Today on Blogcritics
Home » The First Republican Presidential Debate: Three Of Them Don’t Believe In Evolution!

The First Republican Presidential Debate: Three Of Them Don’t Believe In Evolution!

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

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.

Except — I just have to say — did you see that three Republicans raised their hands to signify that they did not believe in evolution? And, once again, the camera did not move in close enough. From what I could see, it wasn’t Giuliani or McCain and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t Romney at the other end. But three others Republican candidates did raise their hands. (They have been identified as Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo.) The mind boggles – I thought for a second I was watching The Tudors, except then it would have been more entertaining…

As for the rest of the debate: the three front-runners — Giuliani, McCain, and Romney (currently in the descending order in the polls) — did fine. There were no real upsets there. Giuliani could have been a little more dynamic, and perhaps lost a bit of ground to McCain. Mitt Romney certainly looked and sounded the best, in terms of the Democratic JFK standard. But if I had to pick a winner, I’d say McCain by a hair over Giuliani, with Romney very impressive.

I’ve often indicated my admiration for the constitutionality of Ron Paul, and it was a pleasure to hear him talk about the need for declarations of war tonight, and the importance he places on freedom of expression. But he’s not a dynamic speaker, and I think the best we can hope for regarding Dr. Paul is that whoever is next President of the United States appoint Ron Paul to some important cabinet position where he can remind us, more effectively than as Congressman, of the need for our government to adhere to the Constitution.

And a last point about the media, and in particular its presentation of this debate: although I like Chris Matthews as an interviewer on his MSNBC Hardball show, I was annoyed with the way he cut off so many of the candidates’ answers. The American people would have been better served by a debate that ran a few minutes longer, in which every candidate was allowed to have a little more say.

Powered by

About Paul Levinson

  • troll

    although the pundits might Perot him Paul got my donation…I hope that he can keep the Constitution at the center of the Republican debate

  • Arch Conservative

    Mccain the winner?

    Put down the crack pipe Paul.

    Rudy stumbled amd bumbled his way through the entire debate while Mccain acted like a madman trying to convince us all of why he isn’t really just a Bush lackey when we all know that’s what he is.

    Mitt Romney was clearly head and shoulders above everyone else in the debate. He was the most articulate, the most well informed, the most knowledgable and he appeared to be all around more presidential and ready for primetime than all the other candidates combined.

    I am now more confident than ever that Mitt Romney will be our next president. He is not George Bush and has so much more to offer than Hillary.

    The issue of his mormonism will be nothing but a speed bump on his way to the oval office. I fully expect to see Romney overtake that loon Mccain in the polls over the next several weeks and pull close to Rudy.

    It’s been almost 20 years since the American people have had a true leader in the White House that they could be proud of but we won’t have to wait much longer.

    Please sit back and fasten your seatbelts. Make sure your trays are in the upright position. The Romney Reveolution is about to begin.

    Vive le Romney!

  • David Dawson

    Romney is scary! He’s AGAINST stem-cell research, and he attacked “cloning”!!!

    Cloning does not mean “copying a human” it’s simply “somatic cell nuclear transfer” – which is the heart of copying DNA. He, like most repuklicans, fails to understand science, so he rejects it.

    What’s ironic & pathetic is that these wackjobs constantly benefit from all the inventions of science, such as heart transplants, skin grafts, and new medications, while they deny the science behind such inventions.

    They question EVOLUTION (or deny it) while they accept the MUCH WEAKER “Gravitational Theory”.

    For any right-wingers out there who deny evolution.. Try denying gravity too (which is only a theory), preferably from the roof of a 20-story building.

  • Tim

    I can’t believe this wasn’t the headline on all the major reports!

    These religious wackos make our country a laughingstock.

    Nice to find your blog.

  • Samson LeGuera

    Why would you play the same annoying game as the MSM, asking which candidate was “most presidential”? (This was Keith Olbermann’s first question too.) What does this even mean? Can’t voters decide who they want to be president? What the media (and bloggers) can and should do is draw out the distinctions between candidates on policy, substance, and accuracy. Ask what the country might look like with this person as president. In this case, I want to know who the libertarians are, who is getting money from which sources, and what these guys have done in their previous roles. Most presidential? What an empty concept. Are you judging ties, sport coats, and haircuts?

