-dirt stupid as to doubt that evolution occurs has any legitimate claim on my vote. Paul's answer shows that a) he doesn't know enough science to understand how the word "theory" is accurately used in science and b) that he doesn't know about the over-a-century's-worth of evidence from geology, physics, molecular biology, genetics, physiology, anatomy, developmental biology, etc. that support natural selection. His answer shows him to be as big a religious rube as Romney.

Edit: fixed "developmental"

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:There's no frigging way in hell that anyone who is so dick-in-the-dirt stupid as to doubt that evolution occurs has any legitimate claim on my vote. Paul's answer shows that a) he doesn't know enough science to understand how the word "theory" is accurately used in science and b) that he doesn't know about the over-a-century's-worth of evidence from geology, physics, molecular biology, genetics, physiology, anatomy, developmemtal biology, etc. that support natural selection. His answer shows him to be as big a religious rube as Romney.

Scary to think that Paul is an Ob\Gyn.

I sure as hell wouldn't want someone that stupid sticking their hands in my wife's vagina.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:I'd like public officials to at least believe in some basic science, such as evolution, and the accuracy of DNA testing (which has proven Smith's teachings to be false).

Sorry Dins, but Ron Paul has been outed as not believing in evolution:

During the Values Voter Debate in September, Tom DeRosa, president of the hardcore anti-evolution Creation Studies Institute asked the candidates: "Will your office support and encourage a more open approach to education in the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?" Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.), Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.), and Huckabee all answered yes. A reasonable interpretation is that they favored allowing creationism to be taught in science classes. The debate was not attended by McCain, Romney, Giuliani or Thompson.

In a South Carolina forum, Paul was asked about his views on evolution, to which he replied, "I think it's a theory, the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory." He also said that he thought it was an inappropriate question to be asking presidential candidates.

Sorry, but that is a deal-breaker for me.

Either Paul was IS convinced by the evidence for evolution and was just saying what he thought that the rubes in South Carolina wanted to hear (which would make him a "typical" politician), or he's being honest, in which case, I absolutely cannot, will not, support him in any way.

Ron Bailey in the REASON article wrote: Does it matter what presidential candidates believe about biological evolution? After all, they are running for commander-in-chief, not scientist-in-chief. For example, why not practice educational federalism as many Republican candidates suggest and let local school boards and individual states decide what should be taught in science classes? This may seem like an initially appealing option until one considers that schooling is mandatory.

The problem is that creationism and its latest intellectual spawn, intelligent design, are clearly religious teachings. So a local school board or state would be imposing religious teachings on all students if they required the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in public schools. The U.S. Supreme court acknowledged this fact in 1987 when it ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard against a Louisiana law that required the teaching of creationism whenever evolutionary biology was taught. The Court struck down the Louisiana law because it "impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind." In 2005, a federal district court found in Kitzmiller v. Dover that the goal of the local school board's mandate that schools teach intelligent design "was to promote religion in the public school classroom."

Americans simply would not tolerate it if public schools were required to teach their kids religious doctrines with which they disagreed. One way out of this morass would be a thoroughgoing privatization of elementary and secondary education. But until that glad day dawns, it is not acceptable for presidential candidates to argue that teaching religion in the guise of creationism and intelligent design in public schools should be just a local matter. Furthermore, as the foregoing court cases highlight, it is essential that a president nominate federal judges who understand the importance of maintaining the separation between church and state.

A larger question is whether a candidate's belief about the validity of evolutionary biology has anything to say about his or her ability to evaluate evidence. A January 4, 2008, editorial by Science editor Donald Kennedy correctly argues, "The candidates should be asked hard questions about science policy, including questions about how those positions reflect belief. What is your view about stem cell research, and does it relate to a view of the time at which human life begins? Have you examined the scientific evidence regarding the age of Earth? Can the process of organic evolution lead to the production of new species, and how? Are you able to look at data on past climates in search of inferences about the future of climate change?" Kennedy concludes, "I don't need them to describe their faith; that's their business and not mine. But I do care about their scientific knowledge and how it will inform their leadership."

Since science and technology policy issues are only going to become more important as the 21st century unfolds, we should all care how scientific knowledge informs a president's leadership.

There's no frigging way in hell that anyone who is so dick-in-the-dirt stupid as to doubt that evolution occurs has any legitimate claim on my vote. Paul's answer shows that a) he doesn't know enough science to understand how the word "theory" is accurately used in science and b) that he doesn't know about the over-a-century's-worth of evidence from geology, physics, molecular biology, genetics, physiology, anatomy, developmental biology, etc. that support natural selection. His answer shows him to be as big a religious rube as Romney.

Edit: fixed "developmental"

What I believe Ron is saying here, is 'who gives a fukk what the president thinks about evolution or creation. It's not his, nor is it the fed gubmints job to be involved in such things.

And on this point, as with most, he is dead on.

Too fukking bad he prefers the head in the sand foreign policy model or he'd have my vote.

