What did America do to deserve these idiots?

this goes right back to republicans and their outrageous and constant "flip-flopping" claims.

There is nothing wrong with changing your mind when you're presented with better evidence.

I wonder if he sticks with god when U.S. law is in contradiction with the bible. Like how you can't sacrifice your kids and pets anymore, or stone women suspected of prostitution.

the concept of "God" doesn't change? riiiiiight

Hey - it's better to be consistently wrong than a wishy-washy flippy-floppy!

But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict.

Ri-i-i-ight. Because Christians today are exactly the same as they were in 500 BC.

Oh, wait.

Well, they're the same as they were before the Nicaean Council was convened.

Oh, wait.

Well, they're at least the same as they were before Luther's Ninety-Five Theses and the Reformation.

Oh, wait.

Okay, forget science education for these dimwits; what we need is more religious education. Because most of these 'tards know less about the capriciousness of their own religion than they do the theory of evolution.

Heh. Skyotter and I made the exact same sound (ri-i-i-i-ight!) at the exact same comment.

We've more agreement than any two Xians!

I think that you could make the additional point that the fundamental laws of the natural world don't change. Rather, our understanding of those laws becomes closer to the truth through scientific inquiry.

Huckabee forgot that God does in fact change with every generation.

This is the same guy who said that most of the signers were ministers. They werent. Not by a long shot. I think it was like 1 in 50.

There could be worse presidents than Bush. It can always get worse. Huckabee might very well be one of them.

Bush had several redeeming features. He is incredibly stupid, unable to speak more than a sentence or two coherently. He also has all the charisma of a toad.

Imagine a Bush clone with a brain and the ability to act like a normal human being. We could be much further on our way to banana republic status or armageddon.

It won't take too many more of the fundie theocrats to finish us off. One of my colleagues whose family fled Nazi Germany in the nick of time, has already bought land in South America. If it gets any worse, he plans to move again.

Is this whole American Taliban movement going to be over soon so we can get back toward a rational government? I know the Pols are mostly just faking, well maybe not Huckabee as he seems dimmer than most, but having this endless "Oh yeah, well I sacrificed a lamb yesterday", contest from the GOP ghouls is not only tiresome, but keeps leading toward, "Crusades: The Sequel", and I for one usually don't like re-makes, especially when the first version was so awful.

Oh, Huckabee's going to win; he's been endorsed by Chuck Norris Himself.

Warren beat me to it, but I'm going to link to the hilarity anyway.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/22/424613.aspx

How do I know?

The Bible tells me so.

Huckabee recently said that "most" of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were clergymen.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/056664.php

In fact, 1 of the 56 was.

Huckabee is a good old-fashioned theistic liar. I suspect this will position him well to capture the GOP nomination.

Chuck Norris is a much scarier dude in real life than in the movies. And he could kick PZ's ass in a fair fight too, although he probably sucks as a blogger.

science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn'tAhem..... King. James. Version. Fuckwit.

This post and comments thread reminds me of a hilarious fundagelical former coworker of mine, who was also a former Catholic. Why did he leave Catholicism? It irked him how they "changed the Bible." I tried to remind him that the Catholics came first and it is the Protestant bibles that are different, but... that was the end of the conversation. Too much heresy.

"What did America do to deserve these idiots?"

We let our guard down.

I was thinking last night of a Giuliani/Huckabee ticket -- would get the Values Voters off Rudy's back -- but then I realized that there are just too many syllables for that to be a viable bumper sticker.

Chuck Norris is a much scarier dude in real life than in the movies. And he could kick PZ's ass in a fair fight too.

But PZ is an atheist, by definition completely lacking in a moral center or respect for rules, so he wouldn't fight fair. And, since we all know political and scientific truths are determined by who can beat up whom, our side should be glad he wouldn't.

Since the neoconservatives have taken over the republican party, religion is being used to promote "Moral values", Plato's "Noble Lie".
As long as the Republican party stays that way, Bush, Huckabee, Thompson, Romney, ... and many more will come.
God bless America !

"science changes with every generation..."

Right. Heliocentrism, classical mechanics, atomic theory, the conservation of mass... all of it just fashionable whims of the moment. As subject to change as the Billboard Top Ten; as likely to be replaced as a sitcom on NBC.

What a dolt.

"What did America do to deserve these idiots?"

Good question. Inbreeding? The triumph of darkness over light? Getting old, fat, and lazy?

It is a bit of a mystery how such a country as the USA could be so successful for so long and then just commit suicide.

What did America do to deserve these idiots?
We let our guard down.

What's the point of all those guns then? The dungeons at Gitmo? The disproportionate, massive, and growing amounts of GHGs deliberately pumped in the atmosphere? The refusal to consider health care a human necessity? Yadda yadda yadda...

Is it that the USAians let their guard down, or that they started worrying about the wrong things? Either might explain Cheney and Bush II, but "letting their guard down" would not seem to explain everything the USA and the USAians have wrong. (Another possibility is simply that USAians are stupid. This idea is attractive.) Of course, in reality, the current and increasing disasters presumably have multiple causes. Each.

Huckabee recently said that "most" of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were clergymen.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/056664.php

In fact, 1 of the 56 was.

So Huckabee is not only a liar. He also sounds very dumb. Not a good lie when anyone with an internet connection can check on it in 15 seconds.