  • NBq

    Evolution is not a REAL thing. It’s not like the Earth is covered with evidence of it or anything like that.

    As far as gravity is concerned, I have my doubts. No apple has EVER fallen on my head!

    Oh ya, can you please loosen the straps a little? They’re starting to cut off circulation around my neck.

  • http://adreamersholiday.blogspot.com Lee Richards

    I’m not so sure Romney’s Mormonism will be a non-issue.

    There is no religious test for office, and there should not be. However, it is a fair question to consider if and how a candidate’s faith and beliefs may affect his/her attitudes, efforts, policies and performance.

    Why is it any different for a Mormon than a Baptist, Methodist, etc.? Well, for one thing, Mormons themselves claim to be different in a number of ways.

    Wouldn’t there be some questions or concerns about a Muslim candidate for president? Would an avowed atheist or Wiccan get a pass from any scrutiny on grounds of religious freedom?

    Fair or not, Romney may have some convincing to do about his religion.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    Paul,

    Nice review. I couldn’t believe the three, either.

    Good point about Chris Matthews’ interruptions; especially on a cable channel like MSNBC, the schedule should be flexible enough to allow for extra time.

  • Arch Conervative

    Romney is scary!

    Yes he is scary. To leftst riff raff such as yourself. He’s scary because he’s such an articulate, intelligient, capable republican who clearly has an extremely good shot at winning the white house. Romney never claimed in last night’s debate nor any other time to not believe in evolution.

    You know what’s really scary Mr. Dawson? The prospect of a liberal Democrat getting elected so that they may raise taxes, increase spending, enable and coddle ilegals, make it more easier to murder millions of babies a year, subject our soverignty and security to the UN, criminalize Christianity, ruin the healthcare system by attempting to socialize it, perpetuate a ridiculous culture of politically correct speech, and otherwise adavnce their far leftist ideology that is not what the American people want.

    Mitt Romney is a forced to be reckoned with and all of you doubting motherfuckers and scumbag leftists had better get used to him. He is easily the equal of, if not the superior to any and all in the crop of moonbats that the Dems have offered us for 2008 in intelligence, charisma, ledership ability, vision and integrity.

    Mitt Romney is not George Bush nor has he been a George Bush lackey over the past several years in the way that John Mccain has and all attempts at painting him as one by the American left will ultimately fail. Nor is Romney the type of man who prostheletizes or converts. This is why he will not be to encumbered by his Mormonsim. The more the American public gets to know Mitt, the more they will see he is a decent family man with mainstream American values who just happens to be a Mormon.

    It’s going to be fun watching the left fail miserably as they try to tear down this great man while trying to build up that commie, corrupt deceiftful, dishonest, lying, evil, cunt, Hillary that close to one half of the nation already hates.

    Our next president is either going to be Mitt Romney or Rudy Guilani and that’s all there is to it. Any of you leftists fucks that have a problem with that can fuck off. It’s reality. Deal with it!

  • Zedd

    Paul

    Great review.

    You may be right about McCain. However I think its just hard to get over what seems to be his Faustian compromise with Rove and Co. I just can’t get passed that. I acknowledge that its a personal problem. Also his weird stance on the war makes him more slimier than Hillary. He’ll do and say anything to be President. Perhaps the fact that I liked him so much last time makes me dislike him so much more this time, since he has become his own antithesis.

    Yes the evolution thing was just scary and sort of funny. The idiocy of it all was and still is worth a few chuckles. I’m surprised the question of the world’s flatness didn’t come up. Romney’s strong candidacy suggests a decline in all of our intelligence. Okay 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. All that stated in sobriety with all of us seriously considering this candidate because of freedom of religion adds to the surreal nature of the times. I’ve stopped asking “Is it just me?”. It all just too much.

    Letting Bush into the Whitehouse is going to make it permissible for ANYBODY to come into office because they will sound like an improvement to him, our Decider.

