McCain is doubling down in Pennsylvania 
in hopes of edging out Obama in the electoral college (here's a possible McCain victory map 
). Unfortunately for McCain, polls still show Obama ahead by about 10 points in PA.
The RNC has spent over $150,000 
on clothing and hair styling for Sarah Palin since she was nominated as VP. This amount is nearly equal to the Palin family's income in 2007. It would seem Palin's previously owned clothes were not up to snuff for a national campaign.
Comments :
For liberals only
Extra Extra Read All About It Make sure you vote counts
This months Rolling Stone covers the story, written by Greg Palast and Robert F Kennedy Jr.
Turns out that Help America Vote Act, passed by Republicans in a Republican domoniated Congress in 2,002 is purging thousands of voters off the rolls. They check your voter registration against your social security number (possibly illegal) or your driver's liscense. The problem is if there is a typo, OR if don't use your middle initial on the registration, and do on your social security number, when you go to the polls, your name will be off the registered voters list. This has the potential to create long lines and havoc in certain key states. Under this scenario Joe the Plumber gets knocked off the list. There is a difference between voter registration fraud, and election fraud. All this wanking about ACORN is pretty much a sideshow to the Surpress the Vote Effort that was legalized by the GOP.
I'm only half stupid
India launches missiles at Earth's largest satellite
India Launches First Unmanned Mission to Moon
Trade resumes between India, Pakistan
It's nice to see that Pakistan isn't as paranoid as others about it's nemesis having ICBMs, not that it matters since they are so close.
Let's just hope the relgious fundamentalist fringe
in India, stays in the fringe. Imaging the fear in the US of an anti-Christian nation with nukes and a single ICBM.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
"Stem Cells From Fat Create Beating Heart Cells"
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
al Qaida endorses McCain
LOL.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/21/AR2008102102477_pf.html
I survived the Bush Administration
McCain should've made Jeb the VP
The GOP has not won a presidential election in 80 years in which a Nixon or a Bush wasn't on the ticket.
'52 - Eisenhower/Nixon
'56 - Eisenhower/Nixon
'68 - Nixon/Agnew
'72 - Nixon/Agnew
'80 - Reagan/Bush
'84 - Reagan/Bush
'88 - Bush/Quayle
'00 - Bush/Cheney
'04 - Bush/Cheney
the last time they won an election without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket, it was this guy in 1928:
Not a good omen for John McCain
I survived the Bush Administration
Does McCain know what socialism is?
When McCain calls Obama's plan "socialism" is he not aware of how much the government already intervenes in the markets
(thereby creating the current "winners " and "losers"? Does he not remember that he recently said that spreading the wealth around was a good idea?
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
economic development and redistribution
Once you accept that the government has a role in encouraging economic development (protective tarrifs, roads, incorporation, the banking system, intellectual property, etc.), there really isn't any ground on which to object to government intervention to see that the benefits of this development are distributed equally--especially when government intervention may have contributed to the existing inequality.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Race is tighter than you think....
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Individual poll results
are of pretty limited use. Better is to track changes in a poll, and better still is to aggregate a bunch of scientific polls to help average out house effects.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Apparently Fox didn't get the memo
Obama by 9.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,443343,00.html
qui tacet consentire
If you're a wishful thinker maybe...There guys nailed it in '04
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
The AP poll is an outlier
Show me a couple more polls that say the same thing and you might have some credibility.
qui tacet consentire
The Investors Business Daily /TIPP poll...
...was the most accurate in the last election.
But here you go, you want AP, AP
it is then.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
And 4 years ago, Hawaii had a decent football team.
My brother brought up the exact same poll as the best poll in the history of world....You two must be on the same mailing list.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Results
Somebody had to be the closest last time -- it doesn't mean that he's any better that hte others, or that he can repeat. The book The Black Swan
has a good discussion of how this type of thinking distorts our perception of reality.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
You are too funny...
I posted both an AP poll and IBD poll, just to balance what was posted before, why don't you get on them for the same thing, cause you are as bias as everyone else...
Totally hypocritical!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
IBD
There's a post about today's version of this poll over at 538
. Today they've got McCain ahead 74% to 22% among 18-24 year olds! And if you believe that is an accurate measure...
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I was criticizing your argument...
I couldn't care less about the polls...trying to predict the outcome of the election is pointless (because there is no use in knowing the outcome beforehand) and foolish (because none of our predictors are very good). I got sucked into them a bit back during the primaries, but eventually reasserted some self control.
Anyway, I DO care about people treating fallacious reasoning as though it were legit.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Today's "fallacious reasoning"... LOL!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
That's the one!
Check out that age 18-24 stat. Bwah haha!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Well it does explain that at the bottom
Of the margin of error for this subsample must be 25-50 point margin of error, makes you wonder how big the other subsamples are, and whether they are reliable - of course you would expect a the sample of young people to be a smaller subsample.
Liberals... Yikes?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
He'll be fine
...as long as he doesn't leave the country!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
from the MSNBC's description of the tied AP poll
MSNBC article
:
See if you can spot the idiocy.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Where have all the "real" journalists gone?
Read more here
...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
This is a complete crock
(!)
I'm only half stupid
Um why? Is this a crock too?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Say it ain't so!
Promoting a hotline to help people who feel like they might be disenfranchised! Godless Communists!!!
You know, if there were any conservative organizations that gave a rat's arse about individuals being disenfranchised, they could probably be partners too. But the very fact that an organization cares about such a thing probably makes them "liberal" in your view, so your complaint here is pretty meaningless.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Leave that up to ACORN.... LOL!
N/T
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Change the subject much?
How did you get from Fannie and Freddie to Acorn in such a hurry......? Let me guess.
There is a huge difference between Voter Registration's Filled Out With Fictious Names and who actually votes.
Take the next step. Do you seriously think Mickey Mouse is going to show up at the polls with a drivers liscense. The lunatic attack on acorn is so ridiculously overblown and wildly exaggerated.
Voter (Election) Fraud and Registration Fraud and two different animals.
I'm only half stupid
Well there's no ID laws...
...SO if you fly up to Ohio and claim to be Mickey, and its on the roll....
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Absurd
Acorn by law is required to turn in ALL registrations. They are then examined and Mickey Mouse is tossed in the garbage. The only reason you are aware of this is because ACORN is following the law.
The purpose of ACORN is to register voters, and some of the workers wrote in fake names to get paid. Because someone that works at Macy's shoplifted doesn't mean that Macy's as a whole is an invalid company. That is the fake equivocation you are making.
As the Wall Street Journal reported, “New Mexico law requires Acorn to turn in all applications, no matter how suspicious-looking
, within 48 hours. Elections officials do their own quality control on registrations.” In fact, “under most state laws 
, voter registration organizations are required to turn in all the forms they receive.” Furthermore, ACORN explained in a statement that “for the past 10 months, any time ACORN has identified a potentially fraudulent application, we turn that application into election officials separately 
and offer to provide election officials with the information they would need to pursue an investigation or prosecution of the individual.”
I'm only half stupid
ack
source
for above. ( I still haven't figure out this new editor yet.)
I'm only half stupid
yes, there are ID laws...
HAVA mandates
that first-time voters show proof of residence.
Anyway, if someone wanted to committ voter fraud, would they be so open about it? Why would they turn in their false registration along with ACORN's, where they are likely to get additional scrutiny.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Ever watch an infomercial and
Ever watch an infomercial and think: "That might actually be a good product, but I'm reluctant to buy it because they keep talking to me like I'm a complete idiot who is totally naive" (e.g., the fake testimonials) ?
During the Democratic primaries, as Obama kept mesmerizing crowds with empty blather about "hope" and "change", I got that feeling.
During the general election, just about everything McCain and Palin have been saying gives me that feeling.
Not that I make decisions solely or even mainly on the basis of such a feeling, but I do take into account what lessons politicians will learn for future campaigns based on what turns out to (appear to) have worked in this one*. That's why the McCain campaign's constant apparent presumption (perhaps correct) that a lot of voters are idiots is one of the reasons (among other, larger factors) I decided not to for McCain (I don't plan to vote for either of them).
* A smaller consideration, I must admit, is personal. Since I know I'll tell some people for whom I voted, I also consider with which candidate and with which campaign I want to be associated, and I wouldn't want to even take a chance that anyone would think any of the McCain campaigns silliness was effective with me at all.
 "A smaller consideration,
"A smaller consideration, I must admit, is personal. Since I know I'll tell some people for whom I voted, I also consider with which candidate and with which campaign I want to be associated, and I wouldn't want to even take a chance that anyone would think any of the McCain campaigns silliness was effective with me at all"
Ah, but we have a private ballot. You can vote for McCain and it can be totally confidential. Just sneak in there and you do your duty for the country and sneak out. :-)
You mean do that and then lie
You mean do that and then lie to people about what I did? ok, I'll do that. I promise ;-)
To be clear, even absent that factor, McCain lost my vote. His total reversal on fiscal responsibility (tax cuts), the sucking up to the Christian right (those apparently suddenly reformed "agents of intolerance"), the impact that a McCain victory via all this cheap, pandering, idiocy/ignorance-exploiting rhetoric would have on future campaigns, and the last straw (and a big one, so maybe the last "log" is a more appropriate metaphor), Sarah Palin, is more than enough to keep me from pulling that lever.
