USA Today labeled conservative evangelical Huckabee supporters as "value voters"
SUMMARY: Repeating the myth that social conservatives are the only political constituency that votes its "values," the January 24 USA Today twice referred to voters most inclined to support Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee as "values voters." A front-page graphic claimed "Huckabee: Has drawn evangelicals and 'values voters,' " while an accompanying article noted that "Huckabee's strength is among just those kind of 'values voters' " who are "uncomfortable" with Rudy Giuliani.
In its January 24 edition, USA Today twice referred to voters most inclined to support Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee as "values voters." A front-page graphic claimed "Huckabee: Has drawn evangelicals and 'values voters,' " while Washington bureau chief Susan Page, in an accompanying article, wrote that "many conservative Christians are uncomfortable with [former New York Mayor Rudy] Giuliani's support of abortion rights and his personal life," adding later, "Huckabee's strength is among just those kind of 'values voters.' " As Media Matters for America has documented, media outlets have repeatedly advanced the myth that social conservatives are the only political constituency that votes its "values."
On May 18, 2006, conservative columnist George F. Will criticized the media's use of the term "values voters" to refer to social conservatives in a Washington Post column titled "Who Isn't a 'Values Voter'?" Will wrote that "[t]his phrase diminishes our understanding of politics. It also is arrogant on the part of social conservatives and insulting to everyone else because it implies that only social conservatives vote to advance their values and everyone else votes to ... well, it is unclear what they supposedly think they are doing with their ballots."
From the front page of the January 24 edition of USA Today:
From the January 24 USA Today article:
The coalition Giuliani would put together would be more moderate, more Northern and more suburban than the one that elected and re-elected Bush.
On the other hand, many conservative Christians are uncomfortable with Giuliani's support of abortion rights and his personal life, which includes three marriages and a highly publicized affair. Richard Land, head of the public-policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, says he personally wouldn't vote for Giuliani and predicts his nomination would spark a third-party bid by an anti-abortion candidate who would "get more support than some people think."
That could imperil the GOP's hold on Missouri and other states generally counted as Republican.
- Huckabee's strength is among just those kind of "values voters." They delivered his victory in the Iowa caucuses and his second-place finish in South Carolina. The former Arkansas governor carried evangelicals by 40%-27% over McCain in the Palmetto State, according to surveys of voters as they left polling places, but finished a distant fourth among non-evangelical voters.
He could count on support across the Republican base in the South, and his populist message might resonate with economically pressed voters in the Midwest. His heartland-based coalition would be more rural and more blue-collar than the current GOP.
Critics question whether he could win outside the South, though. He's drawn fire from some economic conservatives. "He simply has no credibility and really no support outside the evangelical movement," says Pat Toomey of the conservative Club for Growth, which aired TV ads in Iowa blasting Huckabee for raising taxes.
Follow the money voters is more accurate.
I don't think this is much of a problem... but the 'odd' misconception that a particular crowd has more values is not correct.
But to be fair to them, we all know value voters only vote on two particular values.. pro Christian and pro life (meaning we can't take the value part so seriously). What they say is accordant to culture.
But maybe it is good to contact USA today.. and put an end to this misconception.
I always thought "Value Voter" was just another synonym for "Jesus Freak"?
Give me a break. 99% of all voters from both sides of the isle vote for candidates and issues that match their "values". It just happens that not everyone has the same “values”.
So am I to believe that the “value voters” values are more validly valuable versus values verifyably viable to my veracious vision of values?
I don’t think so.
(sorry, that took me a while) :)
Huckabee's "values" include
<ul>
<li>teaching intelligent design in schools</li>
<li>amending the Constitution to bring it into accord with "God's standards"</li>
<li>quarantining the HIV-positive</li>
<li>banning abortion at the federal level</li>
</ul>
It's true that Huckabee backers are "values voters." What USA Today left out is that their "values" come straight out of the twelfth century.
"teaching intelligent design in schools"
As opposed to un-intelligent design such as 'big bang'? Where did those 2 huge rocks come from again? Oh, they just 'appeared'. Very intelligent.
"amending the Constitution to bring it into accord with "God's standards" "
Wasn't the constitution originally written with "God's standards" in mind? Such as freedom for all, rights for all, ect...
"quarantining the HIV-positive"
What would you do if a group of people suddenly developed the bubonic plague? What do you do with people with the measles?
