The three front-runners did fine - but three others don't believe in evolution!
And now to the Republican debate on MSNBC last night, for which I want to give the same kind of performance analysis as I did for the Democratic debate last week - that is, how presidentially the candidates presented themselves, as distinct from whether or not I agree with their positions.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Dave Nalle
Did Thomas Jefferson look presidential? We don't even know, because TV didn't exist then.
Actually, by all accounts Jefferson was a horrible slob who didn't brush his hair and greeted dignitaries who visited him in the White House in his bathrobe and slippers.
Dave
27 - Dave Nalle
Mormons are Christians
I think that's a pretty debatable point. Certainly most mainstream Christian churches wouldn't agree. They may be part of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but having a second revelation pretty much makes them non-Christian.
Dave
28 - Ludwig Von Mises
I really do hope that the deluded and soporific GOP actually end up nominating someone like McCain, Romney, or Giuliani, who will instantly come unravelled (the debate was only the preview) under even cursory scrutiny of their policies or their ideas of needed action on what's really important to most Americans.
That leaves......oh, wait, there seem to be no Republicans presenting any alternative to their usual politics of fear, Reagan-era necrophilia, Bush lite, Christian hysteria, or jingoistic warmongering? Remind us again of why these clueless and elitist idiots deserve to win office again? Can you do it without resorting to these same tired and asinine campaigning tropes?
I thought not. F*** off, Republican dinosaurs, you're standing in the way of reason, intellect, democracy, and the American people. Collect your door prize on the way out, and hope that you don't get indicted in the meantime. Ask Attorney General Gonzales for lessons on how to lie shamelessly should you inconveniently need to testify under oath.
29 - elpablo
Speaking of jingoistic, what does "soporific" mean?
Have you considered Ron Paul?
30 - Paul Levinson
Dr. Dreadful wrote: Seriously, Arch, you need to chill. Take a few days off. Go to Hawaii or something. Oh, wait - Hawaii - blue state - never mind...
A few days? He should banned permanently.
And just to be clear: I'm not saying that the government should step in and prevent him from saying what he says.
But I think a public political discussion, as we're having here, should insist that posters exercise a minimum level of civility.
And I would have the same view of someone who talked that way about Elizabeth Dole or any Republican woman.
31 - Strabo
THREE OF THEM CAME IN A TIME MACHINE FROM THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.
Just amazing that three politicians aspiring to the presidency don't believe in the scientific fundament of modern biology. When they are sick they go to church or take their antibiotics?
If any of those wins we'll be deserving an invasion of Iranian mullahs, becasue will be just like them.
32 - Dave Nalle
Remind us again of why these clueless and elitist idiots deserve to win office again?
Because the alternative is a socialist state where our rights are history, we'll be taxed into peonage and the Constitution will be torn into little shreds?
Based on your nom de blog I'd have expected a bit more sense from you, Ludwig.
33 - troll
Dace - but for Paul's participation what candidate did you see who would step away from our already socialist state in any meaningful way - ?
seemed to me that they all think that the role of government is to 'plan' and 'steer'
34 - troll
(Dave that is)
35 - Dr Dreadful
Because the alternative is a socialist state where our rights are history, we'll be taxed into peonage and the Constitution will be torn into little shreds?
Is this based on your past experience of the United States under Democratic administrations, Dave, or are you just scaremongering?
You know perfectly well that this will not happen.
36 - Paul Levinson
But it is nonetheless true that under a succession of Democratic and Republican administrations and Congresses, our Constitution has been repeatedly ignored and trampled ... we haven't had a Declaration of War since WWII, the FCC and Congress routinely restrict broadcasting notwithstanding the First Amendment, etc., etc.
This is a crucial issue that should be of concern to both major parties, and while I'm very glad that Ron Paul is raising these issues, I don't find it very encouraging that no one else is.
37 - David Quijano
A lot less people believe in evolution than you (someone who posted but I cant find it now)assume. To the moron that said not believing in evolution makes us the laughing stock of the world...I presume you mean Europe and Australia. Or maybe you aren't familiar with the beliefs of other people around the world.
Earth to moron liberals: just because you think it, doesn't make it a worldwide consensus. Some of you people are extraordinarily retarded.
38 - NH4RonPaul
SO WHAT? Many of the questions were not about Republican values or platform, but contentious and irrelevant.
Ron Paul won hands down on what it means to be a real republican and is not controlled by the same people who control Clinton/Bush.
Neither evolution nor creationism can be 'proven' so it's just an opinion and not definitive. Again a very contentious question and Matthews sucked as a moderator.
