« Now That You Mention It, It Has Been a Pretty Lousy Three Years | Main | Kerry Ahead on Handling the US Campaign Against Terrorism (!) »

Gone Fishin'

Back Monday.


Well fuck. Hesiod, Marshall now Ruy. Every blogger's going to fucking Bermuda for a while :P

So we're winning (massively) on all the issues except for one - terrorism. Obviously people take this issue far more seriously than they claim to in polls, or else Bush would have an apporval rating of, say, 0%. Futhermore, because the republicans have a track record of faking alerts and other news at strategic moments, we have to take for granted that this issue will be a the forefront of all minds on voting day.

My question is - WHY do people support Bush on terror? Are there any polls that look into this in detail? Other than praying that Wes Clark is chosen for VP, what can we do about this?

I've done a Google comparison of Kerry-VP possibilities. Kerry-Edwards is the most popular. Much more so than Kerry-Gephardt and Kerry-Clark.

See my post here:

I'll give you one man's reasons for supporting Bush on terror.

Bush believes the US should resolve its own problems and not turn over authority to the UN.

Bush believes the military should be equipped to perform its duties, unlike Mr. Kerry, who has repeatedly voted against military weapons and expenditures during his Senate tenure.

Bush is capable of making decisions without sticking his finger in the air and seeing which way the political winds blow.

I know these views aren't going to be very popular on this site, but you asked the question, and I'm giving you an answer.

My question, in a similar vein, is why do people support Kerry on any of the other issues?

S Robinson,
You show a cursory knowledge of the things you speak.
The US Military below E-9 do not support this "Chicken Hawk" of a President. Hundreds of Troopers are dead because this President NEVER experienced combat. Just keep reciting RNC spin points. John Kerry picked up a weapon and fought!


"unlike Mr. Kerry, who has repeatedly voted against military weapons and expenditures during his Senate tenure."

Not true. Check out the D-bunker on Kerry's website.

"Bush believes the US should resolve its own problems and not turn over authority to the UN."

Check "issues" on Kerry's website. Kerry will never turn over authority to the UN if vital interests are dangered. However their support should always be sought for, as well as financial and military help. We should not go alone if not necessary. Bush reputation among foreign leaders, foreign people and diplomats is a catastrophe. You must admit that?

"Bush is capable of making decisions without sticking his finger in the air and seeing which way the political winds blow."

He's stubborn and ideological. He's totally ignorant of facts and other peoples points of view. As well as the least compassionate man in the White House - ever. He's corrupted (Enron, Halliburton, Big Oil, Weapon industry, NRA) and lies whenever it's in his interests to do so.

And this is just the military issue. Is that your only concern? I would say JK is heck of a lot better on all other issues, especially the economy, education, civil liberties and health care. What do you think about the rising hardship for working families and the middle class? What do you think of his give-away taxe cuts to the megarich? What do you think of the Patriot Act?

I could never vote for a man who only care about the richest and his own campaign contributors. Don't you have a problem with that?

I know there is a lot of support for Bush from people who are damaged by his policies - this support probably comes from ignorant "pro-life" people who get their instructions from fundamentalist churches. As I've said before, you seem like a clever guy (you are male right?) and I can't understand your choice in this election. Hopefully this post doesn't come across as harsh, I'm only curious and surprised to meet an intelligent supporter of GWB.

Best wishes,

New poll shows Kerry ahead by 3% in West Virginia:


Sorry everyone,
I got caught up in work and couldn't post for awhile.

"You show a cursory knowledge of the things you speak." This sounds like the old liberal argument "you would see it our way if you just had more knowledge". Sorry, not buying it.

I don't need to check out Kerry's website; I can listen to his quotes and track his Senate voting record (when he votes). Please note that I don't hold his current voting record against him; I find it ludicrous that the campaign for the Presidency has become a 24-month job.

"He's stubborn and ideological." That's what I would say if the President refused to budge on an issue I disagreed on. But I don't disagree, so I hold to my argument that Bush sticks to his positions.

"I would say JK is heck of a lot better on all other issues, especially the economy, education, civil liberties and health care. " But how? It seems all JK's plans involve more spending, which according to many of you, the country can't afford.