"banning abortion at the federal level"
If the federal government isn't allowed to kill the guilty because of the pain and suffering caused during the death procedure, I don't see how the government can be allowed to kill the innocent when it is medically proven that pain is involved during the death procedure.
That's a new one.
Could you please explain your "2 Big Rocks theory"?
Wikipedia is your friend, especially if you don't have the ability to read actual books:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
So far, there is no evidence of an intelligent creator. I'm not saying there wasn't one, just that there is no evidence.
That would place ID in the realm of superstition or religion. I have no problem with ID being part of a religious school's curriculum.
The best scientific evidence points towards a singularity from which the universe started to expand. Cosmologist have built their theories on the fact that The Big Bang Theory is consistent with the laws of general relativity and with the cosmological principle which is that the properties of the universe are independent of ones position or orientation in the universe.
"In 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson accidentally discovered the cosmic background radiation while conducting diagnostic observations using a new microwave receiver owned by Bell Laboratories. Their discovery provided substantial confirmation of the general CMB predictions—the radiation was found to be isotropic and consistent with a blackbody spectrum of about 3 K—and it pitched the balance of opinion in favor of the Big Bang hypothesis. Penzias and Wilson were awarded a Nobel Prize for their discovery."
The above paragraph is from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
So, science has theorized that the known universe began as an infinitely dense point and have been expanding for billions of years. They have observed objects in space growing more distant. They've detected the background radiation from the origin of the expansion.
That is evidence. The evidence had withstood scientific investigation and that's why it's taught in science classes in school. That's what science is. It is observable and there must be some kind of logic to it.
If you have evidence of ID or if that evidence can withstand scientific scrutiny, there's a Nobel Prize in your future.
"If you have evidence of ID or if that evidence can withstand scientific scrutiny, there's a Nobel Prize in your future."
You might as well promise him thirty trillion dollars. It's impossible to test the theory because it relies on supernatural elements. That disqualifies it as science completely.
I'm all for ID as a substitute for creationism, but not for it being portrayed as science.
That is scientific. Would you expect theories to stay exactly the same as we learn more and more? I would hope not.
Science is not one of your strengths.
Is that a convieniant way of saying; 'your guess is as good as mine'? Why don't you answer his question, do you agree science will change as more knowledge is learned? If so, why should I believe it now? Should I wait until you have your 'final answer'? Or, no; all knowledge is known and it should be taught as such?
I wonder how the theory of relativity will change.... or do you mean that one will stay the same, but other scienific knowledge will change?
Then I should have said, he doesn't think either can stand on it's own merit without the other. Does that work better, for you? It's in the same link. Meaning that science alone CANNOT be the complete answer to the question of how the universe began.
So, it boils down to; scientists believe science and Christians believe Christ. When I die and I find out I'm wrong, then, I have not lost anything, because I follow moral teachings and will either go to Heaven or the same place as everyone else. If you are wrong, then we probably won't see you in Heaven. Until then....theories abound!! BTW, what's the defination of theory?
You really have not even the most elemental concept of what a scientific theory, or the scientific method, is, do you? Let me help you out a little bit. A scientific theory is a postulation developed to explain observations and calculations. It starts with a number of observations that cannot yet be explained with any existing theories. A new theory may start as a brainstorm by some scientists, and it is adjusted and built upon by many scientists over time. As more and more observations and calculations fit that framework without exceptions, the theory becomes stronger. In rare cases, the theory is so solid that it can become a law, such as Newton's laws. In no case is a scientific theory entertained by the scientific community if it cannot be supported by the observations at hand, if it cannot be repeated, or if new evidence mounts to discount it.
ID, on the other hand, is the polar opposite of a scientific theory. It states that even though all evidence at hand points to the theory of evolution, it does not fit into the preferred religious mythology and therefore cannot be true. Alternatively, some try to say that even though all evidence points to the theory of evolution, some people just aren't buying it for no good reason. Their argument is, "we don't believe this theory that is supported by all available evidence, therefore we believe this other theory that we made up out of whole cloth that not only has no evidence to support it, there is substantial evidence discounting it and furthermore, there is no way to even gather evidence to support it. So, you better just believe us because we say it is true." That sounds really scientific to me.
As for your argument about Einstein, he was unable in his lifetime to adjust his theory to match all available evidence. His personal belief that it was impossible to do so because of a higher power is decidedly unscientific and rather egotistical. Other scientists have carried on and solved some of the problems he could not.
