I've gotta say, I have a special place in my heart for "Except for fascism, slavery, etc... war never fixed anything."
stutefish
Technically, since the Right is currently closer to the center-mainstream, you'd have to say that the Right has already gone first, and it's well past time for the Left to step up and follow suit. Assuming, of course, that Rightwinger 's argument is correct.
Yes, please!
Word on the street (heh) is that somewhere in Maryland, there is a car with the following automotive decoratiosn all displayed--at the same time! + Darwin Fish + Oh Lord Please Protect Me From Your Followers + Don't Pray in My School and I Won't Think in Your Church + Doing My Best to Piss Off the Religious Rig
latour , I take it you're a strong atheist. What would be the correct assumption to start out with, when talking to a strong atheist? Why is " the odds that god exists are greater than zero" such a bad assumption to make, when talking to a strong atheist? Is it because strong atheists have special access to the true probability of god's existence? Or is it because strong atheists become unhappy when confronted with reasonabl
Gid , With me, at least, it actually hurts your argument a little, to claim that the opposing faction is behaving badly, without providing a link to your evidence.
PacDragon said: "The record seems pretty clear that human components alone don't get the job done." Perhaps, but the record doesn't show that non- or super-human components would do a better job. Sounds similar to saying, "History has not shown that humans are capable of intergalactic travel. Hence, magic is the answer." Your analogy would make a lot more sense if there was any reason to believe that mankind's mo
Seriously, it's been my experience that women tend to be better at the whole "intimacy" thing than men do. I get the distinct impression, both from history and my own personal life experiences, that one vital role women play in society is to "civilize" the men they interact with. I know this makes me sound horribly bigoted and sexist. No matter how I sound, though, I assure that I am not. It's obvious that women differ from men in many prof
Okay, but did you make it here ?
I'm oncall 24/7. Not a day goes by that I don't put in at least 8 hours. And that doesn't count the two or three times a year, when I work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, for months at a time.
All very true. To be fair, though, I'd like to point out that Ann doesn't really specialize in intellectual debate. Don't get me wrong: she has a powerful intellect, which she focuses quite effectively on her work, but her essays aren't really what you'd call "intellectual". She makes too extensive use of exaggeration, for an intellectual debate to be possible. But that's okay with me. I don't read her for intellectual effect; I have other places
Actually, I was referring to this: Besides, I'm sure Anne Coulter gets mad laid. What do you think the Young Republicans are for?
Nice! That is one sweet-looking vacuum cleaner. Only $100, you say? Hrm....
Okay, not really. But check this out. It's got the usual exaggeration for comic effect that we've all come to know and love (or hate) from Ann Coulter, based, as usual, on a solid premise. But I'll let the conclusion speak for itself: "Chuck Schumer could be the last D
sushiK , on what basis do you ban Religions from schoolyards? Would you ban PETA, or Planned Parenthood, or Greenpeace, or the ROTC, or The March of Dimes, or MADD?
'That is basically how I feel towards Religion pushers" It also happens to be how I feel about anti-Religion pushers. Only, hold on a moment... why is that when I want the nihilists and the secular humanists to back off, I'm some kind of psycho fundie who's stifling debate and repressing the sheeple and building up a theocracy, but when you want the religious-types to back off, you get credit for being a reasonable person who just wants to be
Ooh. Good question. I'm saying that if it is resolvable, its resolution must have a non- or super-human component. The record seems pretty clear that human components alone don't get the job done.
What about them? I think it's just as obvious that in addition to their innate and inescapable potential for evil, humans have an innate and inescapable potential for good. Together, these two potentials produce an inner conflict which means that while no evil is beyond redemption, no good is perfect. Even people who strive to be "Lawful Good" don't always succeed. This is exactly what I'm talking about. History tells us time and a
Got into a (very) brief debate with Michael Totten about secular humanism , in the comments on this post . Specifically, we were talking about why some conservatives consider Democracy and Education b
Okay, okay, but if any of these predictions come true, I expect all you laughers out there coughlittlewhipcough to be right back here, doing penance on your knees for ridiculing these insightful and enlightened people. (By the way, I heard this morning that the Euro is falling, in response to the "no EU" votes in France and the Netherlands. So I'm withdrawing even my allowance for something bad to happen to the dollar.)
I'm sorry you feel that way. But then, it's not like you want to talk about your (presumably hypothetical) yeast infection, any more than I want to hear about it. I mean, would you agree to the opposite proposition, "you tell me about Jesus, and I'll tell you about my bowels and vaginal issues"? Probably not. On the other hand, how comfortable would you be, keeping silent about the things that you believe are true and good, s
Funny shirt, but bad comparison. How about this? "You don't tell me about how Jesus is good for my soul, and I won't tell you about how gay marriage is good for society."
It's funny: I guess I'm a "neocon", but this guy was waaay more hardcore about the whole thing that I ever am. I get this sometimes, hanging out at Protest Warrior events. Some fellow conservative will strike up a conversation with me, and all I can think is, "stop repeating all the talking points, asshat!" So, yeah. This guy comes across as a bandwagon-jumping loon. He described himself not as a neocon, but as a liberal caricature of
I hang out at Democratic Underground . Not all the time! Hardly ever, in fact. But every so often, I drop by to see how the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy looks from the outside. I like to browse the forums, read what these people are saying about all the issues of the day. One thing I've noticed is that the
Whatever, rick . Let's start over, shall we? Here's my thesis: The Soviet Union, under Stalin, allied with Nazi Germany, enabling and empowering Hitler to perpetrate his crimes against humanity. Not only that, but Stalin even supported Hitler's offensives with offensives of his own, notably against Finland and Poland. I'll go ahead and repeat that: the Soviet Union, as a matter of government policy, invaded Finland and Polan