As dumb as Bush. Looks like we got a serious contender for the GOP nomination and the presidency here. There is, in the constitution, a clause that no religious test be used for officeholders. There is nothing about IQ tests.

. . . there are just too many syllables for that to be a viable bumper sticker.

Giuliani's already shedding syllables; most of his bumper stickers just say "Rudy 2008". I can easily imagine something like "Rudy 'n Huck" ('n lotsa luck).

"It is a bit of a mystery how such a country as the USA could be so successful for so long and then just commit suicide."

And with a big vacant smile on its face, as well. Apparently, most of America is too stupid to apply the brakes before speeding off the cliff.

It is a bit of a mystery how such a country as the USA could be so successful for so long and then just commit suicide.

"Success" is relative. In the 19th century, corporations got annointed with citizenship rights, with none of the responsibilities. Slow decline since then, with some shining moments.

"What did America do to deserve these idiots?"

When a country has been politically dominant for an extended period, it seems to breed complacency and arrogance.

Writing about inter-war Britain in "England, your England" Orwell talks about how the British upper class, confronted by the dual crises of the Great Depression and the rise of Nazism, "retreated into stupidity".

While the crises are hardly as proximate, the "War on Terror", the appalling long term prospect for the US national debt and global warming must make it tempting to switch to discussions about the need for a flag burning ban; The War on Christmas and the threat of activist judges.

Dr. Watson himself would smile at your suggestions that Americans are any more or less intelligent than humans anywhere. Not that I think things can be done any better, but democracy's Achilles' heel is that the most intelligent citizen's votes count just as much as Terri Schiavo's did. Terri's hands are a bit easier to guide than ERV's would be.

I'm not sure we completely let our guard down. It was a coup de'tat. Our president's inability to produce a coherent English sentence is indicative of a disability not of his intelligence. His inability to create constructive foreign or domestic policies is indicative of amoral social behavior, again not indicative per se of intelligence. His noted lack of curiosity is at least supporting evidence for subnormal intelligence, contrawise he is purportedly a 'quick study' when being briefed by his cronies on particular issues. His greatest strength, in paraphrasing his words, "they always misunderestimate me". He is not stupid, a better characterization might be 'low cunning.'

He is the very definition of conservative. He doesn't want change, no matter what. Everything is good just the way it is.
The conservative nutcase I used to work for once told me, "I have never seen technology make anything easier, it always makes things more complicated." I asked him if he had enjoyed the ride to work on his horse.

I believe H. L. Mencken said it best;
When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental -- men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre -- the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.' The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

"What did America do to deserve these idiots?"

I think it's our education. It's easy to graduate from high school or even college without knowing how science works, or how to think critically, and without any appreciation or knowledge of the Enlightenment values our government was built on. Politicians and religionists exploit this ignorance to advance their own agendas.

I was amazed just yesterday by a very bright young engineer I work with who saw no problem basing laws on the Bible, because we are, after all, a Christian nation; why else would we say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? He also couldn't get through a Harry Potter book, because they were too "demonic".

This is somebody who sailed through an excellent engineering school and promptly followed up with a Master's in his spare time after work.

I can easily imagine something like "Rudy 'n Huck" ('n lotsa luck).

more like:

Rudy 'n Huck
What a mind fuck

Science changes with each generation, but science always shows that the universe has to be fine-tuned by God to exist.

It did when people believed the world was on the back of 4 elephants, and it still will when people find out what version of string theory is nest.

If talked about with enough generality, nothing conflicts with anything.

And if it does, who cares? Goddidit.

June 5, 2007:
"My point is, I don't know. I wasn't there. But I believe whether God did it in six days or whether he did it in six days that represented periods of time, he did it. And that's what's important."

He's been saying this stuff for months. It's his official line: Duh, I dunno... Goddidit.

It must not take much to become an ordained minister in Arkansas.

"What did America do to deserve these idiots?"

You voted for 'em. A SECOND time.

Mind you Graculus, isn't there an old saying that goes, never two without three.
Well, it seems it is just fine for two companies, run by a pair of extreme partisan brothers, to manufacture the nation's voting machines, never submitting their software code for open testing, obstructing paper trails or auditing, while lobbying for state laws that forbid exit polling, as a last ditch way to verify election results.

"What did America do to deserve these idiots?"

P.Z., people don't get the government or politicians they want.

They get the govt. and politicians they deserve.

Stuart

I'm not sure we completely let our guard down. It was a coup de'tat.

That brings up something I've been sometimes wondered about for some time now (albeit never for very long or too seriously): Why hasn't there been a coup d'état to eliminate the current junta?

The USA's Declaration of Independence says, in its Preamble (emphasis added):

That to secure these rights [of life, liberty, et al.], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Has Cheney and Bush II satisfied the necessary conditions of "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute Despotism"?

Admittedly very superficially:
• Has there been a "a long train of abuses"? Yes.
• And of "usurpations"? Apparently.
• Which are "pursuing invariably the same Object"? Seemingly.
• Which is "to reduce [the people] under absolute Despotism"? Well... the USA is not an absolute dictatorship. Yet. Although with the continuing abandonment of the Rule of Law, other outcomes seem improbable.