Also, although I've said from the start, and I still contend, that Obama is not sufficiently qualified to be POTUS, he's impressed me in terms of understanding of the issues to an extent that, combined with positions as a whole*, his choice of VP vs. McCain's choice, and how well his campaigns have run (vs. McCain being all over the road, indicating very poor management), I don’t see the prospect of an Obama victory and presidency as greatly worse than that of a McCain victory and presidency. If I did, I would probably vote for McCain despite all I’ve mentioned.
* I don't think Obama will really stick to a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq regardless of conditions and security outlook, despite what he says -- and yes, I think Obama knows that, and yes, he loses points for probable dishonesty and irresponsibility in his campaign rhetoric.
As to fiscal I might actually perfer Obama
Though, I think both canidates have irresponsible goals. I haven't really had a chance to look in depth on the issues, but from the rough analysis I saw from the the "tax policy center" I liked Obama tax plan better, those who have a tight budget get a break and the wealthy help to bring us back to fiscal sanity. However, I'm afraid Obama's spending plan on health care... may outweigh the benefit of his tax plan. Anyway I'm not a fan of either one when it comes to fiscal issues.
As to McCain pandering the christian right I'm not really sure what you're talking about, though I'll tell you social reasons is the one big reason I'm voting for the court - actually the one thing that really has my vote in the McCain camp is the Supreme Court. I more or less ( okay probably a little less) share your disdain for the Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson wing of the party. However, it's not exactly like McCain been bowing down to them, he's acknowledge them, but that's just the political reality of the Republican party.
"I don't think Obama will really stick to a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq regardless of conditions and security outlook, despite what he says -- and yes, I think Obama knows that, and yes, he loses points for probable dishonesty and irresponsibility in his campaign rhetoric."
Using a war as a political football, is worse than your ordinary run of the mill pandering. I have to say you're putting a lot of stock into a man being dishonest, of course it's not like he hasn't proven his ability to outright lie. While McCain certainly has a far from perfect campaign, and has disappointed me a time or two, I remain convinced that he is a responsible person when it comes to foreign policy. If you're are correct about Obama using Iraq as a political football then it's clear he's not commited in the same way.
On fiscal plans, you're
On fiscal plans, you're right. The plans of either one, if implemented, would put us even deeper in a fiscal hole (i.e., even higher projected debt-to-GDP). One thing to consider though, in McCain's favor, is that McCain would not be able to get much of what (he says) he wants, because the Democrats will have strong control of Congress, whereas Obama may end up with a very cooperative Congress (and vice versa, meaning both branches may team up to spend like drunken sailors).
On the pandering to the Christian right, I don't recall all of it, but an example that made me want to puke was when he said he supported the teaching of "intelligent design" in addtion to evolution in public school science classes. I don't know if the POTUS has any input into that decision, but it's pandering nonetheless. I'm guessing that McCain was being disingenuous. No offense (I don't know what your views are on that issue and obviously you and I see things very differently on religious faith / theology) but I have to think that McCain probably thinks that such a policy is idiotic. "Intelligent design" has no place in a science class, let alone a public school science class.
Agree and agree.
That can no longer be said after his selection of Sarah Palin. And in addition to that choice being outrageously irresponsible, it was very disappointing to me. Even after he abandoned fiscal responsibility, I still thought he wasn't likely to significantly risk national security as a means to getting elected. His selection of Palin proved othewise.
"On the pandering to the
Why do you assume he's pandering and doesn't just have a different view than you do?
Well, I don't really know how much experience is necessary. If I remember my history people were pretty worried about Truman in that regard, and he turned out to be pretty capable. Also McCain may think the advantages of Palin overweighs the small chance that she will take over before at least having gained some FP experience as VP. And the chance of Palin taking over on day one are pretty negligable, and I think even her taking over within a year is less than a five percent chance. So while I'm not a big fan of the Palin pick I don't think it proves he takes FP unseriously.
Apparently I messed up on the block quote
My response to you first is in there.
Fixed
What I like to do is copy and paste the quoted portion, then highlight it and click on the blockquote button. After that, hit enter/return and then click on the blockquote button again to go back to "normal".
You should notice in the editor that everything blockquoted is indented. Also, don't forget to use the preview button to see what your post will look like before you save it!
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Why do you assume he's
I'm basing it on statements he made during his 1999/2000 campaign as well as my general read of the guy as someone with more sense than to think that teaching "intelligent design" in a public school science class is sensible.
As for Palin being alarmingly unqualified and the argument you made, (1) even if there has been an example or two (just arguendo) of similarly inexperienced people assuming the presidency and doing ok, that does not mean that the chances of major mistakes and an overall incompetent and harmful presidency are not alarmingly high in such a case, (2) qualifications, while largely based on experience (responsibilities and performance), also involve relevant knowledge/insights/acumen, intellect, judgment, general manner of thinking and approach to problem-solving, etc., and I see Palin as weak pretty much across the board by the standards I consider adequate for the presidency, (3) I don't agree with the premise you may be suggesting that Truman or anyone else in modern times has been as unqualified upon assuming the presidency as Palin is today -- Truman had been a U.S. Senator for 10 years (half of it amid global war and three of U.S. involvement, including gaining national recognition by leading the Truman Committee, and then VP briefly, although I realize FDR kept him in the dark on quite a lot (and in any case, remember my point #1 above), (4) we are at war and face enormously complex national security, foreign policy and threats (and opportunities) as well as very serious domestic problems (current economic/financial crisis plus the growing "fiscal cancer" (to quote David Walker) of our long-term fiscal imbalance, and (5) I am not at all comfortable rolling the dice on the chance that she'd have at least a year or two to learn about all these very important matters before having to assume the presidency (even if she has the intellect to learn quickly and develop some degree of substantive insight). Other than all of the above, sure, Palin is acceptable :p
"I'm basing it on statements
Well, first of all I don't think he's really made any of issue of this. Also I think this is an issue where reasonable people can disagree. As to what I think I haven't given it much thought- I actually don't think socialized education is a good idea, but that train's allready left the station. I think knowing ID or evolution is pretty irrelevant to the vast majority of people's lives except in a spiritual sense. Since the government doesn't have an interest in spiritual matters, I don't really see where they have an interest in the origins debate - so I guess I'd be for schools dropping both.
As to Palin. You may be right. I just don't really have any idea what kind of experience is needed to be President, and I haven't really paid much attention to her. The top of the ticket outweighs whatever problems there on the bottom of the ticket, IMO, but then I'm voting on different issues than you are - or rather aren't.
Well, first of all IÂ don't
As I mentioned, I don't know if a president's position on the issue of teaching "intelligent design" in public school science classes has much, if any, practical significance, but I offer it as just an example because I can't remember the other examples that made me say repeatedly that the guy is pandering, and because I consider it such an absurd position to take -- and I'm afraid I don't view it as "an issue where reasonable people can disagree". Intelligent design has nothing to do with science and has no place in a public school science class (and the objective of the people who want it there is to promote/defend theological beliefs in such classes).
The ability to distinguish science from pseudo-science is important and should be taught, rather than teaching junk science that discourages the ability and practice of making such distinctions.
First, let's not confuse evolution with "the origins debate", if by the latter you mean how the universe began (as opposed to how humans originated). Second, insofar as science has theories as to the beginning of the universe, a science class is a fitting place for the teaching of such theories, but is not an appropriate place for the teaching of theology masquerading as science (the veiled creationism that "intelligent design" is) or for the teaching of overt theology (overt, explicit creationism) either. Third, I hope you're not suggesting that evolution not be taught in public school science classes. Obviously it should. And obviously "intelligent design" should not. If a parent wants to tell his/her kid after school that evolution or "the big bang" or some other scientific theory -- or for that matter a teacher or textbook's statement that the earth is not flat -- can't possibly be valid because his/her religious doctrine conflicts with it, that's the parent's prerogative (however sad that prospect).
Well, that seems like an overstatement of what I think you really mean to say. I assume that there could be some hypothetical VP candidate choice who was so objectionable to you that, perhaps combined with only a small preference of the presidential candidate on that ticket over the other, you would switch. Perhaps you are just referring to scenarios (degrees of "problems") that you consider likely, or perhaps you're referring to McCain-Palin vs. Obama-Biden in particular.
because IÂ can't remember the
I think there is evidence of design, whether or not it fits into the narrow definition of science I don't know, but then maybe the definition of science is too narrow. Anyhow I am really not well versed in this topic so I won't debate it further, except to point out that other reasonable people are also probably not well versed in the subject, so even if ID is as clearly and reasonably not science as you claim ( which wouldn't change whether or not I believe it) , reasonable people can be unversed in the issue and therefore have different oppinions.
Why? What does it teach kids that has anything to do with them leading a productive life, and being a benefit to society - for the vast majority of jobs the issue is irrelevant. The issue is important, but I don't see how it is as far as the government is concerned.
I was talking about this election in particular. If two canidates seem roughly equal, then the VP would certainly be a factor. However, the difference between McCain and Obama are enough, that I'm satisfied with Palin - actually I'm happy he picked a SoCon, though I would have thought one with more experience would have been better.
What does [teaching
That is a rather odd view of what should or should not be taught in schools. Schools are for learning, and for learning how to learn, and for both purposes students are taught all sorts of things that would not meet the criteria you seem to have set.
Schools are not just for learning in and of itself
If they were schools could have kids learning baseball stats instead of math and science, and if the usefullness of the knowledge isn't what's being considered why not teach the kids to write ancient greek instead of English, afterall it's all learning. But all of this aside, so what, about what schools do and what they're for, the question is what they should be doing and what they should be for. And in the case of Government run schools the question is what interest does the government have in education?