39 - Arch Conservative
I should be banned for calling Hillary Clitnon a cunt?
Nice to know you leftists really do beleive in free speech. I don't calls for anyone who called Bush Hitler to be banned.
I know why you looney leftists are so mad today. It has nothing to do with evolution or religion. It has to do with the fact taht you are finally realizing that your party is going to nominate Hillary no matter what and that she does not have a chnace at beating either Romney or Guiliani. So you're angry and you feel the need to make some bogus claims like all the rupublicans in last night's debate said they don't believe in evolution or that they're all religious fundamentalists.
I'd be pretty fucking mad too if my party was internt on nominating a candidate who nearly one half of the American public can't stand and wouldn't vote for under any conditions.
As for you Ludwig von dipstick....it's your party that had better get out of the fucking way. The American people don't want your leftist ideology or murdering babies in the name of choice, raising taxes and spending and government entitlements, the enabling of illegal and coddling of illegal aliens, the blame america first attitude, the un ass kissing, the racist racial demagoguery, and the culture of moral relativity.
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man with no convictions."
George Bush sucks as a president. I think that's pretty obvious. However Romney and Guiliani are not George Bush. I'm not going to place nice with you leftists as you try to advance your perverse, degenerate agenda on our nation. So to people like David Dawson, Paul Levinson, and Ludwig von shithead, I was around here long before you moonbats and will be around here long after you have gone and if you don't like what I have to say too you...too fucking bad!I will remind you every day from now until Mitt Romney's inauguration just how much I despise you and everything you stand for!
40 - Dr Dreadful
I should be banned for calling Hillary Clitnon a cunt?
That's not your only offense. You've been pretty obnoxious these last couple of days. If you get banned, it won't be for your opinions but for the base way you express them (for Blogcritics' position on personal attacks, see comments policy). If I walked into your church or your Mom's house and started effing and blinding, you'd want me thrown out too.
I know why you looney leftists are so mad today.
You're the one that sounds mad, Arch. What exactly has happened to piss you off so badly? Can't be Hillary, or any of the other Democrats, since you are so convinced none of them will ever be elected.
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man with no convictions."
Fine. Then it is my conviction that ignorant Neanderthal behavior such as yours should not be tolerated.
41 - Arch Conservative
"(for Blogcritics' position on personal attacks, see comments policy)."
Dreadful...... do you have any idea the number of times I have been called names or had personal attacks directed at me and not only was the person not banned but nor did I call for them to be like Mr. Paul "thought police" Levinson.
You're the one that sounds mad, Arch."
I'm not mad. I'm excited...very very excited....because I know that after last night Mitt Romney's campaign is only going to get stronger nad better and if it's not Romney for the GOP then it's Guiliani and there is no way that Hillary will beat either of them. SOo I am excited and happy.
"Then it is my conviction that ignorant Neanderthal behavior such as yours should not be tolerated."
I'm ignorant? I'm not the one calling for people to be banned.I'm not the one making shit up and saying the top three GOP candidates somehow said that they do not believe in science.
Let me just make this crystal clear for you Dreadful. I HATE leftists and everything they satand for and want to do in this nation. I'm not just throwing that word out there casually. Hate. I really mean it when I say it. I have a very passionate, consuming hatred for all leftists and their bullshit beliefes. So I ask you...what would you consider an exceptable manner of expressing this hatred when posting on this site?
42 - RogerMDillon
"your party is going to nominate Hillary no matter what and that she does not have a chnace at beating either Romney or Guiliani."
Weren't you the same guy who predicted the Repubs would hold both houses in '06? Anybody guaranteeing what's going to happen this far out knows very little about politics.
43 - Dr Dreadful
Hatred is unhealthy, Arch. You say you're not mad, but I think it's clear to any rational person on here that you have some anger management issues.
I've no problem with you disagreeing with other posters on this site but seriously... Calm. The Fuck. Down.
So in answer to your question: I'd prefer you not to hate but if you have to, at least express it in a civil tone, as you were doing a few days ago when your language was still strongly opinionated but didn't come out of the toilet.
44 - Clavos
I'm uncomfortable with all these calls for banning simply for language coming from people who presumably have enough of an interest in politics and political ideas to be posting and commenting here in the politics section of BC.
Sure sounds totalitarian and undemocratic to me...
45 - Dr Dreadful
"Simply for language..."
Since all we have on this blog is words, what else would somebody get banned for?
Besides which, I never said Arch should be banned. I only pointed out that bearing in mind Blogcritics' policy on personal attacks, he shouldn't be surprised if that happens to him.
