John Prezioso

quote: This constant whining about universally dem-sympathetic medias is just BS. About what I'd expect from a completely unobjective liberal. The bias does not bother you because it HELPS your side - that doesn't mean it's not there; you are simply okay with it. Tell me that Dan Rather and Peter Jennings and all of these other liberal crusaders who sprang out of our hoplessly liberal collegic institutions didn't and don't now push their own version of the news. I need a good laugh. The worst thing an aspiring journalist can do is say to him/herself " I'm going to make a difference!" Excuse me, but you are not supposed to make a difference. An objective journalist is virtually invisible; they make NO difference to the facts of the story. Instead, our TV and print media is replete with leftist activists who want to build a legacy by putting their spin on truth, all the while advancing their own agenda and not caring one whit that the truth is reported objectively. I've got an idea - how about you journalists quit deciding for us night after night and day after day which are the important stories and which will be swept under the carpet, as in their ridiculous over-inflation of the Rove/Plame non-story and complete avoidance of Able Danger. How about you stop giving your Democrat media darlings a pass and then turning around and slamming those hated Republicans for doing the exact same things, often to a lesser extent. Tell me this does not happen. Please. I really do need a good laugh.

quote: Except for that little thing called the Civil War where half the country wanted to secede.Don't you dare turn this into a North vs. South Thread - I'm a Bronx native Yankee living in Memphis, TN. If you get the rednecks all fired up, I'm probably their first target!

Well said, Silk.

You can support Chechen independence and be against terrorism, Nomad. You don't always seem to make a distinction. The end does NOT always justify the means. There are the right ways to go about fighting oppression, and there are ways that make you WORSE than the oppressors. Terrorism's evil dwarfs the plight of the Chechens, and only weakens their otherwise just cause. And a terrorist's life is worth nothing. It ceased having any value the instant the decision was made that it was necessary to deliberately slaughter innocents to achieve a political goal.

Oh, there IS question. The Dems are media darlings. EVERYTHING is spun to make them look good and the Republicans look bad. It doesn't help that the Republicans have been making there job so easy, but the bias is so obvious you have you lean your head to the left just to watch the news. The only people who adeny the obvious media bias are the ones who benefit from it. Lost is exactly right.

Wow - you must have really gotten Nomad angry! Remember guys, keep it respectful!

Forgive my ignorance - what is the red "snip" in Nomad's post?

I wouldn't worry too much about the 'militant religious'. All of them use cell phones, drive cars with 'Onstar' and gps mapping systems, take advantage of the most advanced medical care available, use state of the art PC's, fly in airplanes, etc. The only group who could really rail against science without being hypocritical would be the Menonites and the Ahmish. The vast majority of religous people happily avail themselves of all of science's great advancements like my family does.

That is awesome Strategic Commander!

Be that as it may, I think it's a little early to herald the New Dark Ages. There's more to it than that of course, as you didn't quite properly represent the latest movement of ID supporters to be viewed as legitimate, but as I've stated before, I don't really care if it's taught in school or not. My kids are home- schooled, and it's taught in theirs!

Interesting article. 2 points - 1) I don't think being against stem cell research is 'anti-science' - it is more of an objection to a reason to encourage abortion. The stance on the issue by most Americans as far as I can tell is that stem cell research is okay as long as it is limited to existing stem cell lines. 2) I find the pursuit of the legitimization of intelligent design by certain people is more of hope for validation through scientific recognition, thus it is actually embracing science and looking for its approval. Whether it actually possible for science to accept ID has been discussed at length already, but the point is, ID is not so much a fear or a dismissal of science as it is recognition of its importance.

I know you'll take it as bias, seeing as how I am a capitalist myself, but, I'll say it anyway. I performed as objective a study of economic models as I could manage given my limited experience, and could find almost no positives in the socialist model. Not that I'm an economic expert or anything. But truly the socialist model seems destined to stagnate or even collapse under its own weight. How can a society excel without competition? What is the incentive to even try to excel? Why should the people who do nothing enjoy the fruits of the labors of those who work hard? I'm not attacking Canada - barring some recent tasteless comments from her leaders, she has always been a fine neighbor and trading partner. I just can't understand how a country's citizens could allow themselves to be held down and exploited by Socialism. What is your take on it, Aperson?

It might be just 'playing to our emotions', but the article struck a serious chord with me. These are some of the things that truly concern me about this country.

quote: Or maybe in your innocence you believe that they discussed football and later played backgammon ? That's just funny. Now I'm "innocent". Don't you mean gullible? Because I am not immediately suspicious of something sinister every time a meeting takes place and am not made privy to everything that was discussed or decided? Try this one on for size - I DON'T CARE! I am not on the government "need to know" list, I can assure you. You are awfully fond of pointing out how much energy we( the U.S.) as a nation consume. Is this a sore spot with you or something? There's a fine line between healthy skepticism and paranoia - are you sure you haven't passed it?

Jag - Believe me, science does not scare me at all. It fascinates me to no end. I LOVE science. If science contradicts something I believe as a person of faith, well, so what? Neither is perfect, so SOMEONE has to be wrong. The basic tenets of fundamental Christianity are certain to me, and, if anything, my scientific background only solidifies my religious beliefs. Let me reiterate: I believe God is 'perfect'; however, it is clear to me our understanding of Him, and our religions, are not. Religion is a man-made vehicle that is just as fallible as anything else. I DO understand that. I'm okay with the fact that you don't consider ID to be a valid scientific issue. A lot, maybe even most, scientists agree with you. But there are some that do not, and while I agree that science and religion are completely different, I find ID to be a curious overlap, nothing more.