Of course I wasn't suggesting
Of course I wasn't suggesting that schools shouldn't prioritize. My point was that your criteria seemed excessively narrow. Evolution is a big part of science, about why organisms are the way they are and how that happened, as well as a means of teaching scientific methods, scientific history, and other related information in biology, other aspects of hard sciences and even social sciences. I cannot see how you would regard that as something that should be left out of science education in public (or even private) schools on the basis that it supposedly doesn't have much or "anything to do with them leading a productive life, and being a benefit to society [because] for the vast majority of jobs the issue is irrelevant." Leaving aside the objection you seem to have to public schools themselves, I assume you would agree that if we are to have public schools, they should not merely be narrowly-focused vocational schools, somehow determining at some very young age what type of profession/vocation a kid was going to have and limiting him/her to a narrow, "practical" curriculum, excluding the "impractical" (e.g., literature, history, any sciences irrelevant to that kid's assigned/chosen track, etc.), right? And even the schools were such, for at least a significant number of kids the curriculum would include subjects that are enhanced by the teaching of evolution, for reasons I've provided above. But moreover, our schools are not just such vocational schools, but rather the means to the end of a population that is somewhat knowledgable and enlightened about the world rather than ignorant, capable of some degree of critical thinking and having generalized ability to learn, possessing some general skills (and perhaps also some specific skills) needed for a "productive" life, etc., as well as providing broad opportunity for all sorts of career paths.
I'm afraid I really don't see where you're coming from on this matter, unless your point is just that you object to public education (which would still leave the question of whether or not it is good or responsible or right to leave evolution out of private education), or you just don't appreciate the educational value of teaching evolution in its own right (so people know more about their world rather than being ignorant) and to enhance science (and other) education more broadly.
Am I missing something in your perspective that you haven't stated? Do you consider the theory of evolution to be of dubious validity or do you fully accept its validity (or at least consider its validity extremely likely)?
"Of course I wasn't
I don't think education should just have a narrow focus. It should prepare students to be able to take a job in whatever field they desire. However, while it might be necessary to know something about evolution in order to prepare the kids to go into a science field ( allthough, I think evolution is pretty irrelevant in most sciences) it doesn't seem to me that it needs to be very extensive. As to using evoluion to teach kids about critical thinking... why not use something that's relevant and kill two birds with one stone.
Well, since I don't think it's the role of the government to educate - I think their ought to be a safety net to provide funds for education just like for health-care and food and shelter. I am in favor of having public education as narrow as possible without significantly hurting the kids by taking eight hours out of their day and not teaching them what they need to know to do well in life.
As to private school, I think they ought to teach evolution, but if it was a Christian school I think they ought to teach kids the truth of the Bible and that the natural explanation isn't necessarilly the truthful one.
It depends upon what you mean by valid. I don't think it's true. However, it may be scientifically valid, and I think it probably is scientifically valid in some sense. However, I suspect that validity is based upon the fact that science by definition only looks at natural explanations and therefore, the scientific answer will be a natual answer.
I don't think education
Well, not only do we disagree to a great degree on the relevance and importance of teaching evolution to teaching particular science subjects (e.g., biology) and science generally (in terms of knowledge imparted and in terms of teaching scientific concepts and thinking (as opposed to say, superstition/theology as a basis for explaining the physical world and occurrences), but we also disagree on whether the role of schools is solely to prepare people for work and perhaps also teach critical thinking skills (as opposed to also imparting knowledge and legitimate theories about our world, past and present, partly for the purpose of reducing ignorance). Should we not teach kids about the solar system and not tell them that the earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa (assuming there is to be public education at all, noting your objection to it)? Should we not teach world history? Literature? If we should teach some things that arguably aren't necessary knowledge for the vast majority of jobs, why single out the core theory of how species came to be the way they are (not to mention one of science's great advances and a major triumph of science over superstition and hostility to science) as something to discard? Or would you prefer to discard all those other subjects, too, because they don't meet your criteria of "what they need to know to do well in life" ?
As a note, I also don't think that imparting knowledge, theories and critical thinking in all sorts of areas is as distinct from knowledge that results in "productivity" and "doing well in life" as you may be suggesting. Who knows, for example, whether or not teaching literature is the best/unique way to cultivate a type of creativity that results in better product innovations.
Needless to say (to you, since you know I'm an agnostic), I consider that phrase to be quite oxymoronic.
So you think evolution did not take place? Do you think humans arrived on earth out of the blue, as opposed to the first "humans" being the product of a long evolutionary process ("evolving from apes" so to speak)?
And if I may ask, do you think the universe is at most about 10,000 years old?
Do you mean something along the lines that god could have planted dinosaur fossils, giving the false impression via scientific methods that the earth is very old, that evolution took place, etc.?
Well, you do make some good
Well, you do make some good points. Ultimately I think evolution should be taught and kids should be taught the evidence to it, to an extent, but I think this should be done in the context of a Christian worldview, that just because there's scientific evidence for something doesn't mean it's ultimately true ( actually that's something everyone can agree on), and that just because something is the natural explanation that doesn't mean it's the only explanation or the truthful one. Of course if government were to teach it that way you would run into the danger of crossing the state-church line, and that would do much more harm for religion than help. This all illustrates the problem of government run education you can't teach very far before your worldview effects what direction the education will take. There's no satisfactory answers to what the government should teach when they shouldn't be teaching.
Oh well I'll guess I'll cross you off the list of teachers for my hypothetical Christian school. :-)
Nope I think humans were formed by God from dust. As to the age of the universe ( or really even the earth) I don't know that the Bible really tells us that either. The Bible does suggest however, that the earth as we know it and Humans came onto the scene rather recently.
"Do you mean something along the lines that god could have planted dinosaur fossils, giving the false impression via scientific methods that the earth is very old, that evolution took place, etc.?"
Well things aren't always what they appear. The ancients the sun moving around the earth, they could have said they had proof that the sun rotated around the earth, but scientists came along and found another explanations. I simply think that there other explanations for the way things are that fit with the truth in the Bible.
Ultimately IÂ think evolution
So if we are to have public schools, would you want teachers in science classes there to follow every lesson in which they cover any scientific evidence or theories that conflict with the Christian Bible or doctrine with the final note that "We ultimately have no way of knowing if any of this is true or even assessing the probability that it is true, since we ultimately have no way of knowing or even assessing the probability that things are as they appear" ?
Would "harming religion" be your only objection to "crossing the state-church line" in this case? Generally? (and I don't mean in terms of being unconstitutional; I mean if you could have your way)
No problem at all. Teach science. If parents want to tell their kids it's all an illusion, they can, however unfortunate and harmful that is likely to be.
So if we are to have public
Well that'd be one way of doing it.
One of the big reasons. Of course another reason is I that I think roasting folks like you ( and probably like me too, since I'm not in a popular or majority religion) would be terrible.
As if those kids are really going to just listen to their parents and throw away everything the education system has been teaching them 40 hours a week. You can't really educate without having a philosophy about knowlege, it isn't the government's business to teach that philosophy. The government should step back and let philosophies win or lose by people's own choice, let people get what they choose.
Well, kids are with their
Well, kids are with their parents more than they are with their teachers, and I dare say that parents would not be at a disadvantage to teachers, due to the respective time and settings in they each have access to kids (as opposed to the strength of the respective arguments), in trying to persuade kids that anything and everything could be just an illusion and that therefore anything they were taught in science classes (or in history classes or whatever) that conflicts with religious doctrine is false.
And your attachment of the word "philosophy" to science (at least in this context) is misguided and misleading. We are talking about the difference between teaching the methods and results of our best efforts to explain elements and dynamics of life and the world, past and present, with proper acknowledgements of any limitations and uncertainties other than saying that we really can't have any idea of anything because anything and everything we think we or anyone has observed or calculated (etc.) could be merely an illusion. It's not reflective of a "philosophy" to say that the earth revolves around the sun, unless we are to say that it is reflective of a "philosophy" that 2 + 2 = 4 or that there is an Internet or that I am not 100 feet tall or to say that we can, for all intents and purposes, "know" anything or even consider anything highly probable.
"And your attachment of the
"And your attachment of the word "philosophy" to science (at least in this context) is misguided and misleading. We are talking about the difference between teaching the methods and results of our best efforts to explain elements and dynamics of life and the world, past and present, with proper acknowledgements of any limitations and uncertainties other than saying that we really can't have any idea of anything because anything and everything we think we or anyone has observed or calculated (etc.) could be merely an illusion. It's not reflective of a "philosophy" to say that the earth revolves around the sun, unless we are to say that it is reflective of a "philosophy" that 2 + 2 = 4 or that there is an Internet or that I am not 100 feet tall or to say that we can, for all intents and purposes, "know" anything or even consider anything highly probable."
Philosophy doesn't change the facts, but it does change how we look at the facts. For example, let's say the scientific evidence, without any religous insight, for evolution puts at a 99.9999999999% chance of being true. Well one who believed God is the truth, and that the Bible was his word, would say the truth is in the 0.000000000001%. But the secular scientist who view natural explanations as being the only way to view the world would consider evolution allmost proven. Since public education can't teach God or Religion they allmost teach his and it's absense from any meaningful relation to truth.
