The W
Views: 97619209
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.7.14 2120
The W - Current Events & Politics - A quick thought about one party rule (Page 2)
This thread has 7 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.79
Pages: Prev 1 2
(292 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (28 total)
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 52 min.
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.30
The typical CRZ rips your post a part post, because you brought out points against his original post. I'm tired and bored to really respond to this, so you win, because your board and you'll just ban me anyway.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 22 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.01
    Originally posted by lotjx
    The typical CRZ rips your post a part post, because you brought out points against his original post. I'm tired and bored to really respond to this, so you win, because your board and you'll just ban me anyway.
Name one time I've done this.

EDIT: Now that you've raised my suspicions, care to come out and tell us if you've been here before under a previous username?

(edited by CRZ on 26.10.08 2152)


Karlos the Jackal
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: The City of Subdued Excitement

Since last post: 172 days
Last activity: 2 days
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.00
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    There is nothing wrong with your statement or social Darwinism per se but it often opens a very dangerous door either to the eugenics wackos or those vehemently opposed to your thoughts.
Are you saying that simply looking at how Darwinian theory might affect society starts a slippery slope toward Social Darwinism and eugenics, et al? I don't think I agree with that. (And perhaps this should go to PM...?)

Nevertheless, if you're uncomfortable with any examination of societal reasons, here's another theory: perhaps the "homosexuality genes" are a combination of genes which individually are beneficial to reproduction but in combination cause homosexuality. I dunno if that's the case, of course; I'm just saying that it's not a black/white "either you choose to be gay OR evolution doesn't exist, pick one" kind of deal.

ON TOPIC. I agree that Palin is likely underestimated. She's obviously driven and probably a quick study, there's just too much for her to absorb in too short a time, and she hasn't learned how to artfully deflect questions that she doesn't know the answer to. If I had to make a prediction, though, it'd be that she's going to end up with a TV deal, rather than running the Republican Party.

--K



Last 5 movies seen: "O" ** - The Visitor ***1/2 - Forgetting Sarah Marshall *** - Leatherheads *** - Cult of the Cobra **
Alex
Bratwurst








Since: 24.2.02

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.36
Oh my god she would make a wonderful Fox News pundit/anchor. And by "wonderful" I mean "thank god I don't watch Fox News"
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 8 hours
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.85
    Originally posted by Karlos the Jackal
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      There is nothing wrong with your statement or social Darwinism per se but it often opens a very dangerous door either to the eugenics wackos or those vehemently opposed to your thoughts.
    Are you saying that simply looking at how Darwinian theory might affect society starts a slippery slope toward Social Darwinism and eugenics, et al? I don't think I agree with that. (And perhaps this should go to PM...?)

    Nevertheless, if you're uncomfortable with any examination of societal reasons, here's another theory: perhaps the "homosexuality genes" are a combination of genes which individually are beneficial to reproduction but in combination cause homosexuality. I dunno if that's the case, of course; I'm just saying that it's not a black/white "either you choose to be gay OR evolution doesn't exist, pick one" kind of deal.

    ON TOPIC. I agree that Palin is likely underestimated. She's obviously driven and probably a quick study, there's just too much for her to absorb in too short a time, and she hasn't learned how to artfully deflect questions that she doesn't know the answer to. If I had to make a prediction, though, it'd be that she's going to end up with a TV deal, rather than running the Republican Party.

    --K


I am sorry if I didn't make myself clear. i have no problem with what you said. In fact I pretty much agree. I am not uncomfortable but quite the opposite. These are fascinating areas to explore and discuss. And if you have read many of my posts, you will know I am a big proponent of shades of gray because little is black and white that is worth discussing.

Re your on topic statement and Zed's comment. A lot of us who have problems with her don't underestimate her. We simply get a feeling she really has no deep thought behind what she believes and no desire to delve deeply into the ramifications of what she says. The problem isn't that she hasn't learned to deflect but that there is little she has a really good to.



Perception is reality
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 1 day
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.02
    Originally posted by Karlos the Jackal

      Nevertheless, if you're uncomfortable with any examination of societal reasons, here's another theory: perhaps the "homosexuality genes" are a combination of genes which individually are beneficial to reproduction but in combination cause homosexuality. I dunno if that's the case, of course; I'm just saying that it's not a black/white "either you choose to be gay OR evolution doesn't exist, pick one" kind of deal.

      --K


    As a matter of fact, there is a new study out which suggests precisely that.

    http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12465295
MUTigermask
Boudin rouge








Since: 8.10.03
From: Columbia MO

Since last post: 383 days
Last activity: 238 days
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.09
    Originally posted by CRZ
    There are a lot of people underestimating Sarah Palin - some of them even post here - but I don't think we need to automatically pencil her into the nomination for 2012 just yet. I feel uneasy enough just talking about 2009-10. ;-)


Personally, I think she's gearing up for a run in 2012(barring a huge McCain comeback). I think her chances depend on who else would run. If someone like Huckabee runs I think that would split the social conservative vote and allow for a more moderate fiscal Republican to win the nomination. Then again it could be someone totally unexpected. Who knows where the Republican party will be come 2012.

(edited by MUTigermask on 27.10.08 0841)
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 360 days
Last activity: 320 days
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.78
    Originally posted by CRZ
    "Fear and tyranny?" Where are YOU living?

Sounds perfectly logical to me. TheBucsFan's post is a good example of the executive branch's tyranny (tyranny-arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority); if that's not good enough substitute warrantless wiretaps, illegally holding people at Guantanamo, Cheney's claims that the vice president isn't part of the executive branch, and those are just after thinking about it for 30 seconds.
And I personally think that the administration has sought to gain from people's fears. We've gone from "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" to "We don't know if it's going to be tomorrow or next week or next year. It's not a matter of if, but when." (Dick Cheney, 2002). Combine that with the persistent Republican talking point that Democrats (a GOP fundraising letter went out (2006) warning that the Dem's would put national security "on the back burner," and that "our worst fears" could be realized."), and it sure seems to me that the current administration was fomenting fear for the purpose of removing civil liberties.
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread rated: 5.79
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread ahead: Wassup 2008
Next thread: Iraq aside, little separates Obama, McCain on use of military force
Previous thread: Bush To Congress: "Hey guys, I'm going to ignore the law."
(292 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
What is, say, some wrestling promoter came and wanted to but the site from you, but they'd delete half the posts and start censoring the place more then you guys already do... but you'd be getting a shit load of cash for the place.
The W - Current Events & Politics - A quick thought about one party rule (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.107 seconds.