It might be possible (to say nothing about desirable or necessary) to produce a plausible list of charges against Cheney and Bush II which meets the criteria (such as the Declaration does in the Indictment). Skipping (dreaming?) widely ahead, if such a case could be constructed, then "it is [the people's] right, it is [the people's] duty, to throw off such Government ...". A free and fair election can do it, and is, realistically, perhaps the best hope. But so can a coup d'état, and could do so earlier, but does require reasonable cause (not to mention considerable practical difficulties).

Has anyone ever looked into whether or not a serious case for (justifying) a coup d'état could be constructed? Perhaps an assignment for some law class... (Where's Thomas Paine when you need him? (Ok, so he was more of a propagandist than a lawyer, but a quite important one at that.))

Cheney and Bush II in front of a firing squad. Or in the dock at the appropriate International Court in The Hague. Sweet dreams!

I saw a great .sig today:
"A society without religion is like a maniac without a chainsaw."
Too bad it's too wordy for a bumper sticker, but maybe that's good because these fine christian folk seem to like to lash out and hurt people and property a bit too much, ergo Iraq.

Science changes with each generation, but science always shows that the universe has to be fine-tuned by God to exist.

Actually, there's no reason to believe the universe wouldn't still exist if any of several empirically determined physical constants took a different value... It's only us that likely wouldn't be around in our current form to invent a God in our own image.

You voted for 'em. A SECOND time.

The second sentence is wrong, unless you only mean 5/9 of the Supreme Court by "you". The first sentence is entirely disputable.

Let me suggest a few other national oddities:

- Failure to vote in ink on paper.
- Failure to count ballots by hand -- exaggerated by the occasional absence of ballots due to the above point.
- People who are both leading managers of an election campaign and responsible for the proceeding of that very election.
- Party affiliation printed on the voter registration card and on the bureaucratic form needed to get that card. I mean, WTF!?!
- Low turnout due to electoral college. (What good is it to vote in Texas? Texas goes Reptilian anyway. What good is it to vote in New York? And so on.)
- Low turnout due to lack of voting booths. Which was the case, in 2004, in Democratic but not in Republican areas. What a coincidence.
- Low turnout due to everyone having the right to harrass everyone for proving identity. Exacerbated by the fact that proving one's identity isn't necessary in at least some counties.
- Confusion due to the presidential election not being a federal or even a state affair, but managed on the county level (if it isn't an even smaller one that I forgot). Thirteen thousand different regulations, many of them batshit insane.
- Confusion due to frequently repeated gerrymandering, leading to people not knowing where to vote.
- Confusion because all elections of an entire two-year period are held at once. Election for president, senator, representative, judge (!), dog catcher... all at once. Do people never get lost in the ballots and forget to vote for, say, president?
- I could go on for the rest of the night.

Granted, that doesn't explain why well over 45 % of the voters did in fact vote for Fearless Flightsuit, twice. For that, comment 33 sounds plausible to me.

@40; Thomas Jefferson said something to the effect "the freedom of this country will last only so long as the people overthrow the government at least once a century."

I believe he would have agreed with your conjecture.

When Maher asked Huckabee if he believed that man came from monkeys, he said: "I don't know, but they'd sure to a better job than me as President"

Well, Stuart, the assertion that people get the government they deserve sounds almost karmic in nature--rather like a belief in "heavenly justice." Surely not!

lol! Did Republicans get website tips from Dembski? Obviously, the best way to address an adversary is to make fun of them in Flash!

(from the Salon War Room page)

The damned shame about Huckabee is that if I didn't know that he is a former Baptist minister, and if I had never heard any of his ridiculous, ignorance-glorifying theistic braying about God and evilution, I would be impressed by his speaking ability, his rapport with voters, and even many of his specific positions on matters of public policy (for example, health care reform) that don't have anything to do with "social issues."

But he's dangerously in the thrall of the forces of "faith," i.e., the persistence and certainty of belief that is impervious to evidence and reason. No way would Huckabee get my vote, ever.

Basically any candidate who truthfully admits or falsely pretends to be a "person of faith" will fail to get my vote once he or she concedes that matters of religious faith or doctrine would play any role whatsoever in that candidate's official decision-making, if he or she were elected.

What did America do to deserve these idiots?
We let our guard down.

What's the point of all those guns then? The dungeons at Gitmo? The disproportionate, massive, and growing amounts of GHGs deliberately pumped in the atmosphere? The refusal to consider health care a human necessity? Yadda yadda yadda...

I wondered if that would start an argument.

We let are guard down against the virus of religion and lazy mindedness. We assumed that because we went to the moon and lead the world in scientific innovation for so long, that this country would continue to hold science in the highest esteem. It didn't. And it doesn't. Investigation and exploration are no longer prized the way they once were. Faith based endeavors, talk shows about feelings, award ceremonies, anticipating the rapture, partying, etc. all seem to be more important than the hard work of finding out how the world works.

And when laziness and complacency crept in, it was inevitable that religion did too.

I realize that I'm over simplifying things, but I'm feeling kind of cynical at the moment thinking about that idiot Ben Stein and that stupid movie "Expelled". I've seen too many people lobotomized by religion to doubt that many are going to see the movie and go, "Well, gosh, A hyuck! That makes a lot of sense!"

The intelligent, thinking people in this country underestimated the zealousness of the jesus zombies.

Zeuss, I'm in a bad mood.