As for your ideas about theories, I bet you are not willing to go jump out of a window and try to fly. After all, gravity is just a theory.
"The difference between them and you is that they are not so intellectually lazy as to give up on trying to find explanations for our universe"
And your intellectual laziness forbids any possibility of another explanation other than the one that is convientiant to you. My, how nice of you to exclude everyone who doesn't think the way you do from participating in this universe. I may be dumb, but I'm not so dumb as to assume that random chance for the creation of this universe and mankind is the ONLY explanation.
Thanks for proving my point.
If you want to ignore scientific evidence and come up with an unsubstantiated and unprovable theory of your own, that's fine. You are even free to believe what it currently known from science and make up your own religious conclusions to fill in the gaps. Just don't pretend that it is science and keep it out of the classrooms.
Do you really not see the differences there? Because if you don't than you really have not learned a thing from school and even from what the people here have explained to you about the scientific process.
"You are even free to believe what it currently known from science and make up your own religious conclusions to fill in the gaps."
Gaps? Like how the human eye was created and evolved? It has evolved, hasn't it? I have no problem with scientific explanations on how things work, I just don't approve of being told they are the ONLY explanation. Just like you don't like being told religion has ALL the answers.
See, there you go again spoutingsome ID crap you read and don't understand. I never purported to care what you believe, but don't pretend that it is science and don't be so ignorant as to ignore what science has already established.
I know you read that human eye crap from some ID website or book. They think they have a really great point with that eye thing. The problem is that any biologist will show you in 15 different ways why it is total crap. Again, you are free to believe whatever religious stuff you want, but please do a little research before you believe hook, line, and sinker some snake oil salesman trying to sell you some pseudo-science.
They can get away with their con game on unsuspecting people like you because it sounds good and fulfills a conclusion that they want to believe. The human eye is really complex, so it sounds right to someone with no science education that it couldn't have evolved. It works so well because it takes a really long and complicated explanation for a scientists to show how it is wrong.
I have an education in Zoology and could explain how the eye evolved and show examples of redundancy in several eye functions, animals with different levels of eye development, animals that evolved eyes and then lost them again, etc. It would take up a few pages of this thread and you wouldn't be convinced anyway because you have the explanation that you like, regardless of how much scientific evidence there is to the contrary.
"know you read that human eye crap from some ID website or book. They think they have a really great point with that eye thing. The problem is that any biologist will show you in 15 different ways why it is total crap."
You know NOTHING of me!! And you know NOTHING of what I know about eyes!! You lie like a liberal and expect everyone to believe you because you spout what everyone else wants to hear. When you know half of what I know about eyes, you'll still be a zoologist who knows NOTHING about eyes!!
Bring something to the table besides your lies that your are taught to recite. At least answer questions as they are asked and quit the typical 'subject change' whenever you know your answer will show the typical hypocrosy of those who believe like you do. I've given straight answers each time I've been asked to and you've avoided answering every question I ask. Get a life.
Wow Phil, I must have touched a nerve. Go back a read our discussion. I've given you much info, answered all of your questions, and you have never responded to one of my points in a meaningful way.
By the way, please explain to all of us how the human eye did not evolve. That is your argument, is it not? You can show how I am a zoologist who knows nothing about the eye because I'm so stupid as to have looked at all the evidence of its evolution and agreed with all the scientists about how it evolved. Apparently that makes me a moron without the expert ID level of eye knowledge that you have, so please share it with the group.
I attended Catholic schools and was taught the theory of evolution science class. I was taught about the scientific theories concerning the beginning of the universe. I wasn't taught about the seven days of creation in science class.
Are you trying to say that the priests, nuns, Christian Brothers and lay people who taught these subjects weren't Christians? Are you saying that the students and our parents aren't Christians?
You should try to educate yourself on what a Christian is. Not all Christians are Fundamentalists or Evangelicals.
I was taught that to stop seeking truth is to deny my humanity and to blindly accept the bible as the revealed word of God is to reject the greatest achievement of your God.
"Yes, if they are scientific theories then they should stay the same."
I'd love to see one definition of a scientific theory that even suggests that they can't be changed or even thrown out entirely. If you find one, then provide it.
Whether Einstein's theory or relativity has changed or not, it doesn't dictate a single thing about the nature of scientific theories in general.
Phil,
when you spout off about the "two big rocks" and "unintelligent design", do you ever feel a ping of guilt and shame over the fact that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about? Seriously, do you think you are making this great point, or do you realize that you sound like someone who failed 8th grade science class?