Macroevolution is a theory, Paul is correct.
Mike can stomp his feet all day and it won't change that reality.

You're right with your post, smackaholic, save for the 'misunderstanding' of Paul's foreign policy model.

The evolution or creation debate question has NO merit at all.
Total waste of time, and it's true intention is to divert the attention of the viewer onto an irrelevant issue that provokes a hysterical negative reaction from some .... like Mike.
It's simply not an issue the prez or the feds OUGHT to have to spend a nanosecond worrying about.


Too bad America is not smart enough to elect Ron Paul, the only current hope.

poptart wrote: The evolution or creation debate question has NO merit at all.
Total waste of time, and it's true intention is to divert the attention of the viewer onto an irrelevant issue that provokes a hysterical negative reaction from some .... like Mike.
It's simply not an issue the prez or the feds OUGHT to have to spend a nanosecond worrying about.

OH? So it's perfectly fine and relevant if the president believes in god and uses that background as a guideline for his presidency and his decisions, but it's not if he uses an understanding and comprehension of science and the scientific process? :?

Too bad America is not smart enough to elect Ron Paul, the only current hope.

Ron Paul is 72. He would be 73 to 77 if elected. That would make him the oldest elected president in US History. The presidency is probably the most stressful, aging job there is, especially when things are going bad, and Bush is going to leave behind a shitpile of bad to deal with.

Anyone who'd want to enter that hell can't be all that bright, but it isn't an old mans job, it just turns you into one.

and having a guy die in office and be replaced by the first loser of his party is just another reason to say no.

Same reason McCain shouldn't be elected, although with McCain there is a laundry list of other reasons as well.

Bushice wrote:OH? So it's perfectly fine and relevant if the president believes in god and uses that background as a guideline for his presidency and his decisions

Yes, it's fine.
Why wouldn't it be?
The people, well aware of a man's mind-set, have ELECTED the man, no?

Each individual's 'world view' is shaped by SOME sensibility(s) that they have.
You're saying that only God-lacking sensibilities are acceptable.

Amazing arrogance.


There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS for the prez or the fed gov to need to give a rat's ass about whether or not evolution is true.
Zero.


Paul's age is the main concern I would have about his presidency, btw -- although he does appear to be in very good condition.
But you're right, the office does beat a man down.

poptart wrote: You're right with your post, smackaholic, save for the 'misunderstanding' of Paul's foreign policy model.

All right then, poptard, help me understand his policy. We tried the 'let 'em all kill themselves' idea awhile back and it got us WWII.

Not saying we need to jump into every fukking skirmish that pops up, but, some do need tending.

It would be nice to think that fundie islamic shitheads would be content with what they have.

They ain't.

Just as fundie christian shitheads felt it their duty to enlighten the savages 400 years ago, their modern counterpart has the same intent. Actually, I think they'd rather just kill us.

It is absolutely in our best interests to see some sort of modern democratic secular state in that area. Would have been nice if it could have been Iran 30 years ago, but, oh fukking well. It still can be Iraq.

When? Sometime in the next decade or two.

What if somebody told you germany and japan would be prosperous democracies in 20 years, in say, 1943? You'd prolly think, damn, I need to get some of the shit this dude is smoking. Especially with japan. You'd argue, "it can't happen. they aren't like us, they're fanatical. it's a cultural thing".

Funny what a properly administered atomic bitchslap'll do to even the most hardcore fanatic.

Bottom line is, people are pretty much the same all over. They wanna live long decent lives with a minimum of somebody else standing on their neck. They will do whatever they think is prudent to see that that happens. If it means cozying up to the local thug because they think he will get over, they will. If they think that the local thug is gonna get buttfukked in the mouf, they will be in line to buttfukk him.

It's how we roll, as a race, for the most part.

Paul has been described by detractors as an isolationist wingnut and as being out of touch with reality.

I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, even if I completely disagreed with his foreign policy views.

However, the fact that he doesn't accept evolution as a theory means that his grasp of science is laughable. Contrary to the idealists who want to shrug off some of Paul's more wacky ideas in the name of "the revolution," it DOES matter whether or not the President is able to evaluate scientific evidence and use that to set priorities. It means that the individual in question cannot evaluate evidence clearly, which puts their ability to make educated decisions in question. If Paul doubts scientists with regards to evolution, what next? Doubting military experts with regards to strategy? Doubting economists with regards to fiscal policies?

Mvscal, Bri, and the other Ron Paul critics are both right - Paul is a frigging nutjob. I was just too blinded by the hope of an alleged libertarian candidate to see it.

OF COURSE poptart doesn't think that Paul's statements are a problem...he still chants the horsecrap mantra of "microevolution is OK, but macroevolution is not" (that's like saying that "days are OK, but centuries are not"). That mantra is a modern concession position from the crowd that just a few years ago swore up and down that MICROEVOLUTION was not OK.