See? I even forgot to paste the spelling corrected version into the box.

BTW, does anybody know what are the statistics of died-in-the-wool faithheads (not theists, but people who regularly practice their faith) that are republicans vs democrats.

Maybe I am wrong, but I'd say approx 150 mill people (half of all americans), 80% GOP / 20% dem.
Now, assuming such a proportion, is it fair to say that the DITW Faithheads are going to pray to god that their beloved party wins the elections this time.
So God is going to get these
- 150 million of prayers on election day,
- 120 for GOP
- 30 for Dem, a net prayer energy effect of some 90 million HPEDITW ( equivalent in Joules not exactly known) asking for a GOP win.
So, what is he going to do ?

Well, we don't really know, he hasn't exatly been that reliable lately, but who knows this time.
In any case, we'll know who will win the election.
So, if the Dems win the election, can we deduct that :

a) god doesn't bless america, even wants it to fail as a punishment for the stupidity of having elected twice such a nutcase
b) god doesn't exist or doesn't even listen to 10s of millions of prayers because he really doesn't give a dam about what's hapening on that pale blue dot lost somewhere in one of his miriads of galaxies
c) god didn't get a good "connection" with earth this time, 90 mill HPEDITW is not big enough as a prayer, or maybe there were some special magical words missing, or my calculation is wrong and it was only a net effect of 50 mill HPEDITW, who will know ?
d) god blesses america but thinks a Dem is best for president

What would you say is the right answer ?

Charley #33

"What did America do to deserve these idiots?"

I think it's our education. It's easy to graduate from high school or even college without knowing how science works, or how to think critically, and without any appreciation or knowledge of the Enlightenment values our government was built on. Politicians and religionists exploit this ignorance to advance their own agendas.

Yeah, that's where I was going. You said it better though.

While Huckabee's answer to this question is of course wrong, he is not inconsistent with conservative thinking. After all, conservatism prides itself on borrowing from the past to inform the future, not about changing the present as knowledge and understanding yields new insights. Aside from his view being consistent with adherence to religion, it is consistent with traditional conservatism. Not that I believe "conservatives" now are anything like their forebears, and indeed it's very telling how conservatism decided it had to change (or at the very least most of its followers did) and become more authoritarian and force-based in order to compete with the tempered liberalism we had achieved by the early 80s.

As for AlanWCan's point in #15, that is true, but Huckabee is consistent within his own specific religious sect. Religion itself is entirely inconsistent and subjective, even before one picks an example and starts rambling about its specific rightness and morality.

BlueIndependent (#53):
This version of conservatism is a brand, popularized on radio and on Fox. It isn't that they don't want change, it's that they don't want to think so they go crazy about what they are told to drool over, eg a particular immigration policy, gays being abomininations who shouldn't be allowed to marry, muslims being bigger abominations because they want to kill everyone in Podunk, and the worst abomination of all - liberals. What people who aren't Fox conservatives believe in really has no relation to what you hear when the whining about liberals starts, and if someone doesn't buy into that brand they aren't a conservative at all, they are called something like "Republican in name only". It's a lot like a religion, they have a dogma that they all need to follow or they are no longer considered part of the group and are shouted about like the other infidels.

Huckabee states:

science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict.

You know what else changes all the time -- the Constitution with all those annoying Amendments. Better to stick with the Bible, eh Huck? Progressivism is so damn messy.

Why hasn't there been a coup d'état to eliminate the current junta?

- Too few people are aware of the chronic electile dysfunction.
- Until recently, too many people believed in WMD and the rest of the bullshit.
- Why bother? Next year it will all be over; there is no third term, and Richard the Lying-Hearted isn't running.

Of course it won't be over. There are plenty of documents that the world should see. I want to know what the Busheviki knew and when they knew it.

Too bad it's too wordy for a bumper sticker

Make a T-shirt of it. (An XXL one.) And perhaps replace "society" by "government" for the US market...

Oh, BTW, when they aren't making a revolution, the French have so much respect for the state that they always capitalize État. Even in coup d'État. I kid you not.

- Too few people are aware of the chronic electile dysfunction.

...or think that there's already a pill to fix it.

...or think that there's already a pill to fix it.

There is - it tastes like Kool-Aid.

As much as I loathe the current Administration, America's political problems didn't begin there, they've just worsened.

Personally, I think things started to go wrong with Andrew Jackson. But maybe they started to go wrong before then, and Jackson was elected as a consequence. Hmmm.

#33, I think you are right, the American educational system is probably the key in differentiating the much more rapid move of secularism in Europe (led by France / Germany and the UK) compared with the US.

First, the pledge of allegiance is really typically American. It indoctrinates kids with the idea of American Exceptionalism, a nation blessed by God. None of that now in Old Europe. Mind you, we had our fair share of European Exceptionalism in the past, so now it's your turn to make the same mistakes as we did in the past, I guess...

Second, Maths. I had the chance to get schooled both in the US and in Europe when I was a kid (ages 12-14 in the US public school), gee the level was very different. I can say that the american system is much less rigourous and less focussed on maths than in Europe.
Now Maths being the language of science... American science and technolgy is still the best in the world today, but how many foreign-schooled people from all over the world does it import ? From India, China, Europe... And these people don't vote untless they become citizens.

Well, for what its worth, that's my personal experience.

