I am making a valid point. You can totally call someone crazy who's beliefs you disagree with.

Thats bull you crazy midget!

I know I'm going to get a lot of crap for saying this, but not being able to cater to different audiences and putting on different faces, as you put it, is a pretty bad quality in a politician.

sugarless, there's a difference between catering to your audience and saying only what the people want to hear so you can get elected.

Adjusting your style of presentation, or discussing different issues with different people I have no problem with... Flip flopping, or not taking a stand on issues because you're afraid about votes I'm not ok with.

I'm not okay with that either mister republic buzzword, but that doesn't mean I'm going to support someone who has thousand year old ideals and is applying them to modern issues simply because he's very stubborn about them. You're not selling your candidate, you're only making excuses and reasoning about their faults because they're in the same Sunday morning support group.

If a man were to support pedophilia, I would not vote for him. The likelihood of him getting any legislature passed that legalized pedophilia is negligibly low. However, I find the idea of supporting such a man reprehensible.

Similarly, the Ten Commandments should not be made into law. There are some things I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to being made into law ("no marital infidelity"), but there are others that should not be made into law ("you shall have no other god before me"). Thus, I can't get behind a guy who says that that's acceptable.

the fact that some of the laws george bush passed were unconstitutional didnt stop him from getting them passed. and the problem is that he will try and get biblical laws passed under secular pretenses.

sarn, i lived through enough elections of john howard to know that that particular line is just a piece of crap. in fact, he lost because the final straw was that the less well off people were adversely affected by his lies that got him into office, and nothing he could say was going to get him the election.

I'm not sure he can since he seems to confuse Huckabee with McCain.

???

I thought you supported gays. Or do you disagree with women having sex with men?

Are you drinking again?

Just because I wasn't sure whether he was a senator or a governor doesn't mean my opinions are invalid.

And I'm talking about NAMBLA.

oh... you're a member kirbs?

:/

For you? Yes.

Oh, so you meant young men having sex with boys. Boys certainly should not take advantage of young men in such a way.

And since you don't know which candidate is which then of course your opinion is as valid as every other nitwit that talks out of their ***.

No, I wasn't confusing candidates, I misspoke. Don't be a robhole and ignore my points in favor of semantics. My point was that he's a politician, and having been a religious leader doesn't negate that.

Fine, I just wonder sometimes when you seem to not know some basic info. Like a couple months ago, well 4 maybe, when you were surprised the French Quarter was still there.

I really hope Obama wins the nomination, not because I like him or anything but only because I don't want that phony, power-hungry, socialistic, ex-hippy ***** Hillary and her womanizing "first man" to win the nomination.

That's basic information? I guess I kind of figured the lowest, oldest, most structurally unsound part of the city wasn't doing too well after a 50 foot wave covered the city.

Sorry, I thought you were going to stop arguing semantics and actually pay attention to my points.

It's been too long of a week to actually pay attention to any of your points. I would understand better if it wasn't like a year after Katrina when you were surprised by the "revelation" or that you after an already seemingly endless primary you learn Huckabee isn't a senator. Maybe tomorrow I'll try to sort out the Hitler comparisons.

I wasn't comparing to hitler, I was just following that line of argument, since Sarn seems to think Huckabee is defended by being less political than hitler.

I also didn't "learn" he wasn't a senator, I just didn't care how specific I was since my point was that he's a politician.

Lastly, I don't exactly live in the French Quarters, and thus I don't really know their current state, and didn't really care to look it up. It wasn't a pressing issue.

But none of the matters. You're still peddling about semantics. My point is that huckabee IS crazy, and I can say that, not because I disagree with christianity, but because he wants to apply his religion to EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES. That's crazy, unconstitutional, and radical.

Knowledge of the current geographic layout of New Orleans is pertinent to your opinion and knowledge of politicians.

Wow. Apparently I'm just arguing semantics but you're all over the place and then you draw your silly conclusion at the end. And Huckabee is the radical, riiiiight.

Moral structure is good to have. Wanting your moral structure to be made law is bad.


Yes it would take an act of God to get the Ten Commandments part of our Constitution. You need 2/3 of both houses and 3/5 of the states. But it's the fact that he supports such goals. He's 100% in favor of a gay marriage ban amendment. There is no reason for such an amendment other than to satiate Christian doctrine. That is what makes me not like him.

My main worry is that he isn't *that* crazy, and he just went to great efforts to come off that way to get attention and votes from disenfranchised evangelicals. Now he's backpedaling a tad to make himself more electable in the long run. I just don't trust a guy like that.

Vincent, you should run for student government president!

I'd rather have the one that believes in evolution.

Because that is possibly the most relevant issue to politics, ever.

Oh wait, you're rob.

believing in evolution is a basic measure of intelligence.

or rather, supporting the best and most elegant explanation for something when there is no evidence to suggest it's wrong in any major way, that can be used as a basic measure of intelligence.

DING DING DING.

[not racist] but this guy totally just ice burned himself and doesn't even realize it.

Oh and another tangentially-related pic:

Yeah, because it is so much more rational to believe that a series of fortunate accidents has led to life on Earth today. I'm not picking sides but it seems bigoted to simply discount a persons intelligence due to their opinion of evolution. And I suppose it is simply irony that when I spell check this post prior to submitting it the only suggestion is that your name should be changed to "Deity".

It is. But the way you phrased it suggests a huge misunderstanding.



Yes, especially when the origin of this name is "Detritic IQ" which is based on the intelligence of the Discworld character Detritus who is rather stupid. It was the most self-deprecating name I could think of at the time.

Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life. Evolution is about the change of life, and it is not random nor accidental.

Just goes to show that racism and Islamophobia are quite alive.

I understand that but to get to the point where evolution is even a factor requires one to believe in a phenomenal number of accidents to have transpired unless you're one of the few evolutionists that also believe in creation.

Not accidents--cosmic chances just lined up this time. According to the "theories" you speak of, this all could have happened a billion times over and over again since before a time we can comprehend. Sooner or later the law of chance says that it's going to end up with this life as the end result.

EDIT: Also, if you believe in Christianity that's all well and good. Beliefs are beliefs and nobody can tell you they're right or wrong. They can, however, tell you that believing in the earth only being around for 6000 years and there being a "cosmic being" that created everything and anything with a thought is rather silly, and that it directly reflects your intelligence. If you want to believe in god, believe that he gave us science for a reason. At the very least, believing in him allows that you also believe he has a very unseen hand in the world, meaning that it's entirely possible he created the universe in the same manner that science predicts and thus we ended up here.

And not trying to troll, but this seemed relevant:

You're missing the point. Regardless of how sturdy a theory abiogenesis is, evolution itself has mountains of evidence in its favour and is strong on its own. Whether you decide that a supernatural being made the first self-replicator or it resulted after one chance occurrence billions of years ago is neither here nor there. I may as well add that even if the reactions required are unlikely, the constituent chemicals would have been in such numbers that there would be multiple reactions taking place simultaneously and this could have taken place over a prolonged period of time. If it's got a 1 in 1000000000 chance of happening, all it takes is for 1000000000 attempts to have taken place and the expectation is that it will have occurred.

It's not necessarily bigoted to discount that person's intelligence on their opinion on evolution; it's a good indicator of whether they're going to follow what they hope or want to be true or what the evidence actually leads them to.

Maybe I should clarify: I would question someone's intelligence if they had been exposed to a clearly explained outline of evolution and still didn't support it.