The author of the Reason article is spot-on. Paul and the other creationist-leaning candidates are scientifically ignorant in an era in which scientific literacy by CITIZENS and especially by our leaders is incredibly important. The last thing we need is for our government leaders to endorse the promulgation of Dark Ages superstition and rattling of chicken bones instead of REAL science. It's the 21st century people - evolution (micro AND macro) is an undisputed scientific fact. We ARE primates and have a common ancestor with chimps. Get over it.

Paul's stand on the issue of evolution puts him in the exact same "batshit crazy" bin as Huckabee (the guy who doesn't realize that humans are primates...). It also means that supporters of Paul that go after Huckabee or Romney for THEIR loony religious views are flaming hypocrites.

Paul is dead to me.

Next candidate, please.

Is there one stone cold aetheist in the bunch?

Nope.

They all realize that to be marketable, you have to claim some sort of christian beliefs. beliefs which just so happen to fly in the face of science.

So, since we have to pick from a group who claim atleast half hearted belief in alledged fairy tales, why not just realize that we should just agree to disagree in that area.

I don't give a shit if ron paul believes in evolution, jesus christ, santa claus or the fukking easter bunny.

It's irrelevant. You can still believe in scientific method and god. The two kind of conflict, but, so fukking what. Plenty of beliefs conflict. Let's get past it.

As for his believing it is a theory, who gives a fukkk? It is a theory. It 's probably a fukking fact, actually.

WGARA

Dude did somehow get through med school, so I am guessing that he is OK with science in general.

smackaholic wrote:Is there one stone cold aetheist in the bunch?

Nope.

They all realize that to be marketable, you have to claim some sort of christian beliefs.

That's a truly fucking sad commentary on the U.S. citizens and their bigotry. It's sad that Romney had to give a speech to defend HIS denomination when the guy who made it an issue (Huckabee) belongs to a denomination just as nutty and that holds some truly offensive views.

smackaholic wrote:So, since we have to pick from a group who claim atleast half hearted belief in alledged fairy tales, why not just realize that we should just agree to disagree in that area.

I don't give a shit if ron paul believes in evolution, jesus christ, santa claus or the fukking easter bunny.

I happen to find that an individual who is so devout in their particular delusions that they would allow those delusions to impact government policy to be too loopy to be my President. Paul has admitted that he thinks that teaching creationism (which is RELIGION, not science) in science classes might be a good idea. So long as the federal government has any hold on education (which, in my opinion, it should not), his opinion is idiotic. And dangerous.

I'm guessing that Paul doesn't want to address the issue ONLY because he knows that his views will cost him support. And I can tell you, as someone who belongs to three science teacher listservs and gets multiple science RSS feeds, it already has.

smackaholic wrote:It's irrelevant.

No, it's not, for the reasons I've already mentioned (and that Bailey discusses more eloquently in his article).

smackaholic wrote:You can still believe in scientific method and god.

I completely agree. In fact, I'm Christian. In all my years of education, training, and work in science, I've honestly never met any science-related educator or worker who was an atheist. Hell, the guy who co-authored one of the best-selling high school biology textbooks, Ken Miller, is a devout Roman Catholic.

smackaholic wrote:The two kind of conflict, but, so fukking what. Plenty of beliefs conflict. Let's get past it.

They only conflict if science meddles in theological/spiritual areas (which Richard Dawkins insists on doing) or if religious folks try to get their religious assertions taught as science (which is what creationists/ID folks try to do).

smackaholic wrote:As for his believing it is a theory, who gives a fukkk? It is a theory.

Except that, depite his alleged scientific training, he uses the word "theory" incorrectly. "Theory" in science specifically means an explanation that has been well-supported by multiple corroborating experiments and observations, by many researchers over a length of time. He used the term as meaning "possible explanation," which is NOT how the term is used in science.

smackaholic wrote:Dude did somehow get through med school, so I am guessing that he is OK with science in general.

I've met some astoundingly stupid people with MD degrees. He got his medical education back when DNA's importance was relatively newly understood. There are doctors of his generation who are STILL slow to grasp that a bacteria, and NOT emotional stress, cause ulcers - why? Because they're set in their ways and aren't up on current research. I seriously doubt that, despite his credentials, Paul has bothered to keep up on non-ob/gynecological science. The fact that he uses the word "theory" to mean "educated guess" and basically gives the impression that creationism and evolution are equally valid scientific "opinions" shows him to be completely unfit to evaluate evidence or set science policy.

He's a fucking wingnut, fringe, lunatic candidate.

I'm really happy that they guy is only getting 5% of the vote thus far (according to an article in this morning's paper). His support will continue to drop as he continues to open his mouth. Hell, that's what wound up finally costing him MY support.

smackaholic wrote: We tried the 'let 'em all kill themselves' idea awhile back and it got us WWII.
.

You clearly don't have the first fucking clue what "got us WWII"

Mike wrote:However, the fact that he doesn't accept evolution as a theory means that his grasp of science is laughable

Paul said this ......