Another thread that's become a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the loony-left wing of the Democratic party....

Of course negentropyeater, the fact that the American system is an egalitarian system that attempts to educate all students in a general academic college prep program doesn't have anything to do with that difference in level does it? ;o)

Fact is, if you want to compare US public schools with European public schools, you need to compare AP and honors students with European college prep/gymnasium students.

Personally I would favor a more European style system, especially the part that emphasizes quality technical training for students who are not college bound (in either aptitude or interest). Unfortunately we currently have a "YOU MUST GO TO COLLEGE" mindset, completely dismissing the valid societal contribution of the trades.

Another thread that's become a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the loony-left wing of the Democratic party....

something tells me that bit of bait is a tad too ripe, Jason.

#61 : It's got nothing to do with the loony- left wing of the Dems, it's got to do with reality for god sake, open your eyes listen to the world, don't you see that America is losing it, going nuts ?
I don't vote in the US, but I know that in the UK, France, or Germany, if ANY candidate to the highest post in the country were asked if he believed that Monkeys and Humans had a common ancestor and answered "I don't know", he would get immediately joked about by the vast majority of the electorate. He would never reply "I don't know", not a politician. If a politician answers that in the US means he believes he can attract a lot of voters by making these stupid comments about science.
I'm not saying that he should go against religion, but he is definitely going against science. And I guess that's how any scientifically minded person with a minimum amount of knowledge about the world outside the US would understand this Huckabee.
If what I am saying sounds left wing to you, then Huckabee is really far-far right. And that has not always been the case. The republican party used to be a decent right wing party, not anymore.
Don't you see what has happened in the US, the neocons took over 7 years ago, and tried to move the whole country much more to the far right than what this country can afford.

I really hope you Americans react this time.

The world cannot afford to get another lunatic duo at the head of it's largest power.

There is now a growing voice in Europe of intellectuals, politicians from all parties that are scared if America looses it one more time.

And seriously diluting the utility of a college degree. Everybody loses.

If what I am saying sounds left wing to you, then Huckabee is really far-far right. And that has not always been the case. The republican party used to be a decent right wing party, not anymore.

Not for a long time. Were the Democrats ever a decent left-wing party? Not that I can recall. What parts of the world are actually improving? None that I'm aware of.

What else do you expect from the avatars of the Sixth Extinction?

There is now a growing voice in Europe of intellectuals, politicians from all parties that are scared if America looses it one more time.

A lot of people are scared here too. While you watch, we are in the den of the beast.

One more looney leadership time, and it will be time to give up. Empires always fall from within. Rome fell, Great Britain fell, the USSR fell. No reason not to expect the American empire to fall. I was hoping that it would hang together for my lifetime.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. George Santayana

But if not, time to break out the violin (equivalent) and play a tune while everything fails around us.

It is apparent that Huckabee isn't any more knowledgeable about Christian history than he is about science. At least when Ron Paul talks about Christianity, he talks about things like the "Christian Doctrine of a Just War" which which at least attempts to develop rational justifications for, and responses to, aggression within a Christian framework. Unfortunately, American evangelicalism rejects those types of attempts to bridge faith with reason. It represents the total rejection of reason as a means to knowledge and truth. For the faith heads who preach and follow that belief system, knowledge of history and science serve no purpose and it is a badge of honor to take pride in their ignorance.

"A society without religion is like a maniac without a chainsaw."
Too bad it's too wordy for a bumper sticker

It's a tiny bit shorter in Klingon, if that helps:

lalDan Hutlhbogh nugh rur mIr pe'wI Hutlhbogh ghot maw'

Another thread that's become a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the loony-left wing of the Democratic party....

Which, of course, is why comments from confused people whose mental map of the American political landscape places "far left" slightly to the right of center are allowed to remain on the board.

When a situation arises where a person who has a chance of becoming the president of the USA actually thinks like that, it is very scary.

Of course, there is a chance that he doesn't really believe that himself, he's just saying it in order to get the votes of those who do think that way. However, if there are enough of those people that they make up a significant part of the voting population, that's pretty scary too.

Either way, it seems something has gone very wrong with America, and I hope it's not too late to fix it.

Azkyroth,

I do annoy you so, don't I? Good.

The idea that comments like "Cheney and Bush II in front of a firing squad. Or in the dock at the appropriate International Court in The Hague. Sweet dreams!" and "The world cannot afford to get another lunatic duo at the head of it's largest power" express a political view that is "slightly to the right of center" is priceless.

Jason, examine the platform of Richard Nixon. Now delete references to his name and the date. Now give copies of this platform, foreign and domestic, to your buddies.
You will be accused of possesing extreme left-wing propoganda. And then you will likely be sodomized.
America is broken.

Did Huckabee just say that he believes in a flat-earthed, geocentric static universe, covered by a firmament?

Or was he just talking out of his ass again?

(Talking asses do exist by the way, I read it in this book a snake told me about.)

autumn,

So you're another one. I don't know if you're just young and naive and ignorant, or whether you really are familiar with Nixon and his administration and sincerely believe that it could reasonably be described as "extreme left-wing" but either way, you're spouting nonsense.

Who's your candidate of choice for '08? Kucinich? I haven't heard him calling for the prosecution of Bush and Cheney on war crimes charges, so perhaps even he's too "right-wing" for you.