  • Zedd

    Paul

    Actually I think that it is Bush’s presidency that has allowed us to seriously consider a woman or a minority male for President. Suddenly the mystique of the upper crust, White, Anglo Saxon, protestant has faded. Along with Paris Hilton revealing to us the results of her “to the manor born”, upbringing and education. We now roll our eyes (as a society) to Thurston Howell the third and see him to be a fraud replacing his “above it all” smugness with GW’s Beavis and Bthead’s cackle in our collective mental reference library.

    Why not a Black guy or a woman, heck even a falandering jerk and a guy who believes that Jesus came to America, and dark skin is a curse. ….. Why not.

  • Gary Varnum

    This wasn’t a “debate”, but at least it gave us a chance to see some of our Republican options. It just increased my hopes that Fred Thompson will soon announce his candidacy.

    Romney was slick enough to be a politician, or a car salesman. He performed well and outshined McCain and Guliani. He may be our next “great communicator”, as voters tend to love flash and style. I won’t base my full opinion on him based on just one appearance, and he’s piqued my interest enough to find out more about his politics. So I think he was the overall “winner” of last night’s event, as it probably made a lot of viewers curious about him.

    The “Do you believe in evolution?” question posed as a simple yes or no was a load of crap. Like asking,”Does your mother know you’re gay?”. People should learn to distinguish between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, and make that distinction when asking such questions.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    Along with Paris Hilton revealing to us the results of her “to the manor born”, upbringing and education.

    Paris Hilton was born rich, but mere wealth does not make one “to the manor born,” in fact wealth isn’t even necessary.

    Paris (and her father and grandfather) are nouveau riche peasants; Paris herself proves that.

    They are not even on the radar of families like the Cabots, Lodges, and Vanderbilts.

  • Zedd

    Clavos

    I know the history of the Hiltons.

    Paris is 3rd generation rich. She is no longer nouveau riche, at least in America. Yes her grand father was and her dad but they have been entrenched in the lifestyle of the wealthy for several generations and shouldn’t be so ostentatious as the nouveau. Perhaps her mother may have influenced her class identity. If you look her father you see Biff with his navy blazers, oxford shirts and khaki pants.

    The current prototype of the nouveau riche are the athletes with their bright colored suites and diamonds. The same would be true for hip hop artists. Elvis was a poster boy for that phenomenon with Graceland and all of the other garish purchases that he was known for.

  • Gloria

    I don’t believe the president has to “look presidential.”

    Did Thomas Jefferson look presidential? We don’t even know, because TV didn’t exist then. Franklin Roosevelt or Abe Lincoln wouldn’t be elected today because they wouldn’t be handsome enough. That should have no bearing.

    I would love for Ron Paul to be president, but I’d love it also if he had a good cabinet appointment.

    I don’t see why Romney’s Mormonism is an issue? Mormons are Christians, so it is not the same as a Muslim or an atheist. People were opposed to JFK because he was Catholic. People change their ideas over time.

  • Arch Conservative

    To me, looking presidential doesn’t mean they have nice hair or a nice smile. it means they look like they have their shit together and would make a very good leader. It means the candidate is knowledgable on a wide variety of issues and can speak to them intelligiently and with a clear vision. It means that they are prepared to take this country int he right direction fiscally, culturally and as a member of the global community.

    That’s what “looking presidential” means and the way in which I use it, is I believe, a valid charactrization.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    I know she’s third generation rich, Zedd, I said so.

    Rich doesn’t make you “to the manor born” as you put it. That phrase involves MUCH more than mere money. You don’t even have to be rich to be “to the manor born,” but most are.

    I’m talking about breeding, which the Hiltons have never had. Old man Conrad was a self made poor boy who got rich; one of his sons, Nicky (Paris’ great uncle) made a complete ass of himself when he was young (before you were born). His only claim to fame (besides his misbehavior) was to be one of Elizabeth Taylor’s husbands – there’s an accomplishment!

    Paris’ grandfather, Barron DID run the chain and succeeded fairly well. Her father, Richard is a real estate agent. Paris is obviously cut from the same pattern as her playboy great uncle; no class.

    “Nouveau riche” refers to a lot more than how long you’ve had your money; some families never outgrow it. In four generations, the Hiltons haven’t.

  • http://www.antigamer.com PENIX

    Science and religion can live in harmony, which is why it’s surprising they don’t believe in evolution at all.