"I think it's a theory, the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory." He also said that he thought it was an inappropriate question to be asking presidential candidate.

He appears to contradict himself there, but the way I take what he is saying is that he accepts evolution as a theory (as he said) but does not accept that theory as a truth.

As smackaholic is saying, it just doesn't matter at all whether a president believes or doesn't believe in evolution.
Now if Mike would like to post something to show us that macroevolution is a FACT he's free to do so.
It won't happen.
If it WAS a fact we'd never hear the end of it.
Every news outlet in the world would hammer that down our throats endlessly.


Smackaholic, about Paul's foreign policy, it is critically important to acknowledge that the U.S. is ..... uhhh .... broke.
We simply can not maintain our current course.
The day of reckoning will come, and Paul is saying that we better confront that reality NOW, on our own terms, rather than later, on 'other' terms, when the consequences will be VERY undesirable.

- we simply can not AFFORD our worldwide military adventures
- we simply can not AFFORD to continue to import Mexico's poverty
- we simply can not AFFORD to hand out entitlements

All of these three things have bled us to the brink of death as a nation, and they will all continue to grow more economically damaging to us (and MUCH more so) as time passes.

And yet there is not one candidate who shows any inclination to STOP SPENDING -- except you know who.

We must stop spending.
This is not optional.

AlQ can't defeat the U.S.
They have no military, they have no capablilty.
Sure, they can stage terror attacks, and kill people, but they can't WIN over America that way.
Only the U.S. can defeat the U.S.
Bin Laden knows it.
The way to bring the U.S. down is to have them destroy themself financially.
And our current asshat of a prez has been TOTALLY played by Bin Laden.
Every important step he's taken has taken us straight down the road to financial collapse.

The day of reckoning will come, and it won't be pretty.

Don't say you weren't warned, and don't say you didn't have a chance to place an important vote in support of a direction toward escape.

Just two things

Paul is no guarantee of an "escape" from anything. He'd still be dealing with an incapable and intractable congress made up of the biggest agenda driven scumbags ever assembled. They don't care if the outcome benefits us, they care if it benefits them

Secondly, I am not being arrogant about religion. I was making the point that if you say you believe in God and that he is the driving force in how you make your decisions that is perfectly acceptable, if not required.

If you say you believe in Science and evolution AND you are also a religious/spiritual person but that you do not base your decisions on what your god would want you to do, you are fucked.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: I completely agree. In fact, I'm a hypocrit

FTFY, mike. NC.

Let's see if I got this right. You believe some old dude with a white beard up on a cloud said, think I'll just wave my magic wand thingy and that little virgin shiksa (hope I got the right nic name for jewish girl) down there will get knocked up and give me a son. Then, that son will get himself tacked up on a stick....so everybody can come on up to my cloud and chill.

Then in a few thousand more years, maybe I'll try it again. But this time I'll just nuke the place first. Oh, yeah and if you don't buy this shit, then, to quote mick jagger "hey, you, get offa my cloud!!!!!"

I think that pretty much sums it up.

No clashing with science there. Nope. None at all. I can't see a single thing there that conflicts with any DNA stuff.

Fukk, shiksa is a gentile chick.

TWIS, help a gentile out, here. I need a good, preferably derogatory nic name for jewish chick. JAP won't work as there wasn't even an america yet.

Nafka :)

Bushice wrote:Paul is no guarantee of an "escape" from anything. He'd still be dealing with an incapable and intractable congress made up of the biggest agenda driven scumbags ever assembled.

This is true, however at least you'd have ONE of the three branches of government pulling HARD to move things in the correct direction.
So we might see a little bit of progress made.

As it is we, no matter which assclown is elected, we will see no progress and only a deepening of our VERY serious economic problem.

Again, no candidate is speaking of taking ANY substantial action which will significantly reduce our spending.
Paul is the only guy with his head out of his ass in this regard.

And that being the case, mr good taxpayer citizen will continue to take it deep up the ass while his country (not to mention freedom) erodes before his eyes.

whoops

smackaholic wrote:I like to misrepresent my opponent's views.

FTFY, smackie

smackaholic wrote:Let's see if I got this right. You believe some old dude with a white beard up on a cloud said, think I'll just wave my magic wand thingy and that little virgin shiksa (hope I got the right nic name for jewish girl) down there will get knocked up and give me a son.

I've already made it quite clear that I don't buy the virgin birth story. I also don't believe in the historical or scientific veracity of a darned good chunk of the OT and parts of the NT. It's kind of a point of a long-standing disagreement between poptart & I.

But nice try in attempting to stereotype every single person who calls themselves a Christian. Too bad little things like "facts" kind of get in the way of your cartoonishly-inaccurate description.

