Comments Posted By ct
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 13 Comments
A SHORT, BUT PIQUANT NOTE, ON KNUCKLEDRAGGERS
So what are you trying to say, the world of the stupid is a target rich environment? Damn it, guess I better get that bullseye off my back.
Comment Posted By CT On 15.10.2008 @ 22:48
All I can say to Conservatives nowadays is you better go back to basics. Start reading Edmund Burke and Alexis de Tocqueville.
Comment Posted By CT On 8.10.2008 @ 16:07
I am glad we are going to lose. The Republicans need a cleansing, from the RINO's, the phukin NeoCons, and all the other trash that is faux-Conservative. Once this is done we can get back down to basics like we have been needing to. If I had the money I would send every swingin' sausge and skirt claiming to be a Conservative in Congress a copy of Burke so they can remember where their philosophies came from. Either way Obama is going to trash the country and and someone will need to be there to clean up the wreckage, that will be the Conservatives. All we can do is get ready.
Comment Posted By CT On 6.10.2008 @ 04:20
Like most partisan idiots on both sides you are all blinded by your incisive love of talking points, you all have missed the boat on Palin. This woman is an ambitious opportunist who is playing the populist role. I would even venture to say she is a shark in sheep's clothing. Whether you blind a$$ Lefties want to admit it or not she took out the corrupt Repubs of her own party because she saw it as an opportunity climb to the top over their dead bodies. (Not that they did not deserve it.) She is very keen on how to use her strengths to survive when she is in over her head. Her performance against Biden proved that. Uncle Joe all but beat her on facts, minus his 14 or so lies, and there are a large number of people who still think it is debatable whether he won or not. What happened to the elder statesman who would mop the floor up with the two year Governor? Keep on underestimating her, it is hilarious. And you Repubs are simpletons if you believe she is really good ole' Sarah Six Pack. She will use whatever is the cause du jour to vault heself as high as she will go. She is your Republican version of Hillary Clinton. Either way she is not going away, this VP garbage is a training ground for her to enter politics on a national level. My prediction, obviously after a McCain loss and a bumbling Obama Presidency, good ole' Sarah Six Pack will make a Senate run in Alsaka. She will probably use something similar to the Hillary formula. Palin will follow in the footsteps of Coburn, DeMint, Hensarling, etc. and the rest of the anti-earmark/government reform groupies. Why not, that is what is becoming truly populist. After that who knows. Either way it will be very interesting to watch her devour the Dems and watch her use the Repubs to climb. All I have to say is "Go Sarah!" You are making this entertaining for me!
Comment Posted By CT On 4.10.2008 @ 03:46
I think you are missing the point about her intellect. No one has ever claimed she had some hidden genius, only that McCain and his boys have tried to make her one of them. They need to let her be who she is, not some ridiculous talking point parrot. Her talents and abilities have been so demeaned by the onslaught of the press in their attempt to Quaylinize her that people never got a chance to really know her and what she is capable of. Obviously, their protecting her has not done any good, they are behind 8 points and it is no fault of Palin.
Comment Posted By CT On 30.09.2008 @ 05:18
Amen, Funny!
Comment Posted By CT On 26.09.2008 @ 01:56
I'll give you half credit on this statement.
"The suspension of his campaign is a gimmick, of course"
I do believe McCain is doing this half out of political commitment and half campaign gimmick. I do not doubt his love of his country, but the question no one has asked, as a sort of litmus test, is, "Would he have done it if he was ahead in the polls and pulling away?"
"If he had acceded to McCain’s wishes and gone back to Washington, the Republican would have had a triumph"
Aaah, but he did return to Washington, albeit at the President's request, not John McCain's. So, for the Republicans half victory as well as half victory for Obama. Guess you could call it a stalemate.
"So where does that leave McCain? I believe that the GOP will close ranks today and agree to join the Democrats in voting for the bailout package."
Well the Repubs are revolting again and it is not over energy, it is over the bailout.
The point is not to correct you or say you were wrong, it is to say that this is an extremely volatile election cycle and it is hard to predict any outcomes on anything. The only things we know for sure are advantage Obama, GOP is blamed for financial crisis, and we have a financial crisis. Whether McCain's gambit paid off or not will not really be known until Monday. So far there is a bump according to Gallup and BattleGround, but Rasmussen shows an Obama lead of +3. Yesterday on Ras, they were tied. Hate to do it, but I believe Ras to be the most accurate, that is why I give Obama the advantage as far as the polls are concerned.