Time was that the Church of England, which appointed all the priests who mattered ensured their quality by insisting they attend either Oxford or Cambridge and be proficient in BOTH Latin and Ancient Greek. That proficiency was gained by getting them to read the ancients and since there were no xian ancient Greeks that meant the pagan philosophers. They were also steeped in Church history, an essential thing for a church that had to balance with one foot hovering over Rome (without ever actually touching down) and another one planted firmly next to the protestant flag and they pyres of burning catholics.

One consequence of the great freedom of religion over the pond there is that this practice of properly educating your clergy went by the bye. Since your constitution forbids the imposing of standards sufficient to correct the situation you are stuffed. Meanwhile over here in Established Religion land they are talking seriously about standards for Imams to prevent ignorant know nothings who can't speak English coming over and corrupting our muslim youth.

It's a funny old world where the country with an established church is one of the most secular and unbelieving while the country with complete freedom of relgion enshrined in its founding document is sliding towards theocracy and needs civil rights organisations for atheists (which despite what they say, is what us Brights are).

I suspect the only cure will be to actually have a theocracy for a few hundred years, like we did, then you will learn to despise it so much it turns in something like an embarrassing maiden aunt. Mind you, seeing what Might is Right British people did to the world this would not be good for the rest of us.

Meanwhile fight the good fight for proper educational standards, support the ACLU and hope.

Chuck Norris? (see comment #10)

That's nothin'. Duncan Hunter has been endorsed by Chuck Yeager. http://www.chuckyeager.com/ As much as I think Duncan Hunter is a clown, Chuck Yeager's endorsement convinced me to stop calling Hunter a clown. Someone who can earn the respect of, and friendship of, Chuck Yeager, is close enough to being a mensch that we can at least avoid laughter.

Voting for the guy would be another thing altogether.

Chuck Norris gets all the credit only because Chuck Yeager likes a good joke.

You (first few) guys need to learn the difference between Christianity and Judaism!

lalDan Hutlhbogh nugh rur mIr pe'wI Hutlhbogh ghot maw'

Okay, I screwed up the word order there. It should be:

mIr pe'wI Hutlhbogh ghot maw' rur lalDan Hutlhbogh nugh

Klingon grammar is tricky for us Terran types.

</Klingon grammar pedant mode>

Yes, God's love does not change, but you must realize that he will never give us more than we can take. That includes, the amount of knowledge or understanding that he allows us to have concerning some subjects. The knowledge could had been out there, in the universe, but no one understood exactly what that knowledge meant, so they (people who seen or heard of the knowledge before this time)interpreted it incorrectly. Marilynj

Wow.

Just wow.

What a deluded bizarre philosophy.

Jason:

autumn is correct, if perhaps a bit hyperbolic. Note that autumn's claim is not that the Nixon Administration was liberal (there was all that Imperial Presidency stuff, for one thing; the Southern Strategy for another), but that its platform was.

Imagine that any president or presidential candidate today, of either party, were to propose government control of wages and prices. Would this be seen as conservative? Or would it, as I suspect, call forth cries not just of socialism but of outright communism (i.e., "extreme left-wing")? Yet Nixon not only proposed this, he did it.

Consider, too, that Nixon created the EPA (on his own initiative), imposed an affirmative action plan on Philadelphia trade unions, and signed bills creating OSHA, increasing Social Security benefits and indexing them to inflation, and creating the SSI program.

Wikipedia summarizes Nixon's domestic policies this way:

Although often viewed as a conservative by his contemporaries, Nixon's domestic policies often appear centrist, or even liberal, to later observers.

As for foreign policy, his platform (if not his actual actions) included a quick end to the war in Vietnam. He pursued a policy of détente (relaxation of tensions) with the Soviet Union and made the U.S.'s first overtures to the PRC, both of which were liberal (even, in the case of the PRC, shockingly so) positions at the time. I was around during the Nixon Administration and remember all the talk about how Nixon was really the only president who could have "opened the door to Red China", because it would have been seen as next to treasonous if a Democrat had done it.

God is real, and It rules completely.
But if we are to rule ourselves, we must not delude ourselves into thinking God has any hand in it. Mike Huckabee injects God into politics only so far as his constituents demand it. Politicians are no less corrupt than America's wildest and most widespread delusions.
Love God. Don't elect It.

Okay, I screwed up the word order there.

Haaah! I knew it! I knew it! I knew it! :-) :-) :-)

So there is a Klingon word for chainsaw?

BTW, it all becomes much shorter when written in pIqaD, because it lacks such nonsense as gh with two letters or tlh with three.

Klingon grammar is tricky for us Terran types.

Most of us anyway.

The idea that comments like "Cheney and Bush II in front of a firing squad. Or in the dock at the appropriate International Court in The Hague. Sweet dreams!" and "The world cannot afford to get another lunatic duo at the head of it's largest power" express a political view that is "slightly to the right of center" is priceless.

Take out the stupid firing squad, and you will find this slightly to the right of the generic European center. Not in explicit words (most of the time), oh no, but you will find it.

David M,

Take out the stupid firing squad, and you will find this slightly to the right of the generic European center.

Do please show me your evidence that the "slightly right of center" political view in Europe seeks the prosecution of Bush and Cheney by the ICC, and that they consider B&C to be "lunatics." Not just wrong, mind you, or even seriously wrong, but "lunatics."