It's one thing to hold some non-scientific beliefs. It's another to make those beliefs part of your policy. Paul's is apparently, by his own admission, open to allow creationist horsecrap to be taught in schools as science. THAT bothers the hell out of me because it is a flagrant violation of the law AND it is an example of a candidate admitting that he would be willing to allow his personal religious views to change government policy. I believe in the divinity of Christ, but I never discuss it in my classes, nor do I believe it appropriate to argue for bodily resurrection, souls, angels, etc. in class. My irrational religious beliefs don't impact my job. Paul has admitted that he would allow HIS completely irrational, scientifically-unaccepted (and scientifically laughable) personal beliefs impact federal policy.

And poptart - macroevolution is a strongly-accepted scientific theory. Saying that if it was, "Every news outlet in the world would hammer that down our throats endlessly," means that you haven't been paying attention. I subscribe to multiple biology RSS newsfeeds, and every single week, more evidence supporting macroevolution is churned out. It doesn't make headline news only because:

a) evidence supporting already-accepted theories (e.g. atomic theory) is hardly newspaper-selling headline news (it's mundane and accepted enough that it's in science textbooks that are used from junior high school school upward), and

b) most science news in general is considered boring and not that newsworthy unless its something like MRSA or bird flu. Hell, there was a paper out a couple weeks ago that scientists were agog about regarding genomic evidence for recent (within the last 40,000 years) HUMAN evolution that I found exciting. It was barely a blip in the papers.

The only folks who think there's a controversy about macroevolution are lying frauds like Dembski, who manufacture the alleged "controversy" and the nutjobs who buy into his half-baked lies.

Now, back to Ron Paul - he and his supporters have been trying hard - rabidly so- to portray him as our "last, best hope." Both liberals and conservatives have described him as a wingnut, and a lot of libertarian-leaning folks (myself included) have ignored or "pooh-poohed" the accusations. Well, closer analysis of his views and his recent idiotic utterances regarding a strongly-supported scientific theory have made me take off the libertarian blinders and withdraw my support of him.

I now agree with mvs and Bri that Paul is a loon. Good thing he's going nowhere in the polls, despite the froth-mouthed screaming of his supporters.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
It's one thing to hold some non-scientific beliefs. It's another to make those beliefs part of your policy. Paul's is apparently, by his own admission, open to allow creationist horsecrap to be taught in schools as science.

Actually, Ron Paul's position is that he favours abolishing the Dept. of Education.

Martyred wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
It's one thing to hold some non-scientific beliefs. It's another to make those beliefs part of your policy. Paul's is apparently, by his own admission, open to allow creationist horsecrap to be taught in schools as science.

Actually, Ron Paul's position is that he favours abolishing the Dept. of Education.

As is mine.

However, if you read the quote above from the Reason article (or the whole article itself), Paul was asked by a creationist (Tom DeRosa) if he would be "more open" to having so-called evidence that "contradicts the theory of evolution" presented in schools, he said yes.

The article came from a magazine that is not primarily a scientific group (like AAAS, NABT, etc.), but a libertarian one. The fact that a libertarian-based magazine/foundation finds Paul's stand a concern should demonstrate that it is not "Darwinian idealogues" (aka, scientists) who brought this up as a serious concern, but political "purists."

mike, you really are kicking your own ass here.

You agree that Paul thinks that the fed gubmint should have absolutely nothing to do with the evo/creation thing. You also agree with him that the fed gubmint should have pretty much zero to do with education, but, you still hit him on it, while admitting that you have similar unscientific thoughts.

BTW, just what the fukk is the "divinity" of christ? You reject the virgin birth thingy, but, apparently think he does have some sort of special quality to him.

Care to elaborate?

One other question. What is your opinion on vouchers to allow parents to send their kids to parochial or secular private schools?

Personally, while I don't buy into the whole religion thing and think catholicism is one of the more screwed up rackets, I would have no problem in sending my kid to a catholic school, since they have a pretty good track record in the school bidness.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:...Paul was asked by a creationist (Tom DeRosa) if he would be "more open" to having so-called evidence that "contradicts the theory of evolution" presented in schools, he said yes.

I'm sorry, but what exactly is wrong with that?

If I read the quote right, he wasn't specifically asked about Creation, only some unnamed
theory. Is the theory of evolution so weak that it could not withstand a charge from a conflicting theory?

And you claim to practice a "Scientific Method"? Phrenologists have more credibility than you.

Mike wrote:And poptart - macroevolution is a strongly-accepted scientific theory. Saying that if it was, "Every news outlet in the world would hammer that down our throats endlessly," means that you haven't been paying attention.

Of course it's a theory.
I would not dispute that.
Look at what I said again ......

Now if Mike would like to post something to show us that macroevolution is a FACT he's free to do so.
It won't happen.
If it WAS a fact we'd never hear the end of it.
Every news outlet in the world would hammer that down our throats endlessly.

smackaholic wrote:BTW, just what the fukk is the "divinity" of christ? You reject the virgin birth thingy, but, apparently think he does have some sort of special quality to him.

Mike's Bible has about every-other-page torn out of it, smackaholic.