  • Dr Dreadful

    “leftist riff raff”…

    “doubting motherfuckers and scumbag leftists”…

    “crop of moonbats”…

    “that commie, corrupt deceitful, dishonest, lying, evil, cunt, Hillary”…

    Arch seems to have gone off his meds.

    He’s been all right for a while (though opinionated as always), then in the last couple of days he’s taken to lacing his comments with this kind of crap. What do they say about people resorting to insults when they’re losing an argument…?

    Seriously, Arch, you need to chill. Take a few days off. Go to Hawaii or something. Oh, wait – Hawaii – blue state – never mind…

  • elpablo

    “Our next president is either going to be Mitt Romney or Rudy Guilani and that’s all there is to it. Any of you leftists fucks that have a problem with that can fuck off. It’s reality. Deal with it!”

    Damn strait! I totally agree with this poster. I’m voting for either the Mormon Scientologist, or the guy who likes wearing a dress.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    Mormon Scientologist

    ?????????

  • Dr Dreadful

    Mormon Scientologist…

    Now that would be an interesting combo…

    Is Mitt Romney the bastard offspring of Tom Cruise and Marie Osmond? :-)

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com 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

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com 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

  • 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.

  • elpablo

    Speaking of jingoistic, what does “soporific” mean?

    Have you considered Ron Paul?

  • 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.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com 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.

  • 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’

  • troll

    (Dave that is)

  • 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.

  • http://conservativebastion.com 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.

  • 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.

  • 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!

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos 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…

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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!

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com 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…

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com 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…

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com 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…

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Hatred is unhealthy, Arch.”

    Tell that to the anti-Bush Left…

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com 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…

  • 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.

  • 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….

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos 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.

  • 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’)

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos 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…

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com 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

  • 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?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos 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.

  • 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.

  • 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?)

  • 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. :-(

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Arch: You are far too sure of your own sense of what is right and wrong, so much so that it actually blinds you to the facts.

    I haven’t called for you or anybody else to be banned, as I clearly indicated in comment #48 above.

    You’re so busy condemning the collectivist action typical of socialism without ever considering what socialism actually is. Perhaps you could define it for us so we know exactly what it is that you dislike?

    You appear to suggest that only rightist politics are ever correct and those on the left have never produced a single useful or positive policy ever.

    If so, then you are surely no different from any kind of religious extremist, Christian, Jewish or Muslim, that insists that there view of the world is the only possible “right” way. That is bigotry, plain and simple.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Oh yes, you also don’t seem to understand the difference between tolerance of other people’s points of view, as opposed to criminal activity.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Finally, Arch, calling Hilary Clinton a cunt is not acceptable within the terms of a political debate.

    It also does undermine women in general as, instead of dealing with this person’s political views, you try to reduce her to a part of her anatomy.

    By belittling her in that way, you also appear to be saying that it is indeed okay to refer to women that way, which does indeed demean all women.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Clavos: I believe you are mistaken. The relevant parts of the comments policy say:-

    Please think of the comments as a conversation between individuals and interact with civility.

    We will edit/delete… unsupported accusations, personal attacks of any kind, and terms offensive to groups when used in a pejorative manner.

    In addition, we reserve the right to edit/delete comments that are some combination of pointlessly vulgar, vile, cruel, without redeeming qualities, and an embarrassment to the site.

    Subjective? Yes, but we know them when we see them and so do you.

    We will also ban repeat or particularly egregious offenders.

    …Thanks for your help and understanding.

    So those specific parts of Archie’s remarks are entirely outside of the comments policy and it is only because I am being tolerant that they have not been deleted or he banned.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    Apparently I am mistaken, Christopher. It isn’t the first time, nor will it be the last..

    Funny, never in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine I would wind up agreeing with Shark…

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    It’s always been my understanding of the comments policy and the law in general that no attack against a public figure can be considered ‘personal’, so calling Clavos a name would be a no-no, but calling Hillary Clinton or George Bush one would be excusable – it certainly has been overlooked plenty in the past. That may not be the way CR interprets the policy, but it certainly should be.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    I agree, Dave, but CR holds the power of enforcement and of interpretation, making the point moot, apparently.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Tell you what, Clavos, go start your own blog and I’ll come over there and be really irritating. Then you can have the fun of deciding what you want to do…

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    As in all things, Dave’s understanding is both partial and inaccurate.