You're projecting your own demented political extremism on to others.

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

I don't suppose Jason would want to join the discussion in thie thread about the breakdown in our education system or economy? Nah, I suppose he'd rather cherry-pick a couple hyperbolic statements and make some federal case out of those.

As if we would be somehow ashamed of being called the "loony left" for pointing out the outright stupidity of a presidential candidate.

noncarb,

As your own link says, Nixon sought wage and price controls as a temporary measure to curb runaway inflation (and they failed miserably), not as part of some "extreme left-wing" economic strategy.

Yes, Nixon created the EPA and did some other things in domestic policy that, as Wikipedia says may appear to be centrist or even liberal. Nixon also pursued a policy of heavy bombing in Vietnam and Cambodia before the end of the Vietnam War, supported Pinochet's military overthrow of the democratic government in Chile, supported the military rulers in Pakistan in an attempt to limit the power of the Soviet Union in the subcontinent, created the now-famous "southern strategy" that is often credited for the Republican Party's later electoral success, and most importantly of all, engaged in gross abuses of power, which led to his conviction in the Watergate scandal. How you can seriously claim that this record qualifies as "extreme left-wing" I have no idea. It's ludicrous.

What thread, Rey Fox?

Jason, I believe I agreed there were elements of the record that contradict the "left-wing" characterization. But you're missing the point. Autumn said "platform", not "record". I don't remember Nixon running for office on bombing Cambodia or perpetrating gross abuses of power (unlike people like Romney and Giuliani, who are running on such a platform).

I don't claim (and I don't think autumn meant to claim) that Nixon was liberal (from today's perspective) on every single item of policy. But there are certainly many elements, particularly in economic policy, that would be rejected as way too liberal by today's Republican party. Try to imagine President Bush establishing the EPA, or expanding Social Security, or supporting government-mandated affirmative action--much less imposing wage and price controls, even temporarily. Or try to imagine the reaction among Republicans and the right-wing commentariat if one of the current crop of candidates proposed doing any or all of these things. I imagine "extreme left-wing" is probably one of the milder things you'd hear.

Autumn's basic claim, that much that looked conservative in Nixon's day looks liberal today, is certainly true. The center of gravity has shifted. It is, to put it in terms you'll understand, ludicrous to claim otherwise.

So there is a Klingon word for chainsaw?

No, so I had to improvise. mIr pe'wI' (my original spelling, without the final apostrophe of pe'wI', was in error) means, literally, "chain cutter" (mIr chain, pe' cut, -wI' thing-which-does). There are two ambiguities here: first, -wI' can refer either to an agent ("person who does X") or an instrument ("thing which does X"); second, assuming it's an instrument, does it cut chains, or is it made with a chain? Any of these interpretations is possible in Klingon, and (I believe) could be defended with citations from the canon.

I considered disambiguating a bit by replacing this with something like mIr lo'bogh pe'wI' ("cutter that uses a chain"), but I was going for short.

Now, though, having given this some more thought, I wonder if the best solution isn't pe'meH mIr ("chain for cutting"), which avoids all of the problems with -wI' and the noun-noun construction. Thus, the revised standard version:

pe'meH mIr Hutlhbogh ghot maw' rur lalDan Hutlhbogh nugh

And that's my final answer.

This is, by the way, one of those Klingon sentences that can be translated word-for-word into English as long as you start from the right. Literally, it's "society that-lack religion resemble crazy person that-lack chain for-cutting".

Your point about pIqaD is a good one, and I considered making it in my original post, but I decided it was too esoteric (!!!!).

carbon,

Autumn said "platform", not "record".

What "platform?" No one has presented Nixon's "platform." Nixon's record as president cannot by any reasonable definition be characterized as "extreme left-wing." That's not just a misleading characterization, it's preposterous.

But there are certainly many elements, particularly in economic policy, that would be rejected as way too liberal by today's Republican party. Try to imagine President Bush establishing the EPA, or expanding Social Security, or supporting government-mandated affirmative action--much less imposing wage and price controls, even temporarily.

It is highly unlikely that any president, Democrat or Republican, would today impose wage and price controls under the conditions Nixon used them, because they were such a spectacular failure at lowering inflation. Economic theory and practical experience now favor other kinds of macroeconomic intervention to manage inflation, specifically the manipulation of interest rates by the central bank. That's how it's been done under both the Clinton and Bush Administrations.

So what are these "liberal" economic policies of Nixon's that you keep alluding to? List them.

As for social welfare policy, Bush signed into law Medicare Part D, which is one of the largest expansions of social welfare in decades. I'm not suggesting this means Bush is a "liberal," but neither does Nixon's expansion of social security make him a liberal.

It's funny to see people debating so passionately about terms like liberal and conservative. The divisiveness that "labels" and "groups" impose on one's mindset is so interesting, and I've been in the same place (in other subject matters) as both sides of this debate, so I know this failure by personal experience, I'm not calling out others on something I don't feel I share.

When the voluntary divisiveness of "grouping" occurs at such a level that people take time and care to hyper-define the properties needed in a person to fall into such a group, it just shows how strongly our brains are wired for that great ole' "Us vs. Them" mindset, with its well-phrased example of the desire for simplistic black/white duality.