Strange stuff.

smackaholic wrote:mike, you really are kicking your own ass here.

You agree that Paul thinks that the fed gubmint should have absolutely nothing to do with the evo/creation thing. You also agree with him that the fed gubmint should have pretty much zero to do with education, but, you still hit him on it, while admitting that you have similar unscientific thoughts.

That's not how I read what he said. Paul as much said that alternate theories to evolution (AKA creationism) should be taught in science classes. I also disagrees with this, so do the laws of the states, Ron Paul appears to feel science students should be given the option to believe in the "god theory" of how things were created / evolved.

I'm not all that hot on a candidate who leans more towards the "A god did everything we see" theory and away from the "evolution occurred / is occurring" theory. There's just too much evidence all around us to ignore it.

As for Government involved in education ? Completely separate issue from what a President should or should not believe in and how they use those beliefs to make decisions as a president, IMO.

Government involvement in education has resulted in - well, go check out some of the public schools in this country if you need answers for that. When I was younger and had the opportunity to work in the school system I saw how bad things were BECAUSE of government involvement in decisions made about education.

Specifically in my case what I observed was the bilingual issue that completely fucked up the ability for teachers to adequately educate students at a rate where they could keep up with schools that didn't have those restrictions (Each district had a member on the county school board, and could dictate/influence policy through them. Those districts heavy in spanish speaking populations demanded bilingual classrooms and got them because either the local pols were hispanic or the local mexican activists threatened lawsuits that would bankrupt the county school budget, so the local government caved. Government intervention in education in action.

I'm sure Mike has a whole lot more to add to that, but from my perspective, as a taxpayer, I don't particularly care for funding those lazy ass mexicans who move here from Mexico and don't want to learn English, and even more so force their language down our throats. If I lived in Mexico or Spain or Italy I wouldn't have the option to demand English be taught. Every other culture living here isn't insisting their language be taught and paid for by taxpayers.

Really, if you want my opinion we'd all benefit if Corporate America had more involvement and the government less involvement in the educational system at the elementary school level, but they won't because then they'd be subject to restrictive government rules. Ultimately Corporations would see a great return on that investment creating more highly educated individuals, but I don't see that ever happening.

Just about the only private school options we have now at the elementary school level are absurdly expensive, and come with either a military or religious .

BTW, just what the fukk is the "divinity" of christ? You reject the virgin birth thingy, but, apparently think he does have some sort of special quality to him.

I'm sure Mike will have a heap to say, but as for me I believe Christ existed as a man, he was a healer, he helped a lot of people and cured/ improved the lives of a lot of the poor and discarded people, he did most of the things attributed to him. I don't buy the virgin birth, the feeding thousands with one fish and one loaf, raising someone from the dead, coming back from the dead himself, IOW I don't buy all of the "miracles" that have never been documented elsewhere but in the biblical texts, I think those are stories elaborated on by the fervent believers and misrepresented by the ignorant and uneducated, and warped over the centuries through personal interpretation by the original writers who sometimes waited decades before writing the texts, alteration through translation from one language to another, and the Church itself, which chose to include / exclude things that appear in the modern bible, centuries after those texts were written. There's just too much wiggle room there for distorting fact into fiction.

A virgin birth? Come on! Try and prove that one. Show me any evidence Joseph didn't bang his wife.

One other question. What is your opinion on vouchers to allow parents to send their kids to parochial or secular private schools?

I don't see that as a reasonable solution. Who pays for those? We do. How many get issued, who qualifies, who decides who qualifies? I can see lawsuits, claims of discrimination, and a whole new level of bureaucracy created to manage it. Another type of welfare. No thanks.

Personally, while I don't buy into the whole religion thing and think catholicism is one of the more screwed up rackets, I would have no problem in sending my kid to a catholic school, since they have a pretty good track record in the school bidness.

Yet you would have to subject your kid to learning their interpretation of the bible, weekly mass, daily prayers and the very exorbitant cost of going there. Catholic schools have run with the concept that they are better, and have ramped up the tuition to keep pace.

I know all about Catholic school, having gone through 12 years of it. It certainly was a superior education compared to the local public school, but to say those people are not FUBAR would be a lie.

smackaholic wrote:mike, you really are kicking your own ass here.

Ah, the standard cry of someone who doesn't get it - "KYOA"

You made false claims about my religious beliefs based upon absurd caricature of Christianity.

smackaholic wrote:You agree that Paul thinks that the fed gubmint should have absolutely nothing to do with the evo/creation thing.

Either you are dense or deliberately misrepresenting my position.

I do not believe that the Department of Education is a Constitutionally-valid federal office and I agree with Paul in that it should be abolished. I do not believe that the federal government has any rightful place in setting standards (a la NCLB). I believe that education is properly the function of state and local governments.

HOWEVER, I believe that the teaching of pseudoscientific piss-poor theology like creationism is nothing but religious doctrine and doesn't belong in public school science classes. And, every federal court who has dealt with the subject agrees with me.

smackaholic wrote:BTW, just what the fukk is the "divinity" of christ? You reject the virgin birth thingy, but, apparently think he does have some sort of special quality to him.