We do all enjoy posting and commenting on politics here. Although the recent antics of Arch (who doesn't seem to be enjoying himself much) kind of dampen that for some of the rest of us.
46 - Arch Conservative
Since all we have on this blog is words, what else would somebody get banned for?
Hmmm........Since nobody asked I'll tell you the only two things that would warrant a banning if I were in charge:
1. Someone who made threats against another poster and/or posted personal information regarding other's identities, address, phone number etc....would be banned immediately
2. Anyone who posted nonsense such as name calling or vulgar language without also offering something substantive and germaine to the origianl topic or responses would be banned
First of all...in every single one of my posts is some discussion pertaining to a political/social issue. It's not as if I get on here and do nothing but call others names for the sake of calling them names.
Second... the reason I may sometimes be so aggressive and combative is because I do love this country so much and nothing turns my stomache more than the idea that the far left will ultimately succeed in their goal of turning this nation into another boring, restrictive, socialist shithole. That is not what America was intended to be and I do not believe it is what the majority of Americans wnat us to become.
I'm sorry but when I see American liberals getting more upset over what happened at Abu Gharib than they do over what happened on 911 it makes me extremely angry.
When I see liberals so vehemently arguing for the right to such a barbaric, fatal and uneccessary procedure such as partial birth abortion.... it makes me angry.
When I see both Democrats and Republicans pretending there's no problem with illegal aliens because they are afraid of losing votes it makes me angry.
When I see liberals calling all conservatives racists and then giving their own leaders a pass on their racist behavior it makes me angry.
When I see the ACLu singling out christianity for attack through their warped interpretation of the first amendment it makes me angry.
And for those of you who think I am complete partisan i might also add.
When I see George Bush spending money like liberal democrat it makes me angry.
When I see Bush refusing to admit that Iraq is a lost cause and at least begin to think of a plan to extracate ourselves from the situatiion it makes me angry.
When I see Bush and his cronies destroying the party of the greatest president his nation has ever known, the gipper, I makes me very angry.
When I see fred Phelps protesting at the funerals of dead soldiers and saying god hates a military that allows homosexuals it makes me angry.
And yes I have been a little hyped up since last night's debate. This is because I know that the despite the Dems intetntion to run Hillary, the American people will never willingly put her into the oval office. That's how it is. Hillary is NEVER going to be president. One need only two eyes and ears and a somewhat objective point of view to realize this. I'm not alone. Many democrats can see it as well. So that leaves the GOP candidates and based on last night's debate it's going to be Mitt Romney.
47 - josbyah
Hey Paulie Levine, The way they understood and answered the question of Evolution was they do not believe species evolved between other species, which their is no evidence whatsoever to even point that way, as fat as birds on Easter Island evolving and loosing their wings and evolving I am sure they believe that, but not a butterfly evolving into a horse,or a fish into a man. perhaps a bit over simplified but you get the jist!
48 - Christopher Rose
Arch: You are welcome to champion any political views you care to espouse. You are NOT welcome to keep insulting other people that you disagree with.
If I see one more occurrence of you doing that, I am going to ask the bosses how they feel about your persistent crass vulgarity and rudeness.
I hope in that scenario they will see that you are incapable of behaving with a basic level of civility and will have to be banned. I also hope you won't force the issue but the matter is in your own hands. For the moment...
49 - RJ
"Christianity is strange enough but a conjunction to Christianity which involves Jesus in North America, gold discs and a chosen people in AMERICA is just taking things beyond the bizarre."
Yes, it's all wacky compared to the Zulu's love of animism...
50 - RJ
"People should learn to distinguish between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, and make that distinction when asking such questions."
Thank you.
Micro-evolution is proven. Macro-evolution is unproven, but I believe the available evidence supports it. And if some people disagree with that conclusion (as millions of Americans do), that is their right.
51 - RJ
"by all accounts Jefferson was a horrible slob who didn't brush his hair and greeted dignitaries who visited him in the White House in his bathrobe and slippers."
And he owned slaves. Might have fucked a few, as well. But he was still a smart guy, and a solid President.
The MSM have made Presidential campaigns about prepared speeches and canned debate responses and personal appearance. And that's why bottom-feeding scum like John Edwards has a shot at the White House...
52 - RJ
"Arch Conservative" attacks PUBLIC FIGURES using vile language. That, I believe, is a fundamental RIGHT that all free persons enjoy.
Surely, many on the Left here have attacked Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld (and others) in a similar fashion. You know, Bush is a chimp, Bush is a NAZI, Bush is a retard, Bush is Hitler, etc.
None of this is in violation of the comments policy. The comments policy, as I understand it, bans personal attacks against other posters, not public figures.