"...ignorant "pro-life" people who get their instructions from fundamentalist churches." I'm not sure if my church meets your definition of fundamentalist, but I might be guilty as charged on this one. I am definitely pro-life, but I'm certainly not ignorant about it. My faith in Christ demands that I acknowledge human life at conception. I don't expect you to believe the same thing (and I can respect a different view), but I do expect you to understand the reason WHY I believe what I do.

And no, I did not read your post as harsh. When you hold a different view than the prevailing one, you better have a thick skin. Besides, your arguments were fair and were not ad hominem attacks.

AP poll finds the Reagan bounce:

I encourage all of you to make your feelings known on conservative blogs. It's much more fun to debate those whose views differ from yours, providing everyone can remain civil.


Ooh hey, good to know you oppose the death penalty S Robinson! Join hands in brotherhood! *sings*

Man, I just can't find common ground with anyone here today! ; )

Actually, I don't have a problem with the death penalty. I think that the death penalty comes as a result of one's own actions. Am I opening a can of worms with sloppy prosecution and innocents on Death Row? Probably, but let's leave that for another day.

I have a problem with abortion because I see it as the murder of one who is completely innocent and defenseless. Unborn children are killed not because of anything they did, but by others who made the decision to end their lives.

S Robinson,
This came up within the last week, but I don't think anyone had an answer.
Is there a conservative blog along the lines of this one? One that's mainly about analysis of demographic and polling data? If so, I'd like to have a look at it.

The "Reagan bounce" S Robinson refers to above is the PEW Poll, released yesterday, which has Bush 46, Kerry 42.
So it's come to this--the supporters of a wartime President take encouragement from a poll which shows him getting 46% of the vote.
There are 18 national polls reported since May 24th currently listed at the 2.004k.com website. Bush's highest reelect in any of them is 46%. He's lower in most. The Rasmussen Daily Tracking poll has had Bush and Kerry both within 3 points of 45% since March. Today they've got it Bush 46, Kerry 45. Their sample was the last three nights; the PEW sample was the 11-day period starting two days before Reagan's death and ending two days after his funeral.

Ron Thompson,
I don't think I have an answer to your question either. I linked to this site from World Magazine Blog (http://www.worldmagblog.com/), but it's more attuned to social issues (some political stuff, too, but more social). Maybe you should check it out. Sneak up on the enemy and see what they're up to! :-)

I ended up coming here because it seemed like most people at worldmagblog shared the same views. It gets old; also, you lose perspective on what others (with differing viewpoints) are thinking.

Ron Thompson,
Re: Reagan bounce
Come on! My guy's been falling like a rock! I'll take any good news I can get at this point! Ease up a little bit, willya?

I will reiterate you show a cursory understanding of the issues. GWB threatened to veto the very same legislation that JK voted against. And why did JK vote against it because the White House refused to cut back on tax breaks for millionaires in order to pay for it.
Dick Cheaney voted with John Kerry in voting against the weapons systems that Republicans are complaining about. BTW I love when evangelicals state "My faith in Christ demands" this and that. Christ had one DEMAND "Love your Neighbor as yourself" Politics it would seem, is not the only thing you have a cursory knowledge of. As for the tired labels like Liberal? That word just does not scare people anymore. I have served my country and I pay my taxes and I am going to try my darndest to show GWB the way back to Crawford TX. If that is what you mean by Liberal. Label me all you want. Keep the RNC spin points coming.

Sorry about the Liberal label; you're right, I couldn't come with a better description and I fell back on a label. I can do better.

"Love your Neighbor as yourself" was a commandment, not a demand. Maybe I'm splitting hairs. I think I have much more than a cursory knowledge on this subject.

I also know I've read the Bible enough times to know JK doesn't represent anything I want in the White House. Bush? He's not perfect, either, but he's preferable to the alternative.

Re: Death Penalty - I'm going to paraphrase Tolkien who I believe was a genius (and the reason I hate James Joyce, he hates Tolkien):

"Many who live, deserve death and many who die deserve life, can you give it to them? Then do not be too quick to deal out judgement for even the very wise cannot see all ends."