Care to elaborate?

Basically, I believe that he was fully human (born of a normal woman, had to eat, had to piss and crap, felt pain, etc.) but also was an incarnation of the Godhead/Trinity. I also happen to believe that a hell of a lot of the stuff that his followers claimed about him and claimed as doctrine in His name was stuff they made up to gain and keep followers. I already dealt with this issue in the Theology forum. This ain't the place to rehash it.

smackaholic wrote:One other question. What is your opinion on vouchers to allow parents to send their kids to parochial or secular private schools?

No problem, although the specific details would be murky to hash out. I also believe in merit pay for teachers. Then again, I know that I'm a damned good teacher, believe in keeping current with my subject and my methods, and have gotten great documented (and parent-loved) results, so I don't have an issue with merit pay.

Martyred wrote:Is the theory of evolution so weak that it could not withstand a charge from a conflicting theory?

That's not the issue, dimwit.

First off, the alleged objections to evolution are wholly religious in nature. It is not the place of a science teacher to disseminate and then critique religious objections to a scientific theory. You want it done in an elective class or a cultural-type class clearly labeled as such? Cool. But not in a science class.

Secondly, the school year has a very limited amount of time. I see my students for only 20 weeks for 84 minutes a day. In order for me to cover the material I am required to cover in the depth that it needs to be covered (and to get the aforementioned great results), I need the whole semester and wind up giving the last unit exam on the very last day of class. I don't have time to incorporate every pseudoscientific bit of horsecrap - creationism/ID, Flying Spaghetti Monster, phrenology, homeopathy, auras, etc. - into my class for the sheer sake of analyzing it. Creationism and ID are not science and do not belong in a science class for either their content or their waste of my/my students' time and energy.

Hell, why not also require the chem teacher to teach the Greek theory of only four elements or alchemy? How about forcing our science department to teach astrology? Oh, by the way, ID "scientist" Michael Behe admitted in court, under oath, that under the new bending of the definition of science that would admit ID as legit, astrology would also be legit science.

We don't have the freaking time to bring in every fringe, scientifically-unaccepted theory for the explicit purpose of exposing kids to it and "having them make up their own minds."

poptart wrote:Of course it's a theory.
I would not dispute that.

You would and did, because of how you improperly use the word "theory."

Theory, in science SPECIFICALLY means an explanation that is STRONGLY-SUPPORTED by multiple experiments and/or observations by multiple folks over a period of time.

poptart wrote:Look at what I said again ......

Now if Mike would like to post something to show us that macroevolution is a FACT he's free to do so.
It won't happen.

I believe that your crystal ball is off.

Here is a rather detailed bunch of stuff with the evidences for macroevolution

poptart wrote:If it WAS a fact we'd never hear the end of it.
Every news outlet in the world would hammer that down our throats endlessly.

As I said before, the fact that macroevolution IS a fact is exactly what doesn't make it newsworthy. Abe Lincoln was the 16th U.S. president, which is a fact, but THAT doesn't get trumpeted in the newspapers. The ONLY people who doubt macroevolution are creationist nutbags and similar scientific illiterates, which makes hammering that group with already-proven news pretty much a waste of newsprint.

You're lucky I don't turn that argument on you and point out that if God really existed (or if Jesus was who His followers claim Him to be...) that THAT "fact" would be "hammer[ed] down our throats endlessly."

You certainly get hysterical at the littlest things, LabRat.

And you think that makes you different from the Fundies?

I suppose it does. It usually takes much more to get them in such a tizzy

Cuda wrote:You certainly get hysterical at the littlest things, LabRat.

Hysterical?

Because I post on a chatboard in my free time and have decided not to support a nutjob for president?

You sure have a penchant for exaggeration there, cuda.

Cuda wrote:And you think that makes you different from the Fundies?

Yeah. You'll never see me at a rally. Or screaming at people in public, telling them that they'll go to Hell for having a different opinion. You'll never see me going door-to-door trying to get people to be "saved."

Cuda wrote:It usually takes much more to get them in such a tizzy

"Tizzy?"

Your grasp on reality and/or the truth is pretty tenuous if you honestly think that me wasting some minutes on a chatboard on a weekend is equivalent to the freakery in which fundies get themselves.

But hey, your always well-thought-out and incisive opinions will always welcome.

Just let us know when you get around to having one.

Not exactly sure what we're argueing about as I pretty much agree with everything you have said.

What I don't get is your problem with a guy who expresses an opinion on a subject, but, then makes it perfectly clear that the whole fukking subject is not the gubmints problem. I would include any fed court opinions.

Let schools make decisions on a local level. Make it perfectly clear that if some parent has a problem with a schools curiculum, they can run for a seat on the board of ed, pull their kid from the school or just deal with it. A fukking court, especially a fed court should have zero say.

smackaholic wrote:Not exactly sure what we're argueing about as I pretty much agree with everything you have said.