This type of opinionated ignorance is the reason why our country is so far behind everybody else in educated citizenry. Thanks, Phil, for helping to drag our country just a little further down into the cesspool of pseudo-scientific idiocy.
"As opposed to un-intelligent design such as 'big bang'? Where did those 2 huge rocks come from again? Oh, they just 'appeared'. Very intelligent."
I think you know that's an overly simplistic way of looking at it.
"Wasn't the constitution originally written with "God's standards" in mind? Such as freedom for all, rights for all, ect..."
What the hell does God have to do with freedom and rights? Why are such concepts not possible on a secular level?
"What would you do if a group of people suddenly developed the bubonic plague? What do you do with people with the measles?"
AIDS isn't airborne or transmittable through handshakes, and that was known when he made his comments.
"If the federal government isn't allowed to kill the guilty because of the pain and suffering caused during the death procedure, I don't see how the government can be allowed to kill the innocent when it is medically proven that pain is involved during the death procedure."
Fetuses aren't people, and they aren't citizens. The argument about "cruel and unusual punishment" doesn't apply.
"I think you know that's an overly simplistic way of looking at it."
No, it's not overly simplistic, it's completely wrong. I mean, there were no rocks, unless you count the super-dense singularity containing all of the matter a "rock." And there was only one. Maybe you could call it the "1 rock theory"?
As opposed to un-intelligent design such as 'big bang'? Where did those 2 huge rocks come from again? Oh, they just 'appeared'. Very intelligent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Two big rocks that is just wierd. If you are going to ask where it came from the same could be asked about GOD. If God could just have existed so could the membranes or substance of the Universe that caused the big bang.
written with "God's standards" in mind? Such as freedom for all, rights for all, ect...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No it didnt only two of the 10 commandments are illegal and some of them are unconstitutional. Moral precepts are not by dint of you claiming them religious principles.
What would you do if a group of people suddenly developed the bubonic plague? What do you do with people with the measles?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The bubonic plague is transmittable by casual contact, through breathing the same air. AIDs is not. Your analogy is flawed.
If the federal government isn't allowed to kill the guilty because of the pain and suffering caused during the death procedure, I don't see how the government can be allowed to kill the innocent when it is medically proven that pain is involved during the death procedure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The government isnt killing anyone with an abortion it is a medical decision and just because you CALL a fetus a baby doesnt make it one. You are welcome to your opinion. We dont think the law ought to be based on your opinion.
"The bubonic plague is transmittable by casual contact, through breathing the same air. AIDs is not. Your analogy is flawed."
Not totally flawed. Science has proven HIV is in ANY bodily fluid. While the 'chances' of getting the disease are rare, the fact remains that the possibility is there.
"The government isnt killing anyone with an abortion it is a medical decision and just because you CALL a fetus a baby doesnt make it one. You are welcome to your opinion. We dont think the law ought to be based on your opinion."
Not a medical decision when the women 'chooses' to have an abortion for non-medical needs. And we don't think the law ought to be based on YOUR opinion, either.
A. Your HIV "possibility" is not true and has never happened.
B. We don't want the law to reflect "our opinion", but rather the basic right for a woman to decide for herself what to do with her own body.
"A. Your HIV "possibility" is not true and has never happened."
And that would explain why athletes are not allowed to continue playing while bleeding? And that would explain why rubber gloves are required for emergency personel? Sure, I'll buy your "never happened" explanation when it NEVER happens!
Do you really believe that contacting the fresh blood of an HIV positive person is considered "Casual contact" and "airborne" transmission that you originally argued? Or did you forget that that was your original criteria?
By the way, environmental blood transmission is a very poor method of transmission for HIV. It lives outside the body for a matter of minutes and a person would have to touch it with a portion of their skin that was cut. Even then, the possiblility of transmission is ridiculously small. And by the way, athletes are not HIV tested, remember that Magic played after he knew he was HIV positive. The only prohibition was for boxers, since there is so much blood involved.
"Do you really believe that contacting the fresh blood of an HIV positive person is considered "Casual contact" and "airborne" transmission that you originally argued?"
How do you know who is HIV positive? It could be anyone. Do you know how many people are HIV positive? Neither does anyone else, because you can be aflicted for years and not know it. So, yes, playing in the back yard and someone gets bloody can be considered 'casual contact'. Again, why do they prohibit sports people from playing while bleeding?