It would not be rational to
It would not be rational to say that the probability that evolution explains how humans came to be is 100% (1.0, to put it technically), or to assign 100% probability to anything, as opposed to, say, 99.9999999% probability or that probability with the caveat of the possibility that anything (or everything) we think we observe, calculate, etc. is merely an illusion. The same could be said of 2 + 2 = 4 or the "fact" that the earth revolves around the sun or that I am not 100 feet (ok, let's say meters to avoid confusion with baby feet!) tall. The point is that it is not reflective of "philosophy" to say that, for all intents and purposes, we can consider extremely likely or "have found" or "can demonstrate reliably" or "have strong evidence for" or "have strong theories explaining" some particular things, based on observations, calculations, etc., with whatever limitations and uncertainties come with that territory.
I think we're probably at a dead at this point on this topic, but I'm open to anything you wish to add.
[edit below]
Assuming we are to have public schools (or even our tax dollars going to private education), I don't think those schools should leave kids in ignorance simply to avoid teachers' presenting scientific information and theories that could conflict with some superstition/fantasy/faith-based theory or simply because it's possible that anything or everything that is taught is wrong because anything and everything we observe, calculate, etc., could be a mere illusion.
IÂ really don't understand why
I really don't understand why people mix in 2+2 =4 with other scientific facts. 2+2=4 is like saying Communism is communism, even if I'm a frog sitting in a pond having a dream about human existence, and all other intelligent life is all an illusion to me 2+2=4 can't logically be an illusion. Also the earth rotating around the sun also can't be in illusion in the sense that this what we see, of course we could be seeing something different than what some other intelligence sees in which case it would be an illusion in relation to the other intelligence, or we might even see it differently if we some other way to look at it.
How do you know what you see
How do you know what you see is real? Maybe the earth is not really revolving around the sun. Maybe there is no sun. Maybe there is no earth. If your religion said that the sun revolves around the earth and not vice versa, would you object to public schools teaching that, based on our observations and relate scientific theory, the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa?
Same question with my not being 100 meters tall.
Same question with what you think is logical about 2 + 2 equalling 4.
All could be an illusion. Is that a reason public schools should not teach them as scientific "facts" (based on observations and scientific methods) and scientific theories that are extremely likely to be valid?
Or is the possibility of illusion combined with conflict with some particular premise of some purely faith-based theory/fantasy/superstition enough to keep any such information out of public schools and leave our kids in gross ignorance?
"How do you know what you see
"How do you know what you see is real? " It depends on what you mean by "real", you can know it's real to you, but there can could be a greater reality ( more people, a higher being, a different way of looking at it...) to which it is unreal, also you don't know if the conclusion you would draw from what you see is true or not, for example, the conclusion that you exist because you type responses to me can't be proven by human logic, however, I do know that I see what you type - that's self proved.
"Maybe the earth is not really revolving around the sun." Maybe not when measured by someelse's reality, or when looked in a different way than what we are looking at it now. We can know that it's revolving around the sun in the ways we can see though- well actually we don't, as in You and I, it's possible that we're subject to a great conspiracy, but to a scientist who actually observed the earth revolving around the sun it is to true to his reality. I suppose you could say any conclusions he would draw from that observation would not be provable, but the observation itself is self - provable just like the observation that I see what you type, it might not be provable to some greater reality, but it's provable to him that it's his reality.
"Same question with what you think is logical about 2 + 2 equally 4. All could be an illusion." In what way. 2+2 = 4 is an idea that's self provable to my reality, and it's not true according to some other reality than by definition there not talking about the same two and four. Your existence could be an illusion, because it's not an actual observation, but a conclusion based on an observation( that is from my perspective). The sun rotating around the earth could be an illusion in the sense, that somebody might see things differently or we might be able to if there were different conditions. However, with two+two = four - nobody could see it differently since my definition of two and four mean that the number two is half of the number four so if someone saw it differently by definition they would be thinking of a different two and four. It couldn't be an illusion by a different way of looking at it, because the entire truth of two + two is contained in that mathmatical way of looking at it. So I'm at loss to see how two+two could be an illusion, anymore than the fact that I'm thinking could be an illusion to me.
And ultimately I think we break free from all of this relativism
by divine truth, but as you can see from a human prespective I would very much be a relativist.
I don't know what you mean by
I don't know what you mean by that. I have a feeling though, that it's something that I would consider wholly irrational. And I say that as someone who considers you quite rational on secular matters generally.
Well our relationship with God, reveals to our minds himeslf
and also his true word, and thus we find absolute truth - from pure human logic I only see relativism. And yes unfortunately I'm sure you do find that irrational - and there's no way I can do anything to prove it to your mind, for while I don't think it clashes with logic it is not discovered by human logic - it's discoved by a relationship with God. I wish you would pursue such a relationship and find a saving relationship with God, but God has given you the choice to accept his truth into your heart or to reject it, and the power of choice is one of his greatest gifts to mankind. That's all.
Well, you have no way of
Well, you have no way of distinguishing what you have concluded are revelations from/of "God" from mere fantasy, which, to be frank, is all it is (or at least all you have any reason to consider likely). No offense intended. Just speaking frankly.
Believe me I've thought about that long and hard
(I've certainly not been free from doubt) And why do I conclude that you're wrong? Because through prayer and Bible study I've let God's presence into my heart, and he has becoeme the foundation of truth to me. How do I know it's not a fantasy, because it's God - the God who speaks to me through the Bible, and it's that knowledge that testifies to itself all the way in an endless progression of asking how do I know? God is the Word ( or Logos, from which we get the word logic) that was in the beginning.
To be frank, you speak of what you do not know. For you to speak as to what God has revealed to me in His Relationship with me, is as a blind man speaking to one who sees ( though poorly) and telling them that what he sees is an illusion. And certainly no offense intended, just speaking frankly. Finally there is no use in arguing the point further, for I speak of what you do not know. I do know pretty much where you're coming from in your disbelief, believe me I've been there, but I've rejected disbelief and accepted the truth of God you have unfortunately gone the other direction - there's no way for me to communicate to you what only what God can give. If you choose you can come to in Him prayer and study His Word for yourself, but there's nothing for me to do, which is why I see no need to continue this conversation - since you mentioned not understanding the first comment I figured I'd try and give a glimpse of the possibility of seeing truth from a different and saving perspective - but choosing to let the light of truth into your heart boils down to a choice.
It's ok with me if you don't
It's ok with me if you don't wish to continue (and again, I hope you're not offended), but in case you're willing to discuss further, a question for you, with some illustrations:
1) Do you think it's possible to determine that a person is insane or is at least highly likely to be insane, and, say, highly likely to be hallucinating or imagining highly implausible things and considering them to be real? If so, how can we determine such things?
2) If Bob is standing atop a tall building and says he's going to jump off and fly over to another city, where he'll land safely, how do we know he's wrong, or at least highly likely to be wrong, and assuming he really believes he can achieve this flight (without any flying equipment, mind you), on what basis do we conclude that he may be insane (or high or dreaming, etc.)?
3) Do you think it's extremely improbable that David Berkowitz, the "Son of Sam" killer, was really told by his dog to kill those people, as he contended, even assuming he was sincere? Does that seem insane to you?
4) What about those members of the Heaven's Gate who committed suicide believing that they would be transported to a spaceship near a passing comet -- How do you know they are wrong, or at least highly likely to be wrong? Do you think it's likely that at least their leader or some others in that group were insane?
5) How can you say that what you are sure (or perhaps nearly sure) is a "relationship with God" (etc.) is anything more than a product of your imagination?
Do you think it's possible to
Well I don't know from how at least from a human perspective, one could determine who's reality is correct and who's isn't. I guess you might be able to consider it probable that a great that the reality of greater number of people is the true reality - much of reality is perception though ( we know what we see, so our reality is drawn from our perception and the conclusions we draw from that perception), so in that senses a person who hallucinates is only wrong in that they're reality doesn't agree with a reality that is shared by more people ( I don't think you can really say a perception is unreal, because they are what they are.) . Now, someone has a disconnect from "reality" should be treated because the conclusion they draw may be wrong, and their perceptions don't match a shared reality by humans as a whole - that doesn't prove that their perception is false ( which wouldn't really be possible), nor does it even prove that the conclusions are false ( though that may be more likely) however one not sharing the same reality certainly puts the sufferer at a disadvantage - and the false conclusions can be dangerous.
It seems to me that 2,3 and 4 are both scenarios that are applications of #1, so I'll skip them for now.
"How can you say that what you are sure (or perhaps nearly sure) is a "relationship with God" (etc.) is anything more than a product of your imagination?"
Good question. I know my imagination and I know God, there not the same and God is true. Like I've said God is a self attesting eternal truth, I think I've explained this above and don't really know how to do so any better.
BTW, I have a familly member who has struggled with brief bouts of physchosis. So this is certainly something I've struggled with. I'm sorry I can't give any better anwers, but part of the problem is in the nature of revealation - you can't really capture it in words.
You didn't answer my
You didn't answer my questions. Please do, at least regarding the sun & earth thing. You could address it for my not being 100 meters tall, too, assuming that my actual height has been observed/measured and widely reported in scientific journals and elsewhere.
As for 2+2, we could put that one aside, but even if we put aside the apsect of the logic of it, we (e.g., a teacher) still cannot be absolutely 100% sure that 2 + 2 =4 represents a mathematical error.
In any case, for any or all of my examples you're willing to address, please answer my questions, which again were:
As to the sun and earth
As to the sun and earth thing. To summarize the observation could be incomplete ( and you call it unreal in that sense) in that there could be a different truth as observed by someone else, or by yourself under different circumstances, however it is real in the sense that it is what you observe. Conclusions drawn from the observation could just be flat out incorrect.