    Should either of you have any practical points to make, the right place to direct them is to the site owners and, in particular, Eric Olsen, who drafted the policy in the first place. I consider that highly unlikely…

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Chris, we’re not objecting to the policy. But the policy as written and your enforcement of it are not always in sync. The policy certainly doesn’t say anything about public figures being sacrosanct. Not a big deal as you generally do a fine job at work which is inherently thankless.

    dave

  • Zedd

    Clavos / Dave

    Does your political “wanna be(ness)” preclude you from having common sense. Simply because Hillary was the person who the deplorable term was attributed to, you become JR members of the ACLU.

    Doesn’t your pride prevent you from being so obvious? Let go of the partisanship. It is how the elite control you (us). Its meaningless.

    Doesn’t the FACT that the Republicans had power and there was no change, accept decline in all of the areas that they said they would stand for, tell you that its just a power grab. I would suggest that you strive to allow reason to dictate your ideas as opposed to some silly political doctrine which was made up by some guy (who is just like you).

  • bliffle

    #55 β€” May 5, 2007 @ 06:37AM β€” STM

    The worship of beer. Welcome to Australia. Mass is twice daily, for an extended period.”

    Sounds like a deity that even I could worship. Think I’ll move to Hobart. But wait! What about wine? No Dionysian eden is complete without wine! Do I really have to endure the 30 hour flight to Sud Ouest or Val du Loire to replenish my wine component? Will I be arrested if the blood level in my booze-stream gets too high?

    Please tell me there are better wines in OwstrIlia than the Lindemans at the grocery store! And at prices like the $5 Cahors, Beaunes, Corbieres, etc., I was buying in Saumur last week. I bought a Pommard for $10!

    Ah, Saumur! Is there a provincial capital anywhere so beautiful, mild of climate, inexpensive and pleasant to idle in?

  • troll

    Paul – would you raise hell if I called Cheney a dick – ?

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Zedd, comment #96 is moronic, because I apply the same standard to free speech regardless of who the target of the insult might be. Since your comment is nonsensical and baseless it amounts to the equivalent of a personal attack on me. But I don’t care.

    So I’ll respond to Paul who at least makes some sense in a kind of fascist way.


    I and several others objected to use a term that is grossly insulting to a gender. (And I called for the banning of the person who used that term.)

    Firmly declaring yourself as an opponent of free speech.

    You really don’t see a difference between even the most caustic criticism of a public figure, and criticism that uses language that insults 50% of the world’s population?

    I see the difference, but I don’t care. I think it’s good that Archie shows the world that he’s a sexist, partisan idiot. It’s not like his comments do anyone any real harm.

    As for the ‘contrast’ between the Edwards insult and the Clinton insult, all I see is a difference of degree. The Clinton insult was ruder. I don’t see how it applies to anyone beyond the person it was specifically addressed to.

    As for the use of the word in question, take a stroll over to the Duke de Mondo’s site sometime.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    Sigh.

    It’s a good fight, Dave, but you’re not going to get any further than the conservative kids do on most “university” campuses these days — we’re not PC, dude.

    And Chris, the only way I start my own blog is for money (up front). If that happens, you’re welcome to come over and say whatever you want to.

  • Zedd

    Clavos / Dave

    You cant be serious. This is your cause? On these boards you two rarely stand for anything in particular other than supporting the shadows of your ideology. The ONE time that you actually stand for something is THIS????

    Clavos I don’t consider you to be disingenuous in any way. I often regard your statements to be a parroting of ideas. You come across as a romantic and a person who is sold on the world being a certain way and feel as if the more you say it, the more it will be.

    Dave, I do believe to be disingenuous. It seems as if you want to create your world, one that you know doesn’t exist by convincing others that it does. Your statements are often intended to be manipulative and obviously so to people who are perceptive, imo. However it seems that in this case you have taken on a real cause.

    With that being said, I am still amazed that you both have made this none issue to be your Alamo. Sigh indeed Clavos.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    Thanks for the pop psychoanalysis, Zedd!

    Does the Texas Board of Medical Examiners know you’re practicing without a license, and interstate to boot?