Don't try to backtrack and come up with some asinine definition of what casual contact is. Nobody in their right mind considers touching the exposed blood of someone during backyard fun "casual contact". We all know that casual contact is regular touching, kissing, etc.
And, yes, they sit athletes out who are bleeding as a precaution for many things, but like I said, the chance of transmission that way is infinitely small. Mike Huckabee and your ID preacher may disagree with that, but every medical professional in the world agrees with that assessment.
"It lives outside the body for a matter of minutes and a person would have to touch it with a portion of their skin that was cut."
How do you explain the FACT that blood transfussions can give you HIV? That blood is stored for days, sometimes months before use. AND the HIV lives through it.
"The only prohibition was for boxers, since there is so much blood involved."
You know nothing, why do you continue to act like you do? ALL professional sports prohibit future play while actively bleeding. So, do college sports.
" We all know that casual contact is regular touching, kissing, etc."
That explains why babies get HIV while breast feeding and that explains why dentist give their patients HIV. That explains why anyone is in danger of 'poking' themselves with old needles and getting the disease. Needles that could have been unattended for hours and days/months. The danger is still present. ONLY casual contact? You live in denial. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/transmission.htm
"but like I said, the chance of transmission that way is infinitely small."
No, you never said that. I'm the one who professes the chances are there. YOU said it's impossible, I said there's always a chance. You aren't very good at grasping what is said when I say the chance is there. I don't claim it's an equal chance as having sex, I claim that scientists (all of them) agree that the chance is there, however minimal!
Does your "2 Rocks Theory" allow you to pick and choose which scientific evidence is to be believed?
I expect consistency.
"I expect consistency."
Where, pray tell, am I being inconsistant?? I say I believe the Bible concerning the beginning of the universe, which slightly disagrees with scientists. Is that my inconsistancy? I thought you said you were taught to pursue knowledge or you lose your humanity. Yet you virtually demand that I stop seeking knowledge because your scientists say the universe was created another way. Who's the inconsistant one?
You've lost me. Explain how ID "slightly disagrees" with evolutionary theory?
You've been dancing all over the place for two days now, hinting at what you believe to be true and hinting that science is wrong.
Maybe you just haven't explained exactly what your beliefs are on the origins of the universe and the species.
"Maybe you just haven't explained exactly what your beliefs are on the origins of the universe and the species."
Let me try to clarify my concern about your theory on the creation of the universe. You've used a link that says the universe was created by a "something" that grew and grew and grew. Now, here's my problem with your "theory"... if the universe started at that point, where did that "something" come from in order to expand as it did? Scientists believe (and you think it should be taught in schools) that the universe began while there was already substance in the universe before it began. Something expanded and filled the void of space. In other words, your scientists only count the beginning from the point they can't see beyond. It would be like the beginning to a car race. When the green flag falls...the race begins. Were the cars present before the race began? Scientists say the universe "began" when something expanded, but "something" was already present, so the universe "began" before that.
If you can logically explain why there was something already present at the moment scientists say the universe began, I'll consider believing your story.
Most scientists agree, that they'll probably never know what preceded the singularity, since as of now, they have no way of knowing. Science admits to limitations.
"I'm not saying your wrong"
Of course you're not. Because I am not wrong. So, you question my inconsistancy, which you can't find, either.
Wow Phil, you really did a number on twisting what I said and changing what you said to try and prove your stupid little point.
Your original claim was casual contact and your original statement about athletes was excluding HIV positive athletes. I told you that they do not exclude HIV positive athletes. You then tried to claim that your charge was that they exclude bleeding athletes. You also tried to back away from the casual contact argument and go with the accidental blood contact, nursing babies, and transfusions. Your claim about transfusions to challenge my assertion that environmental blood contact is a near-impossible transmission route is a perfect example of how you know nothing about medicine or science. They don't collect blood from transfusions in uncapped mason jars. The blood does not get exposed to the air. It makes a difference.
Secondly, the very same CDC fact-sheet you linked proves my point that environmental transmission is infinitely low and the dentist you names was the only health care worker known to have EVER spread the disease to his patients in the US. Go back a read your article again, you will see how it says that direct sexual fluid, milk, or blood contact is needed to spread the virus. Gosh, that's what we've been trying to say all along.
"Your original claim was casual contact and your original statement about athletes was excluding HIV positive athletes. ...You then tried to claim that your charge was that they exclude bleeding athletes."