"Is that a reason public schools should not teach them as scientific "facts" (based on observations and scientific methods) and scientific theories that are extremely likely to be valid?" No, but I think you get an incomplete picture when you leave God out of the picture. Government has to leave God out of the picture which is one reason I don't think they should be involved in education. However, part of the truth is better than none ( and many kids will recieve education about God, even if their public education goes against that) so I think that schools should still teach what they have to - i'm not sure about evolution or at least an extensive amount of it though.
What if your religion held
What if your religion held that the sun revolved around the earth. If we are to have public schools, would you object to those schools teaching that scientific observation and theory has established that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa, objecting on the basis that we cannot rule out the possibility that, like all other observations and calculations, this earth around the sun thing could be based on illusions/misperceptions/miscalculations/etc., assuming that those public schools are not also teaching your religion's conflicting contention, based on faith only, that the sun revolves around the sun ?
 Schools should teach what is
Schools should teach what is observed, and what conclusions people draw from those conclusions, I suppose I would limit I might be in favor of limiting the school to teaching how scientists generally interpret the observation, since teaching any other way of interpreting the evidence would mean even furthur intrusion of the government into an area they don't belong, however, this is a lesser of two evils because by not teaching the religion there teaching an implied lack of religion. If God is not taught at school, there's an implied statement about his absence, when the government enters education I don't think nuetrality is really posible.
BTW my opposition to public school isn't solely about religous education or lack thereof, but also ideology in general, I don't think it's possible to teach much without an underlying worldview and ideology,and it isn't the Government's business to determine that philosophy or ideology.
Unconstitutional, and ineffective as well....
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Schools should teach what is
I’m unclear on to what
Well, I'm saying I guess I'd let them teach observations and how scientist interpret such observation as a lesser of two evils. Kids should be taught within the overriding context of religion, however, I certainly wouldn't want the government to do that, so I suppose the way things are might be a lesser of two evils. I don't really have a hard and fast opinion on all of this though.
My point is that since there is no mention of God in any science, history or in the general equation of finding knowledge, it implies his absence in all of these things - there's no mention at all of God so it implies his absence in all. It's like if a school never teached about communism - it implies an absence of communism. And that goes to why public schools are bad ideas not just for religion - what you teach and what you leave out implies certain values to certain things- value judgments are based upon one's philosophy and it isn't the government's business to teach that philosophy.
My point is that since there
My point is that since there is no mention of God in any science, history or in the general equation of finding knowledge, it implies his absence in all of these things - there's no mention at all of God so it implies his absence in all. It's like if a school never teached about communism - it implies an absence of communism.
Not really, although it may make one skeptical of claims one hears elsewhere that communism existed insofar as a student thinks that if it had existed (or were considered likely to have existed) it would have been taught in a relevant class. I guess that could be viewed as a subtle implication by means of omission, but it's not clearly an implication (in the mind of a student) as it would be if something were taught that directly contradicts some premise that a student considers essential to belief in a deity.
It seems that by the reasoning you've offered, public schools are wrong for teaching anything -- even math or reading (as in literacy) -- because any choice of what subjects to cover (let alone how to cover them) reflects a value judgment (which it does). Well, you seem to favor (or at least are ok with) taxpayer funding of private education (at least for those who cannot affort it on their own). Don't you think there should be some guidelines, requirements and even restrictions? Should taxpayer funds go to a a private school that teaches that, based purely on faith, the sun revolves around the earth, the earth is 2 years old, I am 100 meters tall, 5(x+y) does not equal 5x + 5y (because even though every time we test it by plugging in numbers it turns out that way, it could be a mistake or illusion every time), the United States was formed in 1972, and the principal's pencil is the creator of the universe, has given commandments, watches and knows all we do, and will reward and punich us accordingly? What if that school taught all that and did not teach valid science, well-researched history, "correct" math, etc.
Stream of Conciseness response.
Absence of evidence, is evidence of absence? You're talking like Richard Dawkins now. If general endorsements of the Judeo-Christian God is made, there would still be the question of how much detail to go into. How much detail would be too much? Should Catholic heavy areas lean to Catholicism? Should certain areas lean to teaching over 50% Christians aren't really Christians? Would claiming that there is no Holy Trinity be allowed in Utah public schools? If the following quote is true: "[if] there's no mention at all of God so it implies his absence in all." Would that also mean if no specifics of God was mentioned, that would be evidence of absence? There's still a very strong implicit
and explicit 
reference to the Judeo-Christian God in public schools. It just might not be explicit enough for some despite being on our money. 
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I just lost 10 minutes of my life that I will never get back...
http://www.palinaspresident.us/
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Spreading the Wealth
That tidbit of knowledge was from none other than that great socialist thinker, Adam Smith.
yet again)
(thanks to Sullivan
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
That's delicious!
The GOP has lost it's collective brains, with this crazy socialism talk!
I'm only half stupid
a reminder of how rich some people are...
Losing its shine | The Economist
: a story about Japan's luxury goods market.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
All elections are important. People are tweeking this time
though. Folks got themselves really worked up. Today going home a crowd of Yes on 8 (the anti-gay marriage ammendment out here) standing by the freeway entrance & main cross streets was harrassing drivers going by. They were actually going out into the traffic & harrassing those of us who told them they were bigots (yea...I did). Then I go watch (http://www.samefacts.com/archives/john_mccain_/2008/10/prosecution_please.php
) this video over at samefacts</a> where a guy videotaping an event gets pushed around by one of the audience.
The overt need to go to violence is disturbing. What's more ugly are those that are already talking about delegitimizing an Obama Administration & speaking of insurrection. Isn't it a little early for that? I mean, at least they waited a few years before they tried to impeach Clinton. They aren't even waiting for Barack to get sworn in it seems now.
And it's the liberals who are a threat to the country's safety.....go figure.
Cole Hamels for President
Change ups you can believe in. :)
Phils win game one 3-2.
Faster paced Cricket?
Beanie Wells for POTUS
#3 Penn State at #9 Ohio State 
8:00 PM ET, October 25, 2008 Ohio Stadium , Columbus , OH.
Other sports news:
Marcus Vick pleads guilty to drunken driving, other charges.
The Cleveland Browns just might hate their players
or Winslow is crazy 
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Night game, eh?
Looks like I'll be at the Old Man's to watch it.
So far the Buckeyes are 0-3 when I watch at his house.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Will we see the worst riots in America's history if Barry tanks?
More
...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Don't forget Cleveland
The east side will be particularly bad.
However, the polls are looking particularly bad (notwithstanding the one you recently posted), so I don't think we'll have much to worry about.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
if Barack Obama loses and
If there is suspicion of foul play? IF??? Is there any doubt that there would be a massive presumption among African-Americans that the election was stolen by some means??
And as for the prospect of riots if Obama loses, think about it, folks. Sometime very late at night the election is called for McCain. Most African-Americans are furious. In the cities, some of them go outside, some decide to smash something, someone decides it's a good time to smash the window of an electronics store, and off we go. The next morning most of the stores are looted, some innocent people are dead, and some looters/rioters are dead. And lots of people have shiny new electronics in their apartments (as well as well stocked refrigerators and liquor cabinets).
Oh, and a year or so later they'll resume complaining about the lack of stores in their neighborhoods.
Please, no one take the above as racism. It's not. It's just my assessment of what is likely to happen in a particular scenario based on what I think is a reasonable view of history.
History
"Rally turns to rioting"
It was odd that a rally against the Nazis protesting of the area being "unsafe for whites", because of black gangs, turned into looting of stores [and therefore made the area unsafe].
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Yes
Yes.
If by "massive presumption" you are implying that many/most/a significant proportion of blacks would think the election was stolen, I would say yes, I doubt that.
Certainly some portion of voters might think that -- black, white, brown, yellow, red, whatever color they might be. The Great Orange would be all over it.
Merely my opinion. YMMV
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Only one "if"...
If Barry loses, there "will" be accusations of foul play.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
No kidding
There have already been accusations of foul play from both sides. Always have been. Always will be.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Umm, RW, can you please not copy the ads?
Can one of the people able to edit RW's post please remove the gratuitous ad?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4What ad?
I don't see any ad?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I don't trust either side
Given how McCain has been stoking fear of ACORN, and his supporters have been expressing their intense opposition to the election of a socialist/Muslim, I don't trust that they wouldn't riot/rebel either.
Maybe I'm jsut more aware this time around, but there seems to be an excess of attempts to delegitimize the victory of either side. I'll be happy when everything is over.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
It's getting weirder...
PITTSBURGH -- A 20-year-old woman who was robbed at an ATM in Bloomfield was also maimed by her attacker, police said.Pittsburgh police spokeswoman Diane Richard tells Channel 4 Action News that the victim was robbed at knifepoint on Wednesday night outside of a Citizens Bank near Liberty Avenue and Pearl Street just before 9 p.m.Richard said the robber took $60 from the woman, then became angry when he saw a McCain bumper sticker on the victim's car. The attacker then punched and kicked the victim, before using the knife to scratch the letter "B" into her face, Richard said.
More
...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Yeah
And then there were the people at the Obama rally who got their tires slashed
. Emotions are hot on both sides, but little anecdotes like this don't really tell us much, do they? Other than a bit of evidence that some people are just idiots.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Really...Tell her that!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Really?
Your Pro-Life, right?
Isn't that guy just an idiot?
Some people are in fact idiots
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Only an idiot would defend something like this or...
attempt to compare people fighting for life with a thug who loves barry so much he carved a B in someones face!!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
"B is for Barry"
Tell me how saying there are idiots in the world could be construed as defending those actions.