  • rivernet

    I’m loving it. Any time the neocon nuts start attacking each other, that has to be a good thing for America, freedom, the world, and all living things. I hope Romney does get the nomination. The Christian neo-nuts will stay home on election day, especially after we remind them Mormons think their underware is magic, and the economic deep thinkers, (haha) who managed to wade through Milton Freedman, won’t have enough horse power to put another nut case in the White House, not even with the devoted help of the Aryan Nation folks. I’m loving it.

  • Zedd

    Clavos

    Your welcome. Anytime!!

  • STM

    Bliffle, the place is awash in cheap, high-quality locally grown wines. Hundreds of labels and NOT the Lindemans – no one drinks that here. There is a wine glut at the moment, and good bottles are cheap. I reckon they are better than French wines, and come in a lot more variety than Californian wines.

    My wife drinks a good-quality Pino Grigio that costs between A$12-15 a bottle (about US$9-$12). But there are good cheaper ones.

    Beer is still the drink of choice among blokes, though.

  • Arch Conservative

    Paul…your selective outrage at liberals being slandered but not conservatives is all too transparent.

    Hillary deserves every awful name people want to call her. [Personal attack deleted]

    Rivernet… when faced with Romney who happens to be a mormon, or hillary who happens to be a far left, power hungry, maniacal, tax raising, baby killing, talking like a god dman amos and andy show because she thinks it will somehoow resonate with black voters, self absorbed shill of a human being they will have no problem voting for Romany. Trust me on that one sparky. All of the deluded leftist moonbats are in for a shock come November 2008 if they insist on nominating that carpetbagging joke.

    HOw anyone believes this woman will ever be president is byond me. I’m having non-stop laughs watching the moonbats talk about it.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    It’s a good fight, Dave, but you’re not going to get any further than the conservative kids do on most “university” campuses these days — we’re not PC, dude.

    At least on the university campuses they have their 10×10 ‘free speech zone’ hidden in some parking lot behidn the student union.

    You cant be serious. This is your cause? On these boards you two rarely stand for anything in particular other than supporting the shadows of your ideology. The ONE time that you actually stand for something is THIS????

    Free expression IS my ideology, Zedd.

    Dave, I do believe to be disingenuous. It seems as if you want to create your world, one that you know doesn’t exist by convincing others that it does. Your statements are often intended to be manipulative and obviously so to people who are perceptive, imo.

    Yes Zedd, 99% of what I say is tinged with sarcasm. No other way to go through the maelstrom of idiocy and self-righteousness and retain my sanity.

    However it seems that in this case you have taken on a real cause

    It’s not a major cause and it’s certainly not my ‘alamo’, but I do think that if you let people be heard it’s better in the long run than silencing them. I don’t much care about anything Archie has to say, but I do dislike the idea of silencing him just because he holds unpopular opinions. I think that in the natural course of things his own behavior will render him irrelvant.

    Dave

  • Dr Dreadful

    Arch Conservative, comment #102 et ad nauseam:

    Not that you should set too much store by opinion polls, especially at this early stage, but oh dear, Archie.

  • Dr Dreadful

    STM: I reckon [Australian wines] are better than French wines, and come in a lot more variety than Californian wines.

    When we did our obligatory Hunter Valley tour, one of the winery guides frankly admitted to us that most of the wine Australia exports is not top notch – you keep the good stuff for yourselves.

    I’m with you on the California wines, although some excellent ones can be had if you hunt for them. I spent a most enjoyable afternoon last summer exploring the Paso Robles wine-growing region on the Central Coast.

    The common denominator with wine from any country is that you won’t find good quality on the supermarket shelves.

    I still think France produces the world’s best wines, but Australia is not far behind.

    …How did we get here from the Republican debate? It’s like the Vietnam discussion that came from nowhere on that other thread…

  • STM

    Hello Doc … yes, you’re right about the bizarre dancing about on the threads. I think it happens when the whole thing gets too fraught.

    One thing about Aussie wines, as you’ve pointed out, is the middle-range good stuff, some of which is really bloody good, doesn’t go to export and you can pick them up here at the liquor marts and bottle-shops for a song. A $10 bottle here can be as a good a wine as you’ll get anywhere. They are much better than most of the Frenchies that end up down under – even the champagnes are really nice, although as you say, it is hard to beat the froggies when you’re in France. Thank God I’m not!