My "original statement"? Why don't you repost it for those who missed it, I can't seem to find a statement where I excluded HIV positive athletes. And while you're at it, find the statement where I changed my assertion about bleeding athletes.
"You also tried to back away from the casual contact argument and go with the accidental blood contact, nursing babies, and transfusions."
It is YOU who 'focused' the arguement on the 'meaning' of casual. I gave an example which is an accepted 'casual contact' situation, but you refused to accept it. That isn't MY problem.
"Your claim about transfusions to challenge my assertion that environmental blood contact is a near-impossible transmission route is a perfect example of how you know nothing about medicine or science."
YOU are the one who claimed non-sexual contact transmission has "never" happened:
"A. Your HIV "possibility" is not true and has never happened." jawill11 / Saturday January 26, 2008 6:01:19 PM EST
"and the dentist you names was the only health care worker known to have EVER spread the disease to his patients in the US."
So, you will change your assertion from "never" to "possibility"? Like I have stated all along, the possibility is there. I stand by what I said, can you?
"Go back a read your article again, you will see how it says that direct sexual fluid, milk, or blood contact is needed to spread the virus. Gosh, that's what we've been trying to say all along."
That's exactly WHY I used that article, because it says EVERY bodily fluid has the disease to some extent. And, if you go back and read the article again, you will find it says transmission is possible, but unlikey from any of the body fluids. It says that transmission is most likely through the methods you listed. It does NOT say ONLY those methods. Which is what I've been saying all along.
The government isnt killing anyone with an abortion it is a medical decision and just because you CALL a fetus a baby doesnt make it one. You are welcome to your opinion. We dont think the law ought to be based on your opinion.
That is exactly what you are doing Solon. Just because YOU say a fetus is not a baby does not make it so. The evidence from the medical community supports the belief that it is a baby. You know, things like a heart beat, brain waves, ability to feel pain, and living outside the mothers body. The law should not be based on your views. This is where the term Value Voter comes from.
1- the big bang theory is primarily a theory about the universe from 10^-35 seconds forward; there is still much debate about what was true before 10^-35 seconds. nowhere in the theory does it attempt to explain why something exists rather than nothing. however, if you want me to believe an unknowable being created the universe in an unknowable way, sorry, that adds exactly zero information to the situation.
2- freedom and equality are sensible proscriptions for how to maximize human welfare whether one believes in one of the countless number of "true" religions or not. i could go on addressing your claim regarding the origin of the constitution, but won't because that would require more effort than i want to make.
3- huckabee made his claims regarding AIDS well after it was known that it was exceedingly difficult to transmit HIV by casual contact. you, like huckabee, may think it is worthwhile to banish 10s of millions from society on the infintesimal chance that they will unknowingly spread the disease to someone else. i don't.
4- fetal "experience" of pain is not broadly accepted by the scientific community. most studies indicate that while pain receptors are up and running by around week 9, the thalamocortical connections thought necessary for the sentient experience of pain are not established until appox. the 28th week. so, while the fetus may withdraw from a pin prick at week 12, this response is mediated by local structures only and does not involve the brain at all (much like human walking is mostly controlled by the lower spinal cord or how a chicken can run around for awhile after its head is cut off). in any case, a 12 week old fetus may well be less sentient than an adult cow, whom i bet you have little sympathy for as you devour the flesh wrought from its slaughtered corpse.
"the big bang theory is primarily a theory about the universe from 10^-35 seconds forward; there is still much debate about what was true before 10^-35 seconds."
But, you expect me to believe the 'on going' debate about truth before the truth is known about something that was present before it was 'really' present. That makes even more sense.
"you, like huckabee, may think it is worthwhile to banish 10s of millions from society on the infintesimal chance that they will unknowingly spread the disease to someone else."
If it had been done, there wouldn't be "10s of millions" that have the disease. Thanks for proving my point about how contagious it is.
" fetal "experience" of pain is not broadly accepted by the scientific community. most studies indicate that while pain receptors are up and running by around week 9,.... "
Beyond that you have no clue as to whether they feel pain or not. How is that different than the "suspected" pain the condemned feel after being put under? Again, you have no clue. Guessing is all you got, yet command that as fact. BTW, what is "not broadly accepted"? Does that mean 10% or 90% don't agree with each other?
I don't think you've done anything other than add "your opinion" to this question. And, like mine ... it is ONLY opinion. No facts to support your theories, just guessing.