Nomad - your ENTIRE posts imply simple-mindedness on the part of 'fools' who beleieve in religion. Gullibility, irrationality, etc, etc,. If I was to cite examples, I'd just cut and paste your last 3 posts in their entirety. Honestly, are you really not just trying to justify why you are not religious? There is no need, I can assure you. I do not judge another man that way; you should know that by now. You continually put down the religious for their illogical lack of requirements of proof. What you absolutely and steadfastly refuse to see is that people of faith PUT THEIR TRUST in something bigger then they are; something awesome and powerful that causes them to be humble. Trusting in something does not lend itself to meticulously questioning EVERY minute detail. If you are incapable or unwilling to do that, that is your perogative. That science and religion are different IS inheritantly obvious. Intelligent design, however, is every bit as much as a legitimate theory as utter random chaos. Should it be taught in schools? Probably not. In my opinion, there is plenty of evidence to support it, and it cannot be outright disproven, but it is far to controversial and offensive to some people, and school is an institution of learning, not a forum for endless debate. You love to say "What I find amusing..." and go on to belittle the stance of the religious - you DO realize this is condescending? It has a nasty ring of elitism to it. In other words, you are not willing to consider the 'what or the 'why' of someone else's point of view; it only exists for your derisive amusement. The point is, maybe you are not QUALIFIED to discuss this matter objectively, much like a jury who already has its collective mind made up before entering the courtroom is not qualified to hear a case. To finish, I think it is almost time to bow out of this conversation as it is going in circles. (I WILL read your answer if you write one, though, so as not to be rude. ) quote: Prez: Jeesh, its like your implying the Easter Bunny dosn't exsit or something. Just in case you thought I missed that, Aperson, I didn't. Good one!

Nice sidestep of the original point, my friend. You are a mirror image of biased and suspicious liberals of this country. What do you care if he doesn't want to divulge the content of his private meeting with the enrergy corporations? I don't really care.

Nomad: No offense, but that is a stupid and senseless litmus test anyway. This thread was supposed to be about the 'theory' of intelligent design, not thinly veiled attempts to label relious people as silly and simple-minded. Just come out and say it: people of faith are brainwashed illogical beings and can't really be taken seriously. It won't hurt my feelings - I've heard it countless times before. And anything I say can be conveniently dismissed by the 'enlightened intellectuals' such as yourself as being the opinion of someone gullible and irrational. "Oh yeah, like I'm going to listen to you - you're the guy who believes in the God and the Easter Bunny!" Really, your predujice is quite plain. But don't worry, I take no offense to it. If I did, I would walk around being constantly offended.

Yep, we did. So why are YOU so interested, HMMMMMM? You are extraordinarily cynical, Nomad. Your implication is that one is automatically a greedy crook if ANYTHING they do in any way benefits an industry one is involved with. You are welcome to your opinion, but due to your vast suspicion and negative assumption (for Republican's anyway... your hero Bill Clinton never gets a mention in anything but reverence. Funny, that...), I don't consider your view objective at all.

C'mon Silk - let's be honest. Bush is not the only president to ignore alternate forms of energy. Was Reagan in oil? What about Carter? Clinton? Bush was not the only one. Oh and this is just perfect, given the thread title: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173683,00.html

That would be an excellent pick. The question is, would she be willing to allow the vicious and hypocritical liberal phonies to desecrate and defame her good name, much the way they did to Justice Thomas? The more I thought about how Meiers of all people got selected, I started to think, "What if she was the not the first one asked, only the first to accept the nomination?" I mean, would YOU put YOUR family through that crap? For any job? For some, the process probably just isn't worth it.

As most here probably already know, I'm a conservative, but I didn't really find the comment inappropriate; I actually thought it was kind of funny. However, my dear liberal friend, don't mistake "open-mindedness" with "weak-mindedness"! Congrats Jag.

Your challenge is cake. I know of 3 personally. My best friend in the military, born into a religiously devoid family, changed with no prodding from me, unless you count him simply being aware of my faith, which I don't. I NEVER push my faith on anyone else. Your "sociological patterns" do not speak to the individual spiritual experiences that any one of us can have throughout our lives that can potentially cause us to embrace some form of faith. Take my case for example. My parents were devout Catholics, and I wanted nothing to do with any of it. The more they preached at me, the more anti-religious I became. Well before my 'rebellious years', I decided religion was invented solely to crimp my fun and that I would never shackle myself with something so illogical. Years later, well after I was out of my family's influence, my wife and I, both completely non-practicing and indifferent to faith up to that point, met, fell in love, and almost simultaneously embraced a life of faith, and we were married and now have two great kids. Do I fit into one of your "sociological patterns"? Do you have some socio-scientific model that I so conveniently fit snuggly into and neatly explains my situation in a logical fashion? Wait, don't answer that... you probably do.

If religion depends on the teachings and strict guidance of others, how pray tell did religion originate in the first place? I go to church with many young men and women whose parents and spouses are either non-practicing, agnostic, or atheist. People who come from no religious background whatsoever find religion ALL OF THE TIME. The claim that religion is solely a family-centric fabrication like Santa and the tooth fairy is completely bogus.

Well, I'm with you then, because I believe evolution is a viable scientific theory as well. My theory is that intelligent design AND evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive. What if mankind, and indeed all life, were designed to evolve? Just a thought. As far as liberal and hellbound, I'll go on record and vouche for you ANYWHERE that you are neither.