Reality of all of this is, there are no variables that you can predict in this election, things are out of whack. The data from everything has alot of people confused, that is the only thing I know for sure.
Comment Posted By CT On 25.09.2008 @ 23:28
OY WHAT A MESS! FOLEY COVERUP AND THE GAMBIT THAT EXPOSED IT
"when the dog lives under your porch, its your job to keep him under control, not your neighbors, even if the neighbor hears that the dog bites on occasion."
So, pedophiles should only be turned in by members of his own political persuasion? If you know about a murderer or a thief, do you not have to turn him in because he's not of your political party? Nonsense. If CREW or anyone knew of this months ago they should have turned him IMMEDIATELY, not wait until a time they would gain the most politically.
Comment Posted By CT On 2.10.2006 @ 11:09
1977? Think you could come up with something a little more recent? Do you think we have found nothing new since then? And describe "rare." Rare, as in, only fifty thousand or so? Ten thousand? Compared to how many creatures have lived and died, that is rare indeed, but even ten thousand is a hell of a number. Just saying "it's rare" doesn't help. And it doesn't address the quality of the fossils, which is perhaps more important. Caveman bones are very telling of what we used to be, even though we may not have a lot of them (at least as compared to how many people there have been).
Further, you are quoting a man who firmly believed in the theory of evolution. So, are you saying that he was admitting that he believed evolution was false? He screwed up, let the cat out of the bag, and now the truth is out?
Again, we have nitpicking. "I found a hole in evolution, therefore it is ALL false." Nonsense, and I've already explained why.
I've come to the conclusion that talking with ID'ers and creationists about evolution is like talking to liberals about the war in Iraq. Instead of supporting their own view with facts, they attempt to destroy other points of view in the hopes that people will accept theirs when it is the only one left. It is irrational and does absolutely nothing to prove they are correct. ID will never be a valid scientific fact until it provides EVIDENCE of a designer(s). And when that happens, I'll change my mind about a lot of things (as will a lot of scientists).
Comment Posted By CT On 11.11.2005 @ 12:41
This is an interesting article, but I fail to see how it proves ID is valid. It seems that Bohm believed it, but so what? Because Bohm is a famous physicist, a brilliant physicist at that, and because he believed in some sort of design in physics that it must absolutely be true? Of course not. An opinion, even a scientists opinion, is just that until proof can be found.
The article says "The mystical connotations of Bohm's ideas are underlined by his remark that the implicate domain 'could equally well be called Idealism, Spirit, Consciousness. The separation of the two -- matter and spirit -- is an abstraction.'" The operative word being "could." He is not saying "yes it is consciousness." This is his opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
All Bohm managed to do was show that there are things science cannot explain. This is not new. Scientists do not claim to know everything, even in regards to evolution. Scientists regularly update their theories based on new information. Just because there are things science has yet to explain does not automatically mean that ID is involved. All it means is that we don't know. God or aliens or whatever may be involved, but we can't assume that until we have proof (of which there is none outside of conjecture). Show me an alien fossil that is dated back to the time of single celled life forms and then we can talk ID.
I've discussed this in other forums as well and each argument comes down to this: science cannot explain absolutely all aspects of evolution, thus it is not valid. I said this already, but this to follow this logic is to say all scientific theories are invalid.
It is human nature to want to understand things. If there is no proof, it is our tendency to insert our own explanations. But lack of proof does not mean proof is lacking. The answer is there even though we can't see it, but we don't assume one thing is true--be it evolution or ID--unless we have the evidence, and we have museums full of proof of evolution (to fed ex it would cost a whole hell of a lot of cash).
When we see a situation we cannot explain, we simply say "I don't know." There is nothing wrong with not understanding something. There is something wrong with insisting that a particular answer is correct when there is no concrete evidence to support it.
One other thing. The site on which this is article is posted says the following (you have to go to the main page of the site): "Theosophical Society is dedicated to universal brotherhood, independent spiritual search, and study of the religious, scientific and philosophical thought of humanity, ancient and modern." They admit they have a bias toward religion. It was originally printed in theosophy magazine (Sunrise).
For reference: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theosophy for a definition of theosophy (you guys probably already know this, but just in case...).
All of this brings the whole article into question in the first place. Without having read Bohm's work, how do I know it is in the correct context? I could quote you stuff from the Democratic Underground and from the Daily Kos that Bush lied about the war on terror. Given the source, you would question that so-called evidence. The same thing applies here.
Comment Posted By CT On 11.11.2005 @ 01:04