Eh, the two commandments that supercede all others are "Love the Lord Your God..." and "Love Your Neighbor..." I've always thought.

Also, read Paul's passage in Romans about the role of Christians in government, a very intersting take I thought. Re: Abortion I really don't consider little clumps of cells as a viable life-form. I agree with Dean in that, I don't know any doctor who would perform a 3rd trimester abortion without a reason (i.e. the mother is going to die, the kid is dying of something) but especially in the beginning I don't find it morally reprehensible. If it's later on though, then I can see my way to opposing it.

My position is that it has to be available. Even if it's banned, it will still happen except now you get two "lives" lost instead of one with unqualified people doing it, or in un-clean environments.

Allow abortion, but work to make it unecessary.

MY faith in Christ demands that I work to help the party that I believe seeks to help the poor, that isn't a party that those who openly hate ascribe to, that stays OUT of my church, that doesn't use it for their own ends, that isn't consumed by escatology (for no one knows the day or the hour!).

Remember, the early Christians were commies!

Mr. Robinson - I post at the Rottweiler site. There are a lot of vulgar children there, but I get a good argument once in a while, and I like the blogmaster ("Emperor Darth Misha"). I always like to keep my finger on the pulse of those I disagree with. If you don't really know what your opponents are thinking, they will always suprise you.

But I don't agree at all with your head post.

"Bush believes the US should resolve its own problems and not turn over authority to the UN."

Bush foolishly believed he could own Iraq all by himself and now he has found out how naive he was. The U.N. is a toothless debating society, and no american president has ever believed in "turning authority over" to the U.N. What Bush did was tell everybody else to **** themselves if they did not want to go to war taking all orders from the U.S., and he *wanted* western europe, russia, and china to keep out of it so we could cut all the contracting deals to our contractors. And if you don't think *that* is so, I ask you - is it not true that Halliburton has gotten all the sweetheart contracts in Iraq? Q.E.D.!

We used to have a saying in this country that D's and R's all agreed on: The U.S. can not be the policeman of the world.

"Bush believes the military should be equipped to perform its duties, unlike Mr. Kerry, who has repeatedly voted against military weapons and expenditures during his Senate tenure."

THAT statement will just get you a big fat laugh from everybody in the american military! That's exactly the opposite of what he did! Bush has performed a political miracle (sorry for repeating this yet again): he has alienated the american armed forces from a republican administration.

"Bush is capable of making decisions without sticking his finger in the air and seeing which way the political winds blow."

And if you believe THAT, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

Well, sorry to be so harsh, but a good gentlemanly argument does get the blood up, what?

Actually, Ron...The polling at 2.004k.com shows better news for Bush than revealed in your previous post. The last 3 polls posted have Bush in the lead. A poll from Harris Interactive (the organization that came closest in the 2000 election) even gives Bush a 10 point lead among LVs and a 6 point lead among all adults (I assume these are RVs but I'm not sure). He is ahead by 4 in the latest Pew, as you mentioned and 3 in the latest Tipp. We will have to see if this is a trend. I sure hope not. Maybe Kerry should pick Edwards...like...NOW!

Lou Harris is still alive?

As noted, this is the first poll since 5/24 that has Bush's reelect over 46%, and it's got him at 51%. And it's an interactive poll, which means the sample is self-selected. I'm going to have to see more evidence from random surveys before I believe this one.

In fact, if you'd like to be included in a Harris Interactive poll, here's all you gotta do:

To become a member of the Harris Poll Online (SM)
and be invited to participate in future online surveys visit http://www.harrispollonline.com

I post at Yankee Fan Michelle's "A Small Victory" and very rarely at NRO. Most of the rightie blogs I visit don't allow comments :/

BUT I do discuss at Wotmania & Toonzone with about a 50/50 left/right split. So don't let it be said that I don't ever deal with righties except when I out-number them... unless of course you think there are more liberals on the internet than convservatives :)

Let's face it: not a SINGLE word, article, protest, event means anything the moment we have another terrorist attack.

Let's not fool ourselves, either. An attack will be 100% beneficial to George Bush. It will win him the election - guarenteed.