So, deal with it.
53 - RJ
"Hatred is unhealthy, Arch."
Tell that to the anti-Bush Left...
54 - Christopher Rose
RJ: if that's all Arch was doing, there wouldn't be that much of an issue. Please note that I haven't banned him, or indeed anybody else, even though I could...
55 - STM
"Yes, it's all wacky compared to the Zulu's love of animism..."
The worship of beer. Welcome to Australia. Mass is twice daily, for an extended period.
56 - Zedd
Clavos
You should read the exploits of the wealthy or the upper class. You are right, money is not the issue or the defining factor. Actually a lot of the upper class (old, old, money) are not all that wealthy any longer but they maintain the affiliations and habits as best as they can. In Europe a lot of the gentry are not sitting on a lot of wealth. Many have to have tours to their family homes (castles) in order to afford their up keep.
Looking at what's taken place in the British royal family we would still conclude that there is a distorted image of what is admirable about that class. They get pretty yucky and trashy. In some cases more creepy than most of us. They just have the means to cover it up. Look at Renier's family in Monaco. The prince has an illegitimate Black Baby and Stephanie has been a mess for years.
GW is just one among multitudes of Ares(es) in this class. The son's of Zeus(es) who just don't measure up and will never be the man that their father was mainly because of a more spoiled up bringing. Funny enough Aries is the God of war. I don't want to get over annalytical on this but....
57 - Doug Hunter
"Is this based on your past experience of the United States under Democratic administrations, Dave, or are you just scaremongering?"
Scaremongering goes both ways. We're not exactly headed towards a theocracy as some propagandists on the left would have us believe either.
58 - Paul Levinson
NH4RonPaul wrote: Neither evolution nor creationism can be 'proven' so it's just an opinion and not definitive.
Completely wrong. Evolution is backed up by a huge amount of evidence - such as carbon-14 dated fossils.
I doubt Ron Paul, an MD, would agree with you.
59 - Paul Levinson
ArchConserv wrote: Mr. Paul "thought police" Levinson
If you bothered to read, you'd notice that neither I nor Dr. Dreadful said anything whatsoecver about what you think.
What's at issue is your language.
Aside from being gratuitiously and viciously insulting - in this case, to women - it's an also an indication of how little you really have to say.
60 - Paul Levinson
Arch Conservative wrote: "Tolerance is the virtue of the man with no convictions."
Sad. Tolerance is actually the virtue of human beings who value rational discourse, whatever their views.
61 - Paul Levinson
Clavos wrote: I'm uncomfortable with all these calls for banning simply for language coming from people who presumably have enough of an interest in politics and political ideas to be posting and commenting here in the politics section of BC.
Sure sounds totalitarian and undemocratic to me...
No, totalitarian and undemocratic means it's against the law to speak a certain way.
RJ wrote: "Arch Conservative" attacks PUBLIC FIGURES using vile language. That, I believe, is a fundamental RIGHT that all free persons enjoy.
That's 100% correct. So, has anyone said that the government should take away AC's right to say what he pleases?
62 - RogerMDillon
"Arch Conservative" attacks PUBLIC FIGURES using vile language.
You're either a liar or ill-informed. Check AC's act over at "Police Fire on Journalists and May Day Rally demonstrators"
To the author he wrote, "Oh give me a break you whiny little bitch!" which even according to you is a personal attack.
So, deal with it.
63 - Paul Levinson
RJ wrote: And if some people disagree with that conclusion [about evolution] (as millions of Americans do), that is their right.
Who said that people don't have a right to believe whatever they choose to believe?
I was writing about the absurdity of a Senator, a Governor, and a Representative - all running from President - not believing in evolution.
64 - Clavos
No, totalitarian and undemocratic means it's against the law to speak a certain way.
Fair enough.
Change my response to:
It's not in keeping with the site policy to ban commenters for foul language.
65 - troll
Paul says to the Con - *What's at issue is your language.
Aside from being gratuitiously and viciously insulting - in this case, to women - it's an also an indication of how little you really have to say.*
Paul - do you really find his comments so empty or is this just your own frustration talking - ?
how does one deal with people who actually believe that tolerance is a vice - ?
although I reject much of his position I think that his intense emotion and strident partisan stance represent a significant portion of the 'right' making him a true vox populi
so what if he's a 'shock jock' - ?
rave on I say - the nature of his rant carries lots of meaning
(but Con - you know as well as I do that under the rules of this 'kinder and gentler' comment section you owe David Dawson an apology for calling him 'riff raff')
66 - Clavos
Interestingly, colleges and universities traditionally have been oases of wide-open and freewheeling tolerance--until recently.