The point was people do stupid things when they think they are on the "correct" side, planned or otherwise. But whose to say that thug didn't study McCain's foreign policy and concluded that McCain would start WWIII and the deaths of tens of millions of people. Would that make his actions any better?
Does having a set end goal and then planning and implementing violent actions make Eric Rudolph less evil than someone likely with impaired reasoning at the time.
FWIW, Your friend Bill Ayers perceived that he was only fighting for life, does that make what he did clearly better than the thug?
But, methinks the guy was high and just watched Hannibal Rising
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
But whose to say that thug
But whose to say that thug didn't study McCain's foreign policy and concluded that McCain would start WWIII and the deaths of tens of millions of people. Would that make his actions any better?It would make them worse, because this can only help turn out the vote for McCain.Then again, muggers aren't known for being rational.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Or perhaps someone who would scratch a B into their own face
...to get attention and smear Obama? Detective skymutt is skeptical of of the victim's story. Not saying she's lying for sure, mind you, but consider:
No eyewitnesses apparently
Attack took place out of view of atm surveillance cameras
Victim refused medical treatment
Victim is a volunteer for the McCain-Palin campaign, so we know she has political motives, whereas the typical armed robber is probably pretty apolitical in their motivations.
Attacker allegedly saw McCain-Palin bumper-sticker (at night) on car after robbing the victim, and this is when the assault occurred. How did this happen exactly? Seems odd.
The B is very neat... apparently the victim stayed very still while the B was being carefully scratched into her face, and looks like they didn't cut the skin (so that there wouldn't be scars?
/tinfoil hat theory
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
works for me
//
Besides wouldn't a true Obama supporter use on O!
I'm only half stupid
Oh give me a break ...
Under the scenario where the allegations are accurate, it is not surprising at all that someone would hold still while having such a thing carved into their face. If she was being held down (and thus felt powerless to resist by that point) having a knife that close to one's eyes probably would cause someone to hold still while being scratched. I mean I would advocating resisting such an attack but not when your resistence is likely to get you blinded on one eye. The will have to be better opportunities than while there is a knife THAT close to your face.
On the other hand I do find the orientation of the B to be curious. If we assume the assailant was right handed and "writing" normally they would have to be situated above the top of the woman's head. It is difficult to hold someone down from that position while one hand is occupied doing the carving.
On the third hand, assuming the victim is right handed and doing the carving in the mirror we are likely to see exactly that orientation, right? Or was her assailant spatially adept enough to actually carve the B in a mirror image knowiing that she would then see the B properly whenver she looked into a mirror, thus making the deed all that much more heinous?
Muahh, ha, ha ,ha! We may never know.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Is the picture legit?
I wouldn't be surprized if a mugger did this to her -- I dont'have high expectations from muggers. However, I also wouldn't be surprized if this was a fraud. The AP provides a little reason for suspicion:Police said no police photo had been taken of the woman Wednesday, but by Thursday afternoon a purported picture of a woman with a "B" scratched into her cheek was circulating on the Internet. Overall, I'll take it at face value. I know a few people who have been mugged in that general area (including myself). A couple of them were hit on the head for no particular reason (but not me). Well, reporters have a couple of weeks to investigate.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
This is neither here nor there, but...
If you're going to stage a false mugging, you would probably pick a high-crime area where muggings are likely to be commonplace, right?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
You were right Skymutt - She's a fake!
Must be a liberal insurgent...LOL! ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
"Must be a liberal insurgent"-- HAHAHAHAHA!
Nah man, this one is all yours!
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Kudos for calling it out of the gate, Skymutt.
Are you psychotic or something? Do you have other visions? :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Overall, I'll take it at face
Worst intentional pun of the day or worst unintentional pun of the day? :-p
Under my theory...
There's a couple interpretations of the B under a hoax scenario... You can interpret the "B" to be upside down, a manufactured "detail" to add "authenticity" to the story-- as if the assailant was above the victim... but then it's as you say-- how are they holding her down? And why wouldn't the assailant still write the B so that it would be right side up on the woman's face? Of course, the "B" could also be backwards as a result of the use of a mirror combined with a lack of consideration of the reversing properties of mirrors (but by accident, the mirror image B happened to be a correct upside down B).
As far as the holding still part, I'm not sure. It's true that you might be best served to hold still in such a situation, but I'm not sure that it would be likely that a person in a panic would be able to keep from making reflex-like attempts to get away from the blade, especially since you'd be thinking that you were going to get cut, not scratched.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Perhaps the mugger was dyslexic
n/t
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Sorry
I forgot that in your world the only idiots are the people who disagree with you politically.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
You seem agitated with me lately...
Would you not agree with the thinking that;
a) a delating of a tire, and
b) the roberry, beating, and mutilation of the victims face
are quite different in nature?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Don't take it personally
It's not you, it's just your ideas! :)
BTW, the tires were not simply deflated, they were slashed. But yes, as I stated below, these are not morally equivalent actions. They do, however, both fall along the "bad" end of the spectrum.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Bigger picture of Ashley Todd here
http://sarahsarmy.blogspot.com/2008/10/obber-obama-supporter-carves-b-on-face.html
I will add to my circumstantial case for a hoax the fact that the discoloration of the black eye is not consistent with any black eye I have ever seen. It appears more like makeup than purple blood under the skin to me. Also, I see no evidence of swelling (compare to the other eye... there is a slight bag under the eye of both eyes and they appear to be consistent with each other) and there is no redness to the white of the eye.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
It does look not right somehow...
I agree with that.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Are you actually equating these two things?
I mean assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, and disfiguring someone is really the moral equivalent of slashing some tires?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Probably not.
If I may speak for Spiritual Lefty
Spiritual Lefty implied there are idiots of all sorts.
Not that all idiots' actions are made equal.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I know, that stunned me too?
This again is the lefts tactic that there is no right and no wrong.
And now we have unfounded allegations being made that this was self inflicted and the victim is the bad party, and is covertly disfiguring herself to gain political advantage...?
Why can'y the left just come out and simply denounce the crime?
Crazy.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Really?
1: You took one person's comment and applied that comment to represent everyone in a group, as if "the left" was one big entity.
2: I think Spiritual Lefty and I implicitly denounced any such assault.
3: I implied that the ends don't justify the means. And that one mans lunatic is another man's misguided patriot. Apparently you turned that into a straw man.
4: Skymutt seems to be very cynical, because Skymutt finds the facts surrounding that attack peculiar and the allegations unlikely and seemingly aware that crazy things
happen 
all the time. 
4b: Bill O'Reilly has made similar "attack the victim" claims before, but he's just one man on the right and not "the right."
4c: Should "the right" be held responsible for those on the right that wanted to turn Iraq into a glass surfaced parking lot?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
If you don't fall into "the left"...
...then why protest?
Your reaction though is a perfect example of my point, Irq, Bill O' Reilly, "Crazy things happen all the time", are all ways of avoiding a simple comment and exerting an effort to convolute an otherwise stright forward, black and white crime.
Was the guy an idiot, I don't know, but I do know he's a criminal.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Your lemming like willingness
to believe this story so eagerly in the first place speaks volumes.
I'm only half stupid
So, what you're saying is....
So what you're saying is that I must just blindly accept this story on its face. I have not "alleged" that the wound is self-inflicted, merely suggested that as a possibility, which in my opinion is perfectly reasonable, given the fact that the only evidence we have that any attack occurred is the word of a partisan Republican operative whom none of us know. I even labelled my comment as a tinfoil hat theory to emphasize that I was just putting out a possibiliy, not making an accusation. Finally, my possible scenario is not unfounded, given the facts as presented in the article which I highlighted.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
You have a right to do whatever you like...
...but I just think it is a trip the liberal reaction.
It may very well be a hoax?
And it's not your comment alone, just go back and read the thread, it's classic.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
She was pulling for Ron Paul at one point.
Nearly all made up robberies have to involve a black man of medium build, but this time the attacker was a little taller than normal.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Tall black man... Pittsburgh...
OMG it was Terrelle Pryor! Get Boeckman some reps with the first team for god's sake!!!
;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Who do YOU think is wrong?
Did you really post this story because you were interested in some mugger and his victim, or did you post it because it involved the Presidential candidates in a very tangental way.
If it is the latter, then there is no right and no wrong here.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
The Left's tactics
What kind of crazy liberal
would make such outrageous allegations!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I just found that too :-)
I can sleep tonight, knowing that I have some right-wing cover for my "allegations".
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
The more you look
the faker this story seems.
Her eye is definitely not swollen and the B is entirely too neatly formed. It looks like a burn or a branding.
I still maintain if this was a lunatic lefty whacked out supporter, as R_W asserts, the letter would have been an O not a B.
Or it could be self inflicted, like some unhappy kids who cut themselves in self loathing.
I'm only half stupid
Wow, skymutt ...
how does it feel to be as credible as Michelle Malkin? :) Two peas in a pod, I guess.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4on being skeptical of "your own side"
Well, I just gained a little bit of respect for Malkin...she's actually engaged in "rabble un-rousing". Like Greenspan, I am in "shocked disbelief"
Anyway, for the record, I had the exact same record when ACORN workers claimed that they had recieved threats and had their offices vandalized: "Sounds plausible, but could be a fake".