As to the last post, I have an extremely apposite quote:


"A senior US intelligence official is about to publish a bitter condemnation of America's counter-terrorism policy, arguing that the west is losing the war against al-Qaida and that an "avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked" war in Iraq has played into Osama bin Laden's hands.
Anonymous, who published an analysis of al-Qaida last year called Through Our Enemies' Eyes, thinks it quite possible that another devastating strike against the US could come during the election campaign, not with the intention of changing the administration, as was the case in the Madrid bombing, but of keeping the same one in place.
"I'm very sure they can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now," he said"

Ron...Thanks for the info on Harris Interactive. I think maybe I overreacted a bit. Something is definitely not quite right with this poll. I noticed that Kerry is even ahead by one in today's Rasmussen. You would think such a hugh swing would have been detected at least somewhat on the Rasmussen's daily polling.

I can't get over the nonsense in this post story:


The article includes this gem, "Bush so far has survived challenges to his war rationale, and most Americans believe the war in Iraq was worth fighting"

Oh is that right? Hmm, let's look at some actual data....

Gallup Poll, "All in all, do you think it was worth going to war in Iraq, or not?" June 3-6, 2004

46% Worth going, 52% Not Worth going.

L.A. Times, "All in all, do you think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, or not?" June 5-8, 2004

48% Worth it, 53% Not worth it. (This is among registered voters, among all adults in the poll, worth it wins 48-43)

CBS News, "Do you think the result of the war with Iraq was worth the loss of American life and other costs of attacking Iraq, or not worth it?" May 20-23, 2004

33% Worth it, 60% Not Worth it.

And the kicker ABC News / WASHINGTON POST poll, "All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?" May 20-23, 2004

48% Worth fighting, 50% Not Worth fighting.

Apparently, reporters at the Post don't read their own polls, or anyone's, they just assert. The poll numbers all come from www.pollingreport.com

Aren't editors there to correct such obviously false statements in a draft article? The failure goes higher than the author himself.

Off track, there's another Arizona poll that shows Bush under 45%. This one, by Market Solutions Group, was conducted June 10-13 (the Reagan funeral was on the 11th). It has the horeserace Bush 44, Kerry, 41, Nader 2. The other recent statewide poll, by KAET-TV poll in late May, had it Bush 43, Kerry 38, Nader 2. Very consistent with the idea that undecideds break about 70% toward the non-incumbent. Bush got 50.9% in 2000, when Nader got 3%. With 10 electoral votes, Arizona alone could swing the election to Kerry, if the other 49 states vote the same as in 2000.

SRobinson (I just have this feeling that your name is Scott, is this true? ;) )

I am a Christian too. I have mixed feelings about the abortion issue, but in every other area (homosexuality also, secular partnership rights for the federal states to decide over is not the same as forcing churches to embrace gay marriages) I think JK's position is much more closer to the Gospel (in particular) than GWB's. We've talked about this before - I consider life sacred and a "pro-life" Christian can't be consistent and still vote for a man who puts his campaign contributers wealth first, and environment last. Mercury kills people - especially poor people and children. Toxic waste kills. The global warming will cause millions of deaths.
Also GWB has been a disaster for poor people and elderly. They are dying, starving, from his give away tax cuts to the megarich.

The issue of homosexuality bears no weight compared to the complete moral bankruptcy of GWB. I'm sure Pontius Pilatus hated gays too.

"This is an impressive crowd of the have's and the have-more's - people call you the elite, I call you my base" George W Bush.

Not Christian. Hypocrite.

"This is an impressive crowd of the have's and the have-more's - people call you the elite, I call you my base" George W Bush.

Just in fairness to W, this was said at the Al Smith dinner 2000, where both he and Al Gore gave speeches intended to be humorous and self-deprecating. Soooo, while I want Bush gone as much as anyone, using this line against him isn't fair.


"We used to have a saying in this country that D's and R's all agreed on: The U.S. can not be the policeman of the world." Are you referring to a JFK quote, "Not every problem requires an American solution." (might not be an exact quote)? Anyway, I agree with the basic premise of the argument, but 9/11 changed a lot of things.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement in philosophy. While it is admirable to create social programs, to help the poor with other people's money isn't right either. Also, where has Bush relaxed environmental standards? All I remember is that he did not push forward the Clinton standards, which I remember as executive orders and not passed by Congress.

The global warming issue is still unproven. For every scientist and theory that says it is happening, another scientist and theory says it is not.

Secular partnership rights for homosexuals: maybe that's what they should call it! I don't think you can call it marriage because thousands of years and countless societies have already defined the term as a man and a woman.

Tax cuts for the megarich? Who is paying the majority of taxes in this country? You can't give a tax cut to people who are not paying taxes. Again, a fundamental disagreement in philosophy.

Christian first, American second, political party preference third (or lower).

Tax cuts for the megarich? Who is paying the majority of taxes in this country? You can't give a tax cut to people who are not paying taxes.

Are you kidding? I'm certainly paying taxes.

Are you aware we effectively have a flat tax in this country? The poorest 20% pay nearly the same percentage of their income as the richest 20%. That is an embarassment to our country. The income tax is the sole progressive tax we have and the Republicans are doing their damnedest to change that.

Bush is tanking (thank god) but people still don't know Kerry and his VP choice will say who he is and recent press suggesting Gephart is scary as I think it will signal" old union dems " and that is exactly what won't bring that swing vote our way.

Kerry has many strengths. He needs to balance his foreign experience and his presidential presence with a vp that connects with the average guy and brings excitement to the campaign. I think that is John Edwards, but whoever , it is not Gephart (who I admire and who has been a wonderful public servant but lost in Iowa cuz he is seen as the past)


"I don't think you can call it marriage because thousands of years and countless societies have already defined the term as a man and a woman. "

Well, following that logic we should accept slavery since it has been the practice for thousands of years in countless societies. For me "marriage" is a between a man and a woman since I believe this to be the will of God.
I have no particular problem with civil unions.
Anyway the homsexuality issue is a tiny one for me. It's one for the farisées to be obsessed about.

I don't know how this affects you, but since you seem to be a friend of reason I'll post it:

Following is the text of a letter from Nobel Prize winning scientists, endorsing John Kerry for President:


An Open Letter to the American People

June 21, 2004

Presidential elections present us with choices about our nation's future. We support John Kerry for President and urge you to join us.

The prosperity, health, environment, and security of Americans depend on Presidential leadership to sustain our vibrant science and technology; to encourage education at home and attract talented scientists and engineers from abroad; and to nurture a business environment that transforms new knowledge into new opportunities for creating quality jobs and reaching shared goals.

President Bush and his administration are compromising our future on each of these counts. By reducing funding for scientific research, they are undermining the foundation of America's future. By setting unwarranted restrictions on stem cell research, they are impeding medical advances. By employing inappropriate immigration practices, they are turning critical scientific talent away from our shores. And by ignoring scientific consensus on critical issues such as global warming, they are threatening the earth's future. Unlike previous administrations, Republican and Democratic alike, the Bush administration has ignored unbiased scientific advice in the policy-making that is so important to our collective welfare.

John Kerry will change all this. He will support strong investments in science and technology as he restores fiscal responsibility. He will stimulate the development and deployment of technologies to meet our economic, energy, environmental, health, and security needs. He will recreate an America that provides opportunity to all at home or abroad who can help us make progress together.

John Kerry will restore science to its appropriate place in government and bring it back into the White House. He is the clear choice for America's next President.


Peter Agre, Chemistry, 2003

David H. Hubel, Medicine, 1981

Sidney Altman, Chemistry, 1989

Louis Ignarro, Medicine, 1998

Philip W. Anderson, Physics, 1977

Eric Kandel, Medicine, 2000

David Baltimore, Medicine, 1975

Walter Kohn, Chemistry, 1998

Baruj Benacerraf, Medicine, 1980

Arthur Kornberg, Medicine, 1959

Paul Berg, Chemistry, 1980

Leon M. Lederman, Physics, 1988

Hans A. Bethe, Physics, 1967

T. D. Lee, Physics, 1957

Gunter Blobel, Medicine, 1999

David M. Lee, Physics, 1996

N. Bloembergen, Physics, 1981

William N. Lipscomb, Chemistry, 1976

Leon N. Cooper, Physics, 1972

Roderick MacKinnon, Chemistry, 2003

James W. Cronin, Physics, 1980

Mario J. Molina, Chemistry, 1995

Johann Deisenhofer, Chemistry, 1988

Joseph E. Murray, Medicine, 1990

John B. Fenn, Chemistry, 2002

Douglas D. Osheroff, Physics, 1996

Val Fitch, Physics, 1980

George Palade, Medicine, 1974

Jerome I. Friedman, Physics, 1990

Arno Penzias, Physics, 1978

Walter Gilbert, Chemistry, 1980

Martin L. Perl, Physics, 1995

Alfred G. Gilman, Medicine, 1994

Norman F. Ramsey, Physics, 1989

Donald A. Glaser, Physics, 1960

Burton Richter, Physics, 1976

Sheldon L. Glashow, Physics, 1979

Joseph H. Taylor, Physics, 1993

Joseph Goldstein, Medicine, 1985

E. Donnall Thomas, Medicine, 1990

Roger Guillemin, Medicine, 1977

Charles H. Townes, Physics, 1964

Dudley Herschbach, Chemistry, 1986

Harold Varmus, Medicine, 1989

Roald Hoffmann, Chemistry, 1981

Eric Wieschaus, Medicine, 1995

H. Robert Horvitz, Medicine, 2002

Robert W. Wilson, Physics, 1978

“While it is admirable to create social programs, to help the poor with other people's money isn't right either.”

Well, resources are limited and redistribution makes sense. Wealth is most often inherited, directly or indirectly (growing up in the right family and a privileged neighbourhood). Not “deserved”.
Do you believe Bush cares about the poor, and if so what do you base this belief on?

On a wholly different subject: What do you think of Rush Limbaugh? Is he a good Christian?

I’m just curious about your answers. I very seldom talk to conservatives with an intellect. That’s the sorry state of this polarized nation – you stick to your own.

"Well, following that logic we should accept slavery since it has been the practice for thousands of years in countless societies. "

I think we misunderstand each other on this. My point is that whatever gays want to do, they can't call it marriage because the term has already been defined. If they want to call it civil unions or 'Secular partnership rights for homosexuals' (love that term! You should get a copyright on it.), we can debate society's acceptance of it from there. I never said we should or should not accept gay marriage (though you can probably guess which side I'm on). I was just trying to clarify the definition of marriage. Same thing with slavery: whether I do or don't endorse it, most people have a pretty good idea of what the word means.

A tip of the hat on the global warming - it obviously is an issue you have strong feelings about. How do you feel about China and Russia on this? Their industries are held to far lower environmental standards than ours. Should the Nobel Prize winners be pressuring their governments as well?

Scott (good guess, Michael!)

I posted before I read your last comment. Tough call on Rush. He obviously has personal problems in his life (three failed marriages and his recent drug addiction). He seems to recognize the importance of Christian values, but he has trouble living them. Which, BTW, probably describes most Christians to some degree. My guess would be that he is a struggling Christian and needs to surround himself with people who will hold him accountable for his actions. Please believe me, though, when I say that I am not passing judgment on him. When I point out the divorces and drug problems, I am pointing out things that a Christian should recognize as wrong. But it is what's in his heart - has he accepted the fact that Jesus Christ died for his sins - that will determine where he will end up in the next life. And I have no way of knowing where he is on that issue.

I believe Bush cares about the poor by giving faith-based charites more opportunity to help the poor. Unfortunately, he has coupled that with government red tape which sends the charities running in the opposite direction.

About your other points.

"Well, resources are limited and redistribution makes sense. " You subscribe to the theory that the pie is a fixed size. Many economists believe that the pie is ever-expanding (or contracting in a dire economic state) and resources (capital) are not limited. Redistribution should not be necessary under this scenario because resources should be available to all. Government should not be in charge of wealth redistribution, but should allow those with less to have easier access to resources which would allow them to achieve; e.g. low-interest loans for startup small businesses.

I do not believe most wealth is inherited. If you have figures that show otherwise, I may reconsider. But I believe most wealth is created by hard-working individuals or families. How many stories have you heard about people who come to this country with nothing and create a successful business?

Those looking for another interesting (and civil) site might check out:

Site's run by a reasonable W supporter who evaluates Electorally state by state via 5 criteria. Just go.

And for those who desire this country to be run by 'Christian' law - what if the dominant Christian Sect just happened to be, oh.... Christian Science: Got a tumor? Appendix bursting? Heart attack?

Sorry - the government is now administered by people (Christians, good Christians) who think the way to cure sickness / disease is only thru prayer - and they are going to impose their religious beliefs ON YOU! Because, of course, their way is The Right Way. For them - and you too. Now shut up and pray harder. damn sinners

I expect the GOP to change its name to Party of God (North American Chapter of Intolerance) anyday now. It's only $5.00 thru PayPal Iran. Click on Religious Insanity / Groups / Past as Present

I prefer my fanatics to be baseball fans.

Thank you.
Please drive thru.

Scott, I agree that "inhereted" is not exactly the right word to use for wealth, but I do believe that collective community action (i.e. government) enables and enhances the efforts of individuals, increasing the rewards that they receive for their efforts. Even the most "self-made man" receives a huge benefit from our systems of laws and regulations, such as our legal system, our banking system, civic improvements, eductation system etc. Taxes are not the greedy hand of government taking away "my money," they are the dues you have to pay to participate in our civil society. I expound on this in more detail on my site, www.thegoatherder.com. I invite you to take a look and send me comments.

Paul C


Scott> I knew you would say that "the pie is not fixed", I've studied economics and basically agree with this. Redistribution still makes sense, though, since I believe a free market doesn't generate as much opportunities for ALL as the prevailing ideology states. There is room for government.

"whether I do or don't endorse it, most people have a pretty good idea of what the word (marriage) means."

You could never use that argument against a secular person. As a Christian I might grant (in fact I do) that "marriage" is an institution created by God for heterosexual couples - but in absence of a "higher power" there is no way of going from "most people mean x by saying y" to "x should mean y". It's just a contigent fact about usage of words, a social fact (or "institutional fact" as philosopher John Searle would say) and not a natural fact. There is no natural kind/entity corresponding to the word "marriage", like there is in case of planets, atoms and so on.
The argument from definition will not convince anyone who is not already convinced.

Why do GWB ignore the opinions of leading scientists? I don't think that man is listening to voices of reason. He is listening to Big Money and campaign contributors. He did that in Texas, and he did it with Enron. The man has no moral what so ever.

This election is between Enlightenment and the Middle Ages - that is my firm belief.


Link - the science establishment versus Bush/Big Oil

I think subconsiously S Robinson wants to join the Democrats and vote against Bush. That's why he spends so much time posting here.

He just needs some convincing.

I believe the sincerity of his religious convictions. I just believe any true "God fearing" person could support George W. Bush.

could not vote for Bush.

- editing Jeff, it's your best friend.

Marriage has been defined many ways by many different groups of people, not solely as one man/one woman. Polyandry, polygyny, monogamy, and group and gay marriage have been practiced throughout history in different cultures. There is even documented homosexual bonding in disparate animal societies, from primates to sea birds (we even have two gay male penguins that successfully parented an adopted egg here in the Central Park Zoo!) I sincerely believe that, like interracial marriage, gay marriage will be an acceptable arrangement in the future, especially if you look at age demographics pointing to increasing acceptance in younger groups.

"the Clinton Foundation secured agreements with drug companies to provide cheap generic drugs to 13 countries in Africa and the Caribbean."

Talking about pro-life.. Meanwhile GWB let's millions of children die from AIDS since he rather line the pockets of his friends in the severly corrupted medical industry.

"I think subconsiously S Robinson wants to join the Democrats and vote against Bush."

Me too. Or else, under the pain of cognitive dissonance, I will have to start believe that intelligent Bush supporters exist. Sounds contradictory, doesn't it? ;)