And Paul (a professor) says:
Tolerance is actually the virtue of human beings who value rational discourse, whatever their views.
Yet, he and DD want to limit Arch's freedom to express himself here.
Who's next?
Go figure...
67 - Paul Levinson
Clavos wrote: Yet, he [Levinson] and DD want to limit Arch's freedom to express himself here.
Yes, indeed I do - I want to limit Arch's freedom to be verbally abusive to women. Again, I'm not saying he should be forbidden by law to write the way he does. But, yes, abuse to genders, races, and class of people has no place in civilized discourse.
So, right, I'm a Professor and absolutist regarding the First Amendment, and I believe in complete tolerance for communication under the law - but not necessarily in someone's magazine or forum, in which the editors have every right to establish groundrules.
68 - Paul Levinson
josbyah wrote: Hey Paulie Levine, The way they understood and answered the question of Evolution was they do not believe species evolved between other species, which their is no evidence whatsoever to even point that way, as fat as birds on Easter Island evolving and loosing their wings and evolving I am sure they believe that, but not a butterfly evolving into a horse,or a fish into a man. perhaps a bit over simplified but you get the jist!
I do get that distinction - but it's been two days since the debate, and if that's what Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo think, why haven't they publicly said so?
(Even that interpretation, by the way, goes contrary to a lot of scientific evidence - for example, we have a lot of DNA in common with butterfies, etc...)
69 - Paul Levinson
troll wrote: how does one deal with people who actually believe that tolerance is a vice - ?
You tolerate them. Legally, you tolerate their communication 100%.
But in a publication or a forum, editors are entitled to make decisions about limits.
70 - Dave Nalle
The fact that Brownback, Huckabee and Tancredo are religious nuts was well established before this debate. All three of them have said way crazier things than denying evolution during their political careers. Hell, Huckabee thinks god talked to him and told him to run for president.
Dave
71 - Arch Conservative
Paul...where did this "Arch is abusive to women" crap come from?
I called one woman, Hillary Clinton, a cunt, which she most certainly is and I'm sure millions of other Americans would agree. Beyomd that I ahven't said anything that could be construed by any reasonable person as being abusive to women.
"Sad. Tolerance is actually the virtue of human beings who value rational discourse, whatever their views."
So should I tolerate pedophilia so that we may have rational discourse on the matter Paul? How about beastiality? Necrophilia? Should I tolerate parents who give thier children illegal drugs for recreational use? Would you most likely agree with my views on all of these issues and not demand tolerance Paul and if so why, if tolerande is the mark of a reasonable person.
Who gets to say what others must tolerate and what they are allowed ot be intolerant of Paul? You?
Another thing... I don't feel as if my free speech is being attacked if I were to be banned from this site. Being allowed to post on this site is a privelage and not a right and I respect that. the site was created by indivduals who set certain parameters for the site. I don't think my use of the f word violates those parameters as I understand them but maybe the things I say which might contitue a personal attack do. however I do think Mr. Rose and certain commentors are a little too thin skinned and quick to call for bannings.
So as long as attacks are not directed personally at other bc posters everything is ok? If someone else refers to war-mongering republican neo cons amd I in the right to refer to socialist, scumbag leftists as a group as long as I don't single out another BC poster by name?
72 - Clavos
Paul says:
So, right, I'm a Professor and absolutist regarding the First Amendment, and I believe in complete tolerance for communication under the law - but not necessarily in someone's magazine or forum, in which the editors have every right to establish groundrules.
Indeed they do, but you don't.
And what you're objecting to isn't proscribed.
73 - Arch Conservative
What he was objecting to, me demeaning all women in my posts, not only isn't in the BC policy but it never even happened Clavos.
74 - Dr Dreadful
You just have to have the last word, don't you, Arch?
TOLERANCE... defined in my dictionary as "disposition to be patient and fair; freedom from bigotry." Not the same thing at all as allowing anti-social or criminal behavior.
Let's distinguish: pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia have victims, and few would argue that it is unfair not to tolerate such behaviors. Allowing organizations like NAMBLA or the Westboro Baptist Church to express their views publicly, however offensive, is tolerant.
(Interestingly - and I'm not sure if you brought him up on this or another thread - did you know that Fred Phelps is a registered Democrat?)
75 - Dr Dreadful
#55:
STM (or Stan, as I believe you're referred to as in the real world):
Don't start mentioning Aussie beer, mate. I could just do with a James Squire right about now. Unfortunately the nearest one's about 8000 miles away. :-(