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Depends on your defintion of equate, I guess
Morally equivalent? No. Idiotic? Yes.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
So you agree that armed robbery and assault ...
with a deadly weapon is "worst" than slashing tires, right?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4the armed robbery was not politically motivated.
the armed robbery was not politically motivated, right? So we can discard that issue from consideration. Furthermore, we don't know if the woman would have been assaulted in the absence of the McCain sticker (people are often assaulted during muggings). Finally, we already agree that muggers are scum, so the significance of their heinous acts is discounted relative to the significance of a similar act by "average Joe".
Basically, the two acts are very different, but share a common element.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Sure
n/t
Edit: Unless it's imaginary! :)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
they do tell us that emotions are high...
However, this is primarily a mugging, and only secondarily a "hate crime".
Muggers sometimes harm their victims. This mugger seemed to be exceptionally sadistic, but the harm done is no worse than what has been done to some of my friends mugged in that same neighborhood.
I was mugged in that general area, though the muggers didn't cause me any physical harm.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Ashley Todd changes story, say police
After being confronted with inconsistencies, including a story that didn't square with evidence obtained from the ATM, Ashley Todd now claims she was knocked unconscious, and doesn't remember being cut.
Other changes to story: She claims she was now attacked on the next street over from the ATM, after she walked away from her car. No reason given for her random wandereing in a strange neighborhood she was apparently scared of-- apparently she just wanted to stretch her legs
She now claims she was sexually assaulted
She says that it might have been her campaign button, not her bumper sticker that enraged the attacker
She has also changed her story that she gave her attacker $60, now that the ATM evidence has shown that she didn't use the ATM.
link
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
A stunt
that was dangerously inflammatory.
I'm only half stupid
And now the ultimate change of story
She made it all up
.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I wonder what's more
I wonder what's more embarrassing for her, that she was shown to be a sleazy liar or that she was shown to be an idiot for (probably) scratching the "B" on her face while looking in a mirror (or perhaps while thinking of what the orientation would be if the "B" were in front of her). As Bugs Bunny would say, "What a maroon!"
And hey, is it too much to ask that white women who fabricate fictitious attacks leave black guys out of it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Smith
I feel sorry for her, I really do
Poor girl, she is obviously confused-- I mean what person in their right mind would phone bank for McCain-Palin?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
;-) Especially when she's obviously a liberal!
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
She's a member of College Republicans and phone banked
for McCain.
You're not brushing this under the rug so easily.
100 years ago, all 6'4" black men in the area would have been lynched over this.
She attempted to start a race riot... to help McCain in a swing state.
Know who the most famous alumnus of the College Republicans is?
Karl Rove.
She was just trying to follow in his footsteps.
I survived the Bush Administration
I think the final nail in the
I think the final nail in the coffin of any credibility she may have had left was her claim that the attacker fondled her sexually. (yes, I know it's mean of me to say that)
Your willingness to believe this story last night speaks volumes
A McCain volunteer attempted to start a race riot to help her candidate.
For several hours last night, you bought her story hook, line, and sinker.... despite OBVIOUS evidence that it was a hoax.
The ends justify the means, I guess... if it hurts the Obama campaign, you're willing to push any story - no matter how fishy.
I survived the Bush Administration
I'll support Red Wing on this one.
I got into a pretty heated discussion over at dkos because of this, but I stand by what I said there. I get really uncomfortable when people make armchair judgments about a situation where so little evidence is available, unless those people are speaking from a position of expertise (a few forensics people had commented in threads that they didn't think the cut was consistent with what usually happens in cases like this). But when it comes to an alleged victim of violent crime, it's not just a case of playing guessing games: if you're wrong, you're not just wrong, you're atrociously, horribly wrong.
This is what I said at dkos
:
And I stand by that, 100%. Better to let the police prove it a hoax than put ourselves in a position of trouncing a real victim of violent crime. The truth will come out one way or another.
I know it's an intense political world where we feel we have to counter every allegation as soon as possible, but sometimes patience really is a virtue.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Disagree with you totally on this one pico
I think it's okay to responsibly raise questions if you have legitimate concerns about the veracity of an uncorroborated story like this. This story just didn't add up from the get-go IMO, and it didn't take a forensic expert to spot the problems with the story. But even though I was fairly certain that this was a hoax from the beginning, I was assiduously careful to present my doubts only as my own theory. I don't think that anything that I wrote would have harmed this girl if she was the legitimate victim of a crime, and if the truth would have come out in favor of her story, I don't see how merely raising questions about her story in a non-insulting manner would have caused any lasting harm.
In the end, you have to use your own judgment. I don't make a habit of putting forth conspiracy theories, and only do so when alarm bells are absolutely ringing off the hook in my head.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Sorry, but simply don't agree:
the holes in the story were not appearing from the get-go, unless you were relatively late to the discussion - when I posted that comment the photo had only just hit the airwaves, and the note about the police's doubts hadn't yet been published, but we were some thousand comments into the discussion.
But that being said, what I'd like to avoid is becoming the Bill Frist of the blogsphere: if a medical doctor can make a fool of himself attempting to diagnose someone via television, how much more so a blogger attempting to diagnose a photograph? That's not the kind of thing you want to play around with, and at BEST every question raised should be accompanied with a careful caveat showing respect to the alleged victim.
You have the benefit of hindsight now, but when allegations like this surface, it's just plain crass to start debunking them before the police reports come in. I recognize that you worded your doubts very carefully, but that's still a helluva thing to be wrong about.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Pico
Depends on what you consider "holes". The story did not seem plausible. Within the story, there might not have been one singlular gaping hole, but there were just too many things that did not make sense--an accumulation of little holes in the hull of a ship will sink it just as easily as one big hole. For instance, she's twittering all these messages while she's on the road, yet she does not make a call to the police until over a half hour after the attack. Now I suppose her phone might have gone dead, or maybe the attacker broke it-- there could be a lot of explanations for that particular part of her story. But when you combine that with about a dozen other eyebrow-raising facets of the story, then the story as a whole falls apart.
It wasn't just the photograph for me, but can you remind me why a blogger can't look at a photograph and make observations about it? It appears that she was not cut. It appears that the black eye is not swollen and the white of the eye is not red. It appears that the B is backward, as if it might be if it were self-administered using a mirror. Without saying anything definitive about the photograph, I think it legitimately added to doubts about the story.
I can't speak to what happened on DailyKos, but I think that test was passed here. On the other hand, there is also a danger of treading so lightly around sacred cows that nobody dares to utter the obvious. If we say that an incident that appears to involve a violent crime is to be free of all outside scrutiny until the police issue a report on the matter, we might find out that our desire to not offend has been exploited at some point. Beyond that, what are we to do if there is no police report? For instance, if a person claims that they were the victim of a racist verbal attack by John McCain, do we just have to accept the word of the victim, even if their story does not seem plausible to us? When is the appropriate time to raise doubts against a "victim" if there is no official report on the issue forthcoming?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
That's not the appropriate question:
skymutt, this was the day OF, and the police hadn't had a chance to issue a statement yet. I do think there is such a thing as keeping a respectful distance (of time) when the potential of actual violent crime is there, and when we know that it's in the process of being investigated.
Do we have to respect the word of a victim as somehow sacred? Of course not, but when we have such little access to the information, when we know an investigation is underway, and when our doubts are magnified by partisan politics, yes, we do have to tread a lot more carefully than some people have been treading.
Because here's the key point: it doesn't matter to us whether the story was true or not. Our interest in debunking it is political, and that's what makes it so crude. It shouldn't impact the election either way, and to the extent that some people were trying to use it for political purposes, THAT was the angle we should have been focused on. Supporters on both sides of this election HAVE been attacked by supporters on the other side, and the appropriate response from us is to be rejecting violence by our own side and attempting to marginalize the people who commit it to show that it's not some reflection of mainstream Obama/McCain supporters. Instead of focusing on why this story wasn't important, people went for the alleged victim. And since, as I noted, this began before any of these holes began appearing in the story, yeah, I do think that kind of criticism was politically movitated (Malkin excepted) and crass.
I guess I'm just frustrated that you're treating this incident with such a blasé attitude, rejecting concerns that vetting an alleged victim's story the same day it broke and before the police make an official comment as some kind of pussyfooting around a sacred cow.
On the bright side this woman has ruined it for everyone, and you'll get your wish: no victim of politically-motivated violence is going to be treated with any distance for the rest of this election cycle.
Hypothetical question: IF this story had somehow turned out to be true, is an apology on the part of critics enough to heal that kind of mistake?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
In retrospect, I tend to agree with Pico on this one ...
victims of violence should be given the benefit of the doubt until an official investigation has been conducted ... otherwise we discourage victims of things like rape and/or hate crimes from coming forward.
I apologize for any part I played in casting doubt on the victim in this case prematurely.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Whoa
Going against Mchelle Malkin-- this is a first!
I prefer to think that what happened might deter the next hoaxster... if they think that the only bar that they have to clear is to fool a bunch of donut-eating flatfoots, they'll go thru with their hoax every time, but if they know that they'll have to pass muster with eagle-eyed bloggers, then they will probably think better of it ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Why is that "Agianst" MM? It seems it is the exact same as MM.
?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I'd like to "go
I'd like to "go against" Michelle Malkin! ooooweee, hubba, hubba!
Perhaps, but...
I'd like to think that I'd bring up the same doubts if the politics of alleged victim and alleged attacker were reversed.
I don't know... if that's true about me, then I want to change, because I want don't want to be someone who sees events thru a partisan veil.