The gay/Craig is still too fresh, on going, maybe past its sell by date regardless.
The Shrub Values Voters?
this list goes on.
Don't forget USA Today is written for 5th graders so of course they have to pander to their target audience. I just surprised they don't provide a lollypop with the paper.
Man, you're on a roll in this thread. You're now claiming that Bill Clinton serially raped and murdered people? I'm sure you have some real convincing evidence of that. Did it come free with the premium subscription to Sean Hannity's website?
You tell me where the lie is. Wayne Dumond is a serial rapist and murderer. You compared him to Bill Clinton.
Or, were you just saying that Bill Clinton is a rapist? Please explain your position so I can better understand it.
"You tell me where the lie is. Wayne Dumond is a serial rapist and murderer. You compared him to Bill Clinton."
"You're now claiming that Bill Clinton serially raped and murdered people? jawill11 / Sunday January 27, 2008 11:48:55 AM EST"
There's your lie. I did not say Slick Willey murdered people and I did not compare him to Dumond. I made a statement reflecting my opinion of Bill's sexual transgressions and you said I claimed Bill murdered people.
BTW, did you ever find my "original statement about athletes was excluding HIV positive athletes."? Still haven't found it yet?
Then who the hell were you comparing him to? Huckabee? I don't remember Clinton pardoning a serial rapist to appease some partisan whackos against the desperate pleas of his many victims.
As for the HIV, I apologize about the athletes comment. I misread your original comment. I thought you said they excluded athletes that were HIV positive. However, HIV is not the only reason why they exclude bleeding athletes.
And, you did bring up the casual contact statement, and you appear to be operating off of a different definition of casual contact than the medical community. Your original statement also mentioned that HIV is present in any body fluid and could be transmitted in that way. That was the origin of my "impossible" statement, which was confirmed by the CDC document you linked. HIV is present in tears, saliva, and mucus in such small amounts that it is not possible to transmit that way, it has never been replicated in studies, and has never been shown to have ever been transmitted that way in real life.
"Then who the hell were you comparing him to?"
I wasn't 'comparing' him to anyone. His sexual exploitations stand on their own merit. There is no comparison to the disgrace Clinton brought to the presidency through his moral ineptness. But, like I said, that is simply my opinion.
How about Huckabee sucking up to the racist voting block in South Carolina regarding the Confederate flag?
Read Hitchens column on it. Huckabee is very, very scary.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
While the "values candidates" Bush/Chaney ended up with greed and power as the only values they are interested in, since they saw fit to threaten the tax exemption of those churches that would support Democratic candidates over those whom would only vote along 'right to life' Republican issues, can we now admit that values as Christ would have thought of them have nothing to do with the Republican agenda?
I say the Congress should settle the standards of religious tax exemption once and for all. If a church wants to participate in politics, good as far as I'm concerned. I say they should be required to make public with the federal government their finances entirely, and if they finance a political campaign they should have their own tax bracket for it. If they provide parallel services to the poor as in food banks, housing, and medical care they should be credited against their new tax rate.
If a church chooses to practice their religion, and yet not participate in the political process, they would stil need to prove they provide charitable services vital to the community to maintain their tax exemption.
I have a hard time listening to evangelicals explain how a country preacher becomes a billionaire while never paying a penny of taxes and running for President, financing politicians, and appearing on national television espousing policy, like Pat Robertson. This is neither Christianity, nor democratic politics.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
that was actually one of the few columns dr. will has written in the past few years that i agreed with. however, having given it some thought, i believe the truth is even worse: what the media is really saying is that only those voting for such as huckabee have values at all, the rest of us are completely empty vessels. this is even more arrogant.
time and again, these people have proven they have "values", unfortunately it turns out that they're "sopranos' family values".
C.S. Lewis, the atheist and Oxford/Cambridge professor of mythology and ancient literature, read the New Testament at the request of J.R.R. Tolkien. Immediately, the myth expert Lewis determined something was wrong. If the information several different authors presented in the NT was fiction, it was presented in a literary style known as "the realistic fantasy" a myth type which had not been invented yet and would not be until the 2nd millenia. This was the small, yet undeniable "Dan Petrocelli bloody footprint" Lewis needed for absolute faith. He became a Christian.
I just have one thing to add to the evolution/ID debate.
This.
It's Kirk Cameron's Banana Theory everybody!
WTF did that clown mean by ease of entry anyway?
I know where he can stick his banana.