What I don't get is your problem with a guy who expresses an opinion on a subject, but, then makes it perfectly clear that the whole fukking subject is not the gubmints problem.

We probably do agree more than disagree on the topic.

smackaholic wrote:I would include any fed court opinions.

All the federal courts were and have been doing is keeping Christian nuts from using taxpayer-supported schools from using public schools as sites for indoctrination of their wholly religious (albeit badly dressed as science) beliefs.

smackaholic wrote:Let schools make decisions on a local level. Make it perfectly clear that if some parent has a problem with a schools curiculum, they can run for a seat on the board of ed, pull their kid from the school or just deal with it. A fukking court, especially a fed court should have zero say.

I agree with you that if a parent has a genuine problem with their kid learning actual scientific facts because it conflicts with their faith that the family should pull the kid. Same goes for conflicts in other subjects. I did my student teaching in the Churchville-Chili school district, and while I was there, a parent had objections to their child being taught about Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity in an objective manner (i.e., the curriculum taught the importance of each religion without saying "well, as we all know, Christianity is the RIGHT one...") in Global Studies class. The parent was told -correctly- that they were legally allowed to pull their kid from school during those "offending" classes, BUT that the material is still on the NYS Regents examination for Global Studies and that the kid would still have to pass that exam in order to graduate in a NYS school. If a parent wants to pull their kid from my class when I teach evolution, they can. However, that kid is probably not going to pass the state exam, given that evolution is a good specific chunk of the exam and that the topic is interwoven in the rest of the course units.

Also, parents and local school boards have absolutely NO right to use taxpayer-funded schools to preach a specific religious view, let alone in a science class. That has been, and should be, the law. There is no state-sponsored religion in the U.S., and allowing school boards to use legally-compelled taxes to fund the indoctrination in historically and scientifically inaccurate fundamentalist Christian accounts of Earth's origin and species' development is illegal and unAmerican.

mvscal wrote:

Cuda wrote:

smackaholic wrote: We tried the 'let 'em all kill themselves' idea awhile back and it got us WWII.
.

You clearly don't have the first fucking clue what "got us WWII"

Isolationist Republicans in Congress with their heads stuck up their asses got us into WW2. IOW, dipshits like Ron Paul.

Actually, I would modify that statement slightly. Isolationist didn't get us into it, but, they did see to it that we got in so late, that it became a very difficult and expensive struggle. Thank god, the nips dragged us in....with a vengeance....when they did.

If we had bitchslapped hitler around 35 or 36 for shitting all over versaille, it would have been over quickly. So, we still would have had a war, but, it wouldn't have been an all out WW. Hell, the frenchies could have rolled them all by themselves at that time and should have.

Ofcourse, if hitler thought we would have done anything, I spose he would have backed off as he knew he couldn't take the allies at that time.

So, in the end, maybe you are right. Maybe the whole fukking thing doesn't go down.

Makes you wonder how the 20th century might have went. We still would have had to deal with Stalin eventually.

You baited Japan into war. You baited them hard.

You baited Japan into war. You baited them hard.

You mean like you're baiting now?

Japans goals in the WWII era were to own Southeast Asia and as much of China as possible and to essentially establish a Japanese hegemony in the region. They considered the Americans a threat to that, so they took out Pearl Harbor, thinking that would be sufficient to scare us off.


Oops.

mvscal wrote:

That being the case, they should have backed down in China.

That wasn't an option either, how can you just disengage from an undertaking like that - on what for most of the leadership would seem an abstraction? Especially after the commitment was made.

There is an irony in there somewhere.

Mike, I said you wouldn't post anything showing Macroevolution to be a FACT, and you did not.
You posted EVIDENCES, and tried to pass that off as fact.
One who trumpets his science acumen as often as you do ought not make such a disingenous move.

There is evidence for a LOT of things.
It doesn't mean that those evidences have produced something which we can take as FACT.


But this is off the point that caused this discussion.
Regarding Paul, you are the master of your own vote.
If Paul's rejection of macroevolution as a truth disqualifies him from receiving your vote, so be it.
That's you call to make.

Paul's point is that the fed gov ought not have an input in what goes on in schools around the various states and school districts.
If school district members (voted on by the people) choose to teach evolution in their schools, so be it.
If some school districts choose to teach intelligent design, so be it.
If some school district chooses to allow a course which teaches that green monkeys from Mars created earth, so be it.

Freedom for the people.

Dr_Phibes wrote:

mvscal wrote:

That being the case, they should have backed down in China.

That wasn't an option either, how can you just disengage from an undertaking like that - on what for most of the leadership would seem an abstraction? Especially after the commitment was made.

There is an irony in there somewhere.

*cough* Iraq *cough*

How exactly did we bait them, marty? Did we bait them by having a policy that said we wouldn't sit by idly as they plundered all of east asia and the western pacific?