If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
"David Brooks" wrote in message ... "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... "Judah" wrote in message ... How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's assets? Here we have the crux of what passes for liberalism these days. Idiot. The assumption is that if you possess something, it must have been stolen from somebody else. It is astounding that liberals, who claim to be intellectuals, cannot see the blatant fallacy behind this argument. Oh, please read the liberal economists. They understand perfectly well the principles of investment and growth, and that any successful economy cannot be zero-sum. Are there any left? Keynes (as he famously predicted) is dead. :-) To paraphrase Milton Friedman, we are all monetarists now. |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Luke" wrote in message ... "C J Campbell" wrote: By those who, like Dan Luke, want to portray Jefferson as godless in order to further their own political agenda of excluding religious views from the political forum. I certainly would never claim Jefferson was godless. Rather, my point was that he would not pass the test for religious correctness of the religious right, whose political agenda is to enlist government in proselytizing their views. -- I have little tolerance for the religious right, either, but I don't think the religious right is representative of conservatism. They appear to be a hostile group of xenophobic, racist reactionaries. Frankly, they are as much of an embarrassment to conservatives as PETA and the ELF are to the liberals. Extremist groups like those are hotbeds for terrorism and other criminal activity. |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ... "Dan Luke" wrote in message ... "C J Campbell" wrote: By those who, like Dan Luke, want to portray Jefferson as godless in order to further their own political agenda of excluding religious views from the political forum. I certainly would never claim Jefferson was godless. Rather, my point was that he would not pass the test for religious correctness of the religious right, whose political agenda is to enlist government in proselytizing their views. -- Quite...just as they take the phrase "separation of church and state" as though it's something from contemporary times rather than from the pen of James Madison, they guy who essentially WROTE the Constitution. Yes, but they did not make it part of the Constitution, did they? Read the Federalist papers. There was quite a bit of debate about it, and Madison lost. |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Gottlieb wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... If it weren't for liberal activist judges who try to make law rather than interpret the law, the amendment would, in fact, be superfluous. It is simply restating the obvious, but liberal judges are unable to understand it any other way. Are "liberal activist judges" any worse than conservative activist judges? Probably not, there are just more of them as society as a whole continues to decline and standards of morality and behavior are lowered. Isn't case law created in courts rather than by legislation, and a part of the balance of power of the government? That wasn't the intent behind the design of our government. The legislature creates legislation ... could be why they call it the legislature. :-) The courts are only to ensure that the legislature adheres to the constitution, they are not to "create" new law through interpretation. They are to affirm or deny a given law as being constitutional or not, and that is it. Matt |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Sixkiller wrote:
"Dan Luke" wrote in message ... "C J Campbell" wrote: By those who, like Dan Luke, want to portray Jefferson as godless in order to further their own political agenda of excluding religious views from the political forum. I certainly would never claim Jefferson was godless. Rather, my point was that he would not pass the test for religious correctness of the religious right, whose political agenda is to enlist government in proselytizing their views. -- Quite...just as they take the phrase "separation of church and state" as though it's something from contemporary times rather than from the pen of James Madison, they guy who essentially WROTE the Constitution. If he wrote the Constitution, why didn't he include this phraseology? Could it be that it was simply HIS opinion and not generally shared by the group that in the end approved the wording of our Constitution? Many contributed to the wording either through writing it with their own hand or through the debates that edited the final wording. You better go back and read some more history so that you learn not to take one man's opinion as being representative of all. Matt |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
Another lie. I have science on my side Another lie. and no reason to lie. Then apparently it's just your nature. Try posting there again. If what you just said is the truth, you should get little or no response. I cross post to talk.origins every few months. It is a kook bin full of retards spewing 150 year old dog breeder science and an ocasional qualified biologist. The biologist usually admits that there are big problems with Darwin's "Origin of Species", but "it demonstrates how one thing might replace another". Although demonstrating a concept has value, theaching religion as science is not the way to do it. More lies. You're afraid. |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... Fiscal conservatism and a strong resistence to government redistribution are two consrvative sentiments libertarians share. Absolutely. And that's a bad thing? You are probably thinkin of left and right in European terms, where both ends of the spectrum are socialist. Well .. considering both ends of the spectrum wish to grow govt at an astronomical rate .. you could be right. But I generally think in terms of the left wishing to control my pocket book and the right wishing to control my morals, violate my privacy, and control what goes on in my bedroom. |
#198
|
|||
|
|||
Tarver Engineering wrote:
"L Smith" wrote in message hlink.net... I asked you to point out where you believe Darwinian theory is in error. 1) Darwin's "Origin of Species" is not a scientific theory, as it fails to meet the terms of the scientific method. 2) Geological evidence proves to beyond a shadow of a doubt that the processes laid out in Darwin's "Origin of Species" are false. 3) The State of Georgia teaching Creation straight from Genesis is closer to a modern scientific theory than Darwin's "Origin of Species". 4) Darwin's notional hypotesis is false even by the admission of biologists. And your evidence for these statements, all of which are opinion rather than fact. 1) Darwin's development of his theory is one of the clearest applications of the scientific method that I know of. The revisions that have come since then are further examples of science at its best. 2) Geological evidence was used in the development of the theory, and so far nothing from geology has been found that clearly contradicts the theory. 3) I'm afraid that Georgia is not a well-known and widely respected scientific expert. 4) Considering that evolution is a fundamental part of biology, I find your last statement somewhat surprising. I've known of several biologists who believed that there were still questions that evolutionary theory had not yet answered, but that is a far cry from claiming the theory is wrong. Rich Lemert |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
"Otis Winslow" wrote in message .. . "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... Fiscal conservatism and a strong resistence to government redistribution are two consrvative sentiments libertarians share. Absolutely. And that's a bad thing? Not to me, but those policies are incompatable with socialism. |
#200
|
|||
|
|||
"darwin smith" wrote in message k.net... Tarver Engineering wrote: "L Smith" wrote in message hlink.net... I asked you to point out where you believe Darwinian theory is in error. 1) Darwin's "Origin of Species" is not a scientific theory, as it fails to meet the terms of the scientific method. 2) Geological evidence proves to beyond a shadow of a doubt that the processes laid out in Darwin's "Origin of Species" are false. 3) The State of Georgia teaching Creation straight from Genesis is closer to a modern scientific theory than Darwin's "Origin of Species". 4) Darwin's notional hypotesis is false even by the admission of biologists. And your evidence for these statements, all of which are opinion rather than fact. The geological evidence has ended any question as to the validity of Darwin's quaint little story. It is not opinion, but hard physical evidence. 1) Darwin's development of his theory is one of the clearest applications of the scientific method that I know of. Nope, biologists have to ignore the scientific method to even consider Darwin's "Origin of Species" a theory at all, as Darwin's notional hypothesis fails to meet the criterion of "experimantally demonstrable and repeatable" required to be a theory. This is my last reply here at rai, as this is way off topic and I don't expect you will change your religous beliefs based on hard physical evidence, or for any other reason. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Dover short pilots since vaccine order | Roman Bystrianyk | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 29th 04 12:47 AM |
Pilot's Political Orientation | Chicken Bone | Instrument Flight Rules | 317 | June 21st 04 06:10 PM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | Military Aviation | 120 | January 27th 04 10:19 AM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | General Aviation | 3 | December 23rd 03 08:53 PM |