Normally, I'd agree-- but if it appears likely to a person that the story itself is false, it's asking an awful lot to say that that person should restrain themselves from even making any comment on it until the investigation of authorities has been completed, no matter how clearly the person presents that comment as just a theory which might be wrong.
On the other hand, would you want to participate in the further marginalizition of the black men of Pittsburgh for even a day, feeding into the ingrained stereotype of the big black thug terrorizing white women, when you had a strong feeling that the criminal in this case was the figment of someone's imagination?
But only for what I think was good reason. Don't a person's instincts count for anything?
Normally I would agree that a snap reaction is not called for, but again I have to point out that there was probably nearly a dozen elements of the story that I found very odd... immediately.
They wouldn't have been afforded any distance anyway, nothing has changed...
I think it's prehaps imprecise to call people who merely brought up questions "critics", in that at least speaking for myself, I did not criticize the alleged victim. I don't even know if I would have even owed her an apology, but I would have gladly given one anyway.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Apologies for the heated rhetoric, skymutt;
I hope it doesn't seem like I'm coming down hard on you for this.
One of your comments here I definitely want to address, because I think we're talking past each other:
Correct, and I don't think you were applying a highly partisan standard to this. What I'm suggesting is that our very interest in the story is political. In other words, we don't make a habit of scrutinizing the facts of alleged assault on a daily basis, but our attention was drawn to this one because it was being spun as having political implications.
That means we didn't approach it as we would a normal story of assault, and I wonder if we were to read everyday allegations in the news, would we be putting them to the same standard of veracity?
That's why I suggested from the get-go that the most important angle was not the story by the alleged victim, but the attempt to use it politically by Republicans. Even if it HAD turned out to be true, the attempt to connect it to the Obama campaign - or the to the "typical" mentality of an Obama supporter - was both wrongheaded and exploitative. In the meantime we could let the police issue an actual statement on the crime, then start drawing conclusions.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
No offense taken at the strong opinions
I approve of you standing up for what you believe and I respect your consistency on this and am a strong admirer of your basic and instinctive fairness. I'm more than happy to take criticism on something like this, because, in most cases, I would be right there by your side in urging an abundance of caution in such a potentially sensitive situation.
I do not necessarily agree with your assessment of my interest in the story as political, even though there was certainly a political angle to the story, and even though I was aware that the story was posted here to gain political advantage. I had SOME political interest in the story, but it was not my PRIMARY interest in the story. In fact, I wasn't that interested in the angle of the Republicans trying to use the story for political gain, the angle that you believe should have been highlighted, even though I was aware that McCain had called the victim, and a campaign operative may have been pushing the story and so forth. I wasn't concerned about these things because of my strong belief that the story itself was a hoax, which meant that any attempt to unfairly make political hay out of the story was very likely to not yield any advantage.
Instead, I believe my interest in the story was more like that of a detective, or even just a mere puzzle-solver. Look back at how myself and GoRight spent a couple of days arguing and going over all the facts and minute points of the law regarding the Sean Bell acquittals-- there was not much of a partisan political angle either way there, but we spent days on that going back and forth on every litte detail. The Bell debate I think is illustrative of what you see from me here: a pursuit of the truth for the sake of the truth itself that has more to do with my ego-driven desire to be right and look smart than a desire to boost Obama or hurt McCain.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
On a completely unrelated note,
you'll appreciate this thread
. It's not related to this conversation, but I'd meant to signal you to it earlier when it was still active.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Hehe
You are a true traitor to the progressive cause, pico... look at how Dick Cheney was smiling at you approvingly in that thread ;-)
Someday, I think it would be fun to go back and find some of the threads from the old days on there where things got a little heated, put them together in a list like GoRight did...
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
It still is a puss filled hate permeated pit of partisan puke.
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Yea, skymutt, let's see your greatest hits on DailyKOS!
:)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I will do this sometime soon...
It won't quite compare to your list though... I am usually pretty polite-- even as I get pelted with ad homs :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Is that right, sh** for brains?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yep :-)
My opponents want to turn the corner on to Ad Hominem Street, but I just keep driving the bus down Logical Argument Boulevard :-) Most of the time... Here's an exception
where this guy Bob Oak who gets all bent out of shape on immigration issues kept on badgering me with personal attacks over and over and I finally got a little snippy with him at the end. Here 
is the thread where he starts badgering me, delivering probably a dozen ad hominem attack comments, even trying to administer some sort of technical exam to me to prove some point only he fully understands, before I finally got in a potshot about his weak little website, which he had been known to pimp in a relentless and tiresome manner. And even there, I really just gave him some motivation it seems, because now he has a somewhat more successful second website, which has managed to attract some DailyKos diarists centered on economic issues. See how I help people out? ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
pico, you right wing nut case ...
I couldn't have argued the point any better than you have! :)
But what you fail to understand is that the level of discourse at DailyKOS max's out at around3rd grade level. That's why this person sees Palin's response as being directed not just at the 3rd grader, but at them as well. Palin's reponse obviously looked like a "grown up" response to this person.
If you just start looking at the DailyKOS denizens like they were third graders a whole lot of things that go on there start to make a whole lot more sense! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Definitely some missing links
in the story that brought the credibility into question almost immediately.
I would never have posted such questions on a larger blog, but on a tiny blog like this one I see no harm. It seemed pretty obvious right away and even the police were not convinced.
Whoever the McCain people were that pushed the story to Drudge........ those were the folks that went way way way over the top before they had all the facts or the evidence.
edit: okay so never say never I think I posted a pretty stupid untrue story once about Rhandi Rhodes being attacked, and it was totally false.
I'm only half stupid
It was a news story, Drudge just scans the news articles...
..To say it was the McCain Campaign is BS Missy.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Reports say
You could be incorrect there Mister
"John McCain's Pennsylvania communications director told reporters in the state an incendiary version of the hoax story about the attack on a McCain volunteer well before the facts of the case were known or established -- and even told reporters outright that the "B" carved into the victim's cheek stood for "Barack," according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions."
I'm only half stupid
Heh
Beat me to it by 1 minute!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Great minds....
;-)
I'm only half stupid
Great minds may think alike ...
but fools seldom differ. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Not entirely blameless
McCain Communications Director Gave Reporters Incendiary Version Of "Carved B" Story Before Facts Were Known
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I think that you are over playing this angle ...
the girl supposedly worked for the campaign, right? Assuming that is true (which you will obviously want to do since it turned out to be a hoax), who do you expect to get the news first? The head of the campaign in Pennsylvania, or the press? The girl would call into the campaign headquarters first before alerting the press, if she alerted the press at all. This doesn't seem odd to me at all so I don't suspect anything nefarious based on this timing. It is completely consistent with common sense on the order in which the events would be likely to play out.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Dunno bout all that
If you got attacked while not on the job, is contacting your workplace going to be one of your first priorities?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
If I was a political hack working for a political campaign ...
and something that could be used to make political hay happened to me? Yea, I would think so. Especially if the only thing that happened to me was I had a black eye and some scratches on my face (i.e. nothing life threatening after it was all over)?
If I had some broken bones, a burst spleen, or was bleeding profusely out of several stab wounds I would probably call for help first ... but otherwise I would think twice about who to call first.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Why was the press alerted at all?
But why did campaign headquarters feel the need to contact the press?
The only reason this story is "newsworthy" is because it is incendiary. The only lesson from this fiasco is that people high up in the McCain campaign are willing to use their authority to propagate incendiary rumors for the sake of political advantage.
I don't want this type of person getting into our government. I would expect this person to be immediately fired from the McCain campaign for abusing our trust in this manner--except that this behavior is no different than what McCain is doing with ACORN -- using his soapbox to spread baseless, incendiary rumors for the sake of political advantage.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I didn't buy or reject anything...
...it was a news story, and I posted it.
I did/do find the wild reaction on the part of the liberal crowd here interesting, but I didn't demand it was true or claim it was a hoax, in fact when Skymutt pointed out some good points I agreed with him.
I was perfectly willing to let things play out.
But yours is just another that falls into the "Odd Liberal Reaction" file.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Oh good lord, PM ...
Yea, like there was ever going to be rioting in the streets over this. If you actually believe this was a serious concern I think you need to have your head examined because you have serious perception problems.
Well, if the evidence was so OBVIOUS where are you posts pointing that out?
Meh, I'll agree with the meme that anything that hurts the Obama campaign is a good thing ... which is not to say that I agree with you that this was RW's intent.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Here's the rub.....
The Executive Vice President of Fox News
described the unspoken tension this incident could create thusly: Obama has seemed transformational, but.....
So sez the VP of Fox. They were ready to play this story to the hilt for political gain, which is WHY it was linked on Drudge in the first place.
While the point of this story was to drive home the violent raidcal nature of those nasty Obama supporters, it actually points to the opportunism of some to gleefully use race baiting for political advantage.
I'm only half stupid
If this is true ...
then this just completely smacks of her being an Obama plant. Wouldn't that be an ironic turn of events? :) She is actually an Obama operative sent there to setup the McCain campaign for race baiting ... hmmm.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4That's all you got
If this is true, then it must not be true!
The woman was/is active in the Young Republicans, and was/is active in John McCain's campaign.
I believe you are engaging in what is commonly known as projection here, ascribing motives to others because of your own past deviant behavior! =)
I'm only half stupid
Evidence she was not a plant
Democratic Operative My Arse
I'm only half stupid
God forbid SNL mock...Michelle Obama!
More...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Like the MSM, this election is doomed!
This
is what America is facing, and it is wide spead, pervasive, and will affect this election undoubtedly!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Google tells a tale...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman