Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 391 To 400 Of 657 Comments
IS THE GOP ANTI-SCIENCE? OR JUST ANTI-RATIONALIST?
@Travis M:
"No, if CO2 is harmless then we are talking about huge and stupid diversions of resources to address a non-problem."
And if CO2 is harmful then we are talking about the likely destruction of most of the human race and the necessary (though huge and expensive) changes needed to stop the problem before it is unstoppable.
Personally, I feel the same way you do in regards to recycling. Stupid waste of my time and money -- the Earth's fine, there's plenty of space, the ecosystem won't suffocate under (cheap) plastic grocery bags, etc.
Of course, I'll be dead by the time definitive proof develops, so its no skin off my nose."Creationism is not 'anti-science.' I know educated people who believe in creation theory and are engineers and not ‘anti-science’. They dont want to stop science or attack it, they just have faith that overrides conventional thinking on certain matters. I can assure you, NOBODY gets harmed by it at all."
You're right -- Creationism isn't anti-science. Creationists, on the other hand . . .
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.05.2009 @ 04:09
Have you seen the Creationism meuseum in KY? If you're ever in the area (just west of the Cincinnati airport), I highly reccomend it -- some of the best animatronics outside of a Disney Park. The Homo Sapiens essentially domesticating dinosaur species show really seem lifelike.
Completely, factually, verifiably wrong . . . but entertaining.
There is nothing in the idea of Creationism that posits the Old Testament timeline for the history of the Earth is accurate. Creationism doesn't mention the Old Testament in any way, shape, or form. North American Creationists, though, can't separate Creationism from fundamentalist Christianity -- and that's wrong.
No harm? Ask those Creationism scientists if they think the planet is roughly 4,000 years old (for those keeping score, the Young-Earthers as opposed to the Old-Earthers). Then ask them how far they would have gotten in their training and their professions if they refused to consider or believe anything that arguably didn't agree 100% with the KJB. "Creationists" home-school their children about history and science . . . and if future generations of Americans don't know (or refuse to consider) basic fundamental tenets of human knowledge, then that diminishes our country. THAT's harm. Real harm.
@funny man:
Don't mean to wade in between you two . . . well, scratch that. I'm obviously doing exactly that.Let me try this again . . .
I may be reading you and Dwight wrong, but as near as I can tell both of you seem to be saying the exact same thing. Both of you agree that there is immediate verifiable support for the theory. Both of you seem to agree that while you can postulate the application of the theory across vast expanses of time, and sometimes the guesses prove correct and sometimes the guesses prove wrong, the farther back in time (and the more overarching the hypotheses) the more likely the guesses won't pan out 100%.
Dwight sees the investigation that does pan out as justification for crediting the theory's reach, and you see the investigations that don't pan out as justification for questioning its reach.
( . . . or I'm way off base and typing all this because I'm trying to goof off as long as possible before I have to go back to work. Taking bets at the side window . . . )
If thats in the ballpark, then I don't know that either of you will make any headway. Half-empty, half-full, but its the same glass of water.
Of course, the back and forth is far more entertaining than anything else on the Intertubes, so let me pop another bag of popcorn while y'all reload the muskets. I would like to point out though that this IS RightWingNutHouse . . . and the paucity of personal disparaging insults is starting to become uncomfortable. Standards, man . . . standards.@Mike Reynolds:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.05.2009 @ 03:38
Put it in Philosophy class . . . that's where I got sold on it a few decades ago. Back then it was still called "The Rabbi And The Inkwell" (which btw sold the idea more effectively and beautifully than any ID spokesperson has since -- sometimes simplicity is best for simple ideas). As an added bonus, philosophy students have practice in completely ignoring "common sense", "rational thought", "logic", or any of those other oppressive Thought Police tactics, so "it doesn't make sense" will come off as a challenge.
"And if you 'include social conservatives' you have SOME conservatives who are anti-science."
(one of these days, I'll learn how to do that uber-1337 "quote prior comment in a box" or "italicize" -- its good to have goals)
The problem (as you've mentioned) is that the small sub-set of anti-science conservatives are also unfortunately also the extremely loud sub-set of conservatives. The rest of you get tarred with the same brush when they make noise. So few conservatives offer a voice of sanity in a public venue -- keep tilting at windmills Mr. M. The country needs you and yours.
p.s. -- I have no problem with ID in schools. I think its a facinating concept, and one that personally I (sort of) ascribe to. It just doesn't belong in science class . . . and it rankles me to no end when its called the "theory" of Intelligent Design. Hell, its not even a hypothesis considering its utterly untestable. Its the exact opposite of a Theory.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.05.2009 @ 20:01
On a related note: On the off chance she's reading this,
Dear Ms. Alanis Morrisette -- in regards to your song "Ironic". Absolutely nothing in your song constitutes irony. "Isn't it ironic, don't you think?" No. No I don't, and neither does Merriam-Webster's or American Heritage.
TENTH AMENDMENT MOVEMENT SURGES FORWARD
Comment #26 was supposed to be directed to manning @ #11
My apologies for not including that in the comment.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 10.05.2009 @ 03:42
It seems like you're saying that the purpose of the 2nd is to allow the people to develop expertise with guns, so that when they get called up or drafted into the military they will be well versed in weapondry.
But the military trains its recruits in how to use weapondry. Assuming there is a draft or a call to arms, they don't just take the gun owners -- they take the gun owners and the non-gun owners alike. If the purpose was to insure that the citizenry are "pre-trained" in the use of guns, then making gun ownership voluntary seems to defeat the purpose.
The Amendment makes perfect sense when you put it in the context of the time: There was no Army/Navy/AirForce/Marines. If the nation needed a military, it summoned the State mititias. They didn't have stockpiles of weapons either, so the guns the militia members owned were the bulk of the ones used to fight wars.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 9.05.2009 @ 18:59
"'Militia' means militia, goddamnit!"
Boy . . . when you say it like that, it sure does sound kooky. Only a real idiot would think militia means militia. I feel so liberated. From now on, I'm going to use 'militia' to mean 'atomic powered pogo stick'. Saint George would be so pleased.
"Here's another expression I question: 'in your own words'. You hear it in classrooms. And courtrooms. They'll say, "Tell us ... in your own words ... ." Do you have your own words? Personally, I'm using the sames ones everybody else has been using. Next time they tell you to say something in your own words, say "Nigflot blorny quando floon".
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 7.05.2009 @ 15:59
George Carlin
Napalm & Silly Putty
@c3:
I'm being dead serious. I'm not aware of Obama being involved in litigation to hide the birth certificate -- if there is a lawsuit, especially if Obama is paying for the legal team, I'd like to learn about it. Locomotive Breath sounds as if he's aware of an actual case, and if there is one that would certainly raise some serious questions (depending on what the details are). I don't like it when things don't make sense, and it doesn't make sense to me to litigate and spend money to keep a document secret when its already been released. That would be extremely suspicious (to say the least) so if there is something going on, I want to know about it. I'm holding a printed copy of Obama's birth certificate in my hand -- looks legit to me, but if there's a reason to think this (not the '07 copy Corsi made a fuss about) is bogus, then I'm all ears.
Since he's asking "pointed questions" he sounds like he's more familiar with the details of this stuff than I am, so I'm trying to get another person's perspective on the matter to hopefully broaden my horizions. If he (or she) knows about the Birther position, then maybe he can answer my question. I'm not giving anybody suspicious looks . . . I'm trying to figure out what the fuss is about. Despite some (IMHO) legitimate factual questions the Truthers raise, I can't get beyond the starting gate with the whole idea because it just doesn't make any sense. I have the same problem when I talk to Birthers, and if L.B. knows something about it then maybe he can help me see whatever it is I'm mising. I have no opinion about whether L.B.'s a Birther or not, but his "pointed questions" suggest he knows more about the theory than I do (or else he's just randomly making things up, which I assume isn't the case).
Trust me, when I'm being flippant I don't think you'll have any problem spotting it. For an example of me being a smart-a$$, see my comment on Rick's next post.
p.s. -- I have no idea what hospital I was born in. I know it was Metheuen, Mass., and its such a small town that there's probably only one in the area (I'm guessing), but I wouldn't think that's information most people have. Has somebody checked hospital birth records in the area and failed to find any record? That would be interesting . . . presuming they had access to all the birth records from all the Honalulu hospitals in service at the time. Again, I'm unaware of the details about this -- that's why I didn't say anything about the hospital question one way or another.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 7.05.2009 @ 16:42
@Locomotive Breath:
How much has Obama paid to lawyers? Its the State of Hawaii that won't release the birth certificate . . . I would think that the State is funding the costs of any legal action.
Is there currently a lawsuit going on with Obama involved (well, his lawyer)?I'm confused because several people have seen and verified the birth certificate. You can get high-resolution scans (complete with the embossed seal and the non-blacked out certificate number) at:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
They've also got a scan of the birth announcement in the period newspaper (discovered by an anti-Obama investigator during the campaign). Factcheck.org tends to play it pretty much as close to neutral as I think a human being can -- they call shenanigans on the Blues as easily as on the Reds.If I'm missing something, please fill me in. I loves me a good conspiracy theory. 99% are hokum, but sometimes you find one that raises your eyebrow. I think the Truthers are chowderheads, but I easily admit that lack of expected plane debris at the Pentagon is . . . odd. Not Truther odd, but odd nonetheless -- and I've never been able to wrap my head around the "magic bullet" theory (or the Deus ex Machina bullet, since caling it "magic" is like calling the Grand Canyon a "divot").
I'm skeptical of the Birthers, but I'm more than open to being converted. You sound like you know more about it than me, so maybe you can answer a question about the conspiracy I've always wondered about -- why Obama? I mean, if the plan is to plant evidence 40 years ago (i.e. the birth announcement in the newspaper) to slip a presumed secret double agent into the White House, why pick a black guy with a Muslim name? Of all the secret agents you could think in 1961 that possibly had a snowball's chance in Hell of actually getting elected President, I can't think of a stereotype that would be more of a longshot (at the time). What's the supposed master strategy, and what about it made looking at the black son of a Muslim made them think this was their shot?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 7.05.2009 @ 11:07
IF REAGAN TOLERATED MODERATES, WHY CAN'T TODAY'S CONSERVATIVES?
@BC:
"McCain is a “pragmatist”. The perfect candidate according to Moran. he got his ass handed to him. Period."
No. McCain the Congressman was a moderate, and is again. McCain the candidate was an entirely different person. I'd have voted for McCain the Congressman. Most of the electorate don't follow the news, or know the voting history of the players. All they saw was McCain the candidate -- and he was about as moderate as his running mate.
"When Palin or Jindhal takes the reins and gives our movement a true leader, then we will win and win big."
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 5.05.2009 @ 13:41
Good luck with that. Jindal, possibly. Palin . . . its gonna be a long time before the people forget how utterly clueless she was during the race. A loooong time. I know several voters that would have voted for McCain over Obama but were terrified that she would be in line for the launch codes. They didn't vote for Obama . . . they voted against Palin.
I know that there are alot of people that really like her, but the precentage that hate her far, far outweigh her support.
Nice post, and I respect your position.
Now as a Boston sports fan . . . *does happy dance*
Seriously, this Bulls/Celts may well go down (at least in my mind) as the best series ever played.
And the Bulls have rebounded tremendously. Having watched the Celtics go from Bird/McCale/Ainge and putting up a banner every other year to "who are these jokers?", their resurgence last year was something beautiful to behold, and the Bulls definitely displayed that "we're back!" magic this year.Here's hoping the Bulls keep on re-establishing themselves next year . . . just so long as they ultimately lose to my boys, of course.
Boston sports loyalty was mandatory in my family, despite consistently failing to deliver. I just wish my dad got to see the Celts, BoSox AND the Pats rising to the top.
(if it makes you feel better, I cant look at a refridgerator without tasting bile rising in my throat . . .)
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 4.05.2009 @ 06:17