Some people see a "good vs evil" duality in the world, but that's an attempt to de-personify the mindset and turn it into something objective, which is laughable in almost every circumstance. There is no true good vs. evil, it's just that the person speaking the phrase is swapping out "Us" for "Good" and "Them" for "Evil."

What's really funny, of course, is that the terms liberal, conservative, democract, and republican have all changed over time, demonstrating clearly that they are not strong terms with inherent policy-related meanings, they are simply the two current label factions, and they are only labels.

Ah, but it's necessary for them to hold to the Us vs. Them, Good vs. Evil dichotomy to sustain their hatred of Bush. If they were to admit that the two major parties are not really all that different, that elections are won and lost in the center, that the things we have in common are much more important than the things that divide us, then it would drain all the energy from their sense of self-righteousness.

Ah, but it's necessary for them to hold to the Us vs. Them, Good vs. Evil dichotomy to sustain their hatred of Bush.

I suspect it has more to do with their need to sustain their love of the Democrats.

The real problem is of course trying to squeeze political discourse into a single continuum. Why would all of politics reduce to variation of a single factor? Clearly, it doesn't - but modeling things that way produces the us vs. them scenario quite neatly.

Caledonian, OT: I answered your question on that other thread. (FYI/FWIW)

that elections are won and lost in the center,

oh?

do explain why ALL of the republican candidates are furiously trying to court the religious right at the moment then.

In fact, go explain it to them, would ya?

If they were to admit that the two major parties are not really all that different

complete BS.

anyone can look at introduced legislation over the last 30 years and see vast differences.

seriously, stop with the ridiculous egalitarian postulation.

Ichthy,

do explain why ALL of the republican candidates are furiously trying to court the religious right at the moment then.

Because it's the primaries. In the primaries, you court your base. In the general election, you court the nation. Haven't you ever watched an election cycle before?

anyone can look at introduced legislation over the last 30 years and see vast differences.

What "vast differences" would those be?

What "vast differences" would those be?

oh, gimme a break.

do you ever actually GO out of your house?

anyone who has a career in biology has been directly affected by them, just as one very tiny example.

you really are dense, you know that?

how's that workin' for ya?

here, why don't you try reviewing the voting records and debate points of the two parties for the last 20 years or so in the Congressional Record:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html

teach yourself something.

You voted for 'em. A SECOND time.

The second sentence is wrong, unless you only mean 5/9 of the Supreme Court by "you". The first sentence is entirely disputable.

Let me suggest a few other national oddities:

- Failure to vote in ink on paper.
- Failure to count ballots by hand -- exaggerated by the occasional absence of ballots due to the above point.
- People who are both leading managers of an election campaign and responsible for the proceeding of that very election.
- Party affiliation printed on the voter registration card and on the bureaucratic form needed to get that card. I mean, WTF!?!
- Low turnout due to electoral college. (What good is it to vote in Texas? Texas goes Reptilian anyway. What good is it to vote in New York? And so on.)
- Low turnout due to lack of voting booths. Which was the case, in 2004, in Democratic but not in Republican areas. What a coincidence.
- Low turnout due to everyone having the right to harrass everyone for proving identity. Exacerbated by the fact that proving one's identity isn't necessary in at least some counties.
- Confusion due to the presidential election not being a federal or even a state affair, but managed on the county level (if it isn't an even smaller one that I forgot). Thirteen thousand different regulations, many of them batshit insane.
- Confusion due to frequently repeated gerrymandering, leading to people not knowing where to vote.
- Confusion because all elections of an entire two-year period are held at once. Election for president, senator, representative, judge (!), dog catcher... all at once. Do people never get lost in the ballots and forget to vote for, say, president?
- I could go on for the rest of the night.

Granted, that doesn't explain why well over 45 % of the voters did in fact vote for Fearless Flightsuit, twice. For that, comment 33 sounds plausible to me.

Why hasn't there been a coup d'état to eliminate the current junta?

- Too few people are aware of the chronic electile dysfunction.
- Until recently, too many people believed in WMD and the rest of the bullshit.
- Why bother? Next year it will all be over; there is no third term, and Richard the Lying-Hearted isn't running.

Of course it won't be over. There are plenty of documents that the world should see. I want to know what the Busheviki knew and when they knew it.

Too bad it's too wordy for a bumper sticker

Make a T-shirt of it. (An XXL one.) And perhaps replace "society" by "government" for the US market...

Oh, BTW, when they aren't making a revolution, the French have so much respect for the state that they always capitalize État. Even in coup d'État. I kid you not.

Okay, I screwed up the word order there.

Haaah! I knew it! I knew it! I knew it! :-) :-) :-)

So there is a Klingon word for chainsaw?

BTW, it all becomes much shorter when written in pIqaD, because it lacks such nonsense as gh with two letters or tlh with three.

Klingon grammar is tricky for us Terran types.

Most of us anyway.

The idea that comments like "Cheney and Bush II in front of a firing squad. Or in the dock at the appropriate International Court in The Hague. Sweet dreams!" and "The world cannot afford to get another lunatic duo at the head of it's largest power" express a political view that is "slightly to the right of center" is priceless.

Take out the stupid firing squad, and you will find this slightly to the right of the generic European center. Not in explicit words (most of the time), oh no, but you will find it.