    I like Californian wines, but in the US I found it hard to track down the really good stuff at a decent price. It always seemed way overpriced to me, but it was a few years back. There’s no doubt though that many “New World” wines can be as good as French wines.

    I think people outside Oz don’t realise the huge quantities of quality wine produced here – which might not be a bad thing, really!

    More for us … ’cause there’s only so much beer a bloke can drink.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Clavos, you can start a blog for free on either Blogger or WordPress.

    You can then add Google AdSense or any other potential income generating material you care to. That way you will earn the income you deserve – and all for free!

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Actually, you can get good to great Spanish wines in most supermarkets here. I’ve bought hugely drinkable wines for as little as 2USD and rarely spend more than 10 or 15 dollars.

    Before I came to Spain, my favourites regions were Ribera del Duero and Rioja but I’ve now learned that the wines from Navarra are just as good.

    The nearest village to me is called Mollina and there they make almost 80% of the wine made in the province of MΓ‘laga. Most of them are the traditional sweet white wines but I tend to prefer dry white or red varieties.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    @#105:

    You must have missed the parenthetical phrase in my comment.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “abuse to genders, races, and class of people has no place in civilized discourse.”

    Tell that to the class warriors on the Left, who hate the “rich” (and hate women and minorities who are conservative).

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “But in a publication or a forum, editors are entitled to make decisions about limits.”

    So how do you feel about anonymous cyber-stalkers who make the same basic personal attack against the same people on the same forum almost every day for over three years?

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Finally, Arch, calling Hilary Clinton a cunt is not acceptable within the terms of a political debate.

    It also does undermine women in general as, instead of dealing with this person’s political views, you try to reduce her to a part of her anatomy.

    By belittling her in that way, you also appear to be saying that it is indeed okay to refer to women that way, which does indeed demean all women.

    So…no more calling the Vice President “Dick” then, eh? :-/

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “As in all things, Dave’s understanding is both partial and inaccurate.”

    Sounds like a personal attack to me…

    CHRIS! Please delete this violation of the comments policy immediately! :-/

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Again, not unpopular opinions, Dave – rather, abusive language (abusive to women).

    Sorry Paul, that’s bullshit. Causing a specific woman a rude name is merely stating a negative opinion about that one woman, it is not abusive about women in general and you can’t make it so. In fact, it suggests that the woman in question is different from other women because that rude name is being applied to her and not to others. And ultimately it’s still just expressing a personal opinion about a public figure.

    I called Don Imus a ‘dick’ recently and wasn’t edited for it, plus no one suggested that by calling Imus a ‘dick’ I was denigrating men in general.

    Dave

  • http://paullevinson.blogspot.com Paul Levinson

    Dave wrote: Sorry Paul, that’s bullshit. Causing a specific woman a rude name is merely stating a negative opinion about that one woman, it is not abusive about women in general and you can’t make it so. In fact, it suggests that the woman in question is different from other women because that rude name is being applied to her and not to others. And ultimately it’s still just expressing a personal opinion about a public figure.

    I called Don Imus a ‘dick’ recently and wasn’t edited for it, plus no one suggested that by calling Imus a ‘dick’ I was denigrating men in general.

    Don’t be sorry, Dave, because your statement does nothing. You can say that a vile word does no damage to a group of people all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that it does. I bet if you took a poll, you’d find that a majority of women would rather not be called that.

    As for dick, I already addressed that point in the question someone posed about our VP. You and I and everyone knows that the term is mild, to say the least. And, like bitch, it’s a double-entendre, which also mitigates its impact.

    So, to sum up: I think Arch’s language was and is grossly unacceptable in civil discourse, which I take these comment-conversations to by and large be. It’s beyond my power to do anything more than say I have no use for him, and I think he should be banned – but that’s obviously not my decision to make, as I’m only a guest here.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    RJ:

    So…no more calling the Vice President “Dick” then, eh? :-/

    You can call me “dick” all you want, as long as, in keeping with full disclosure, you precede it with “horse”.

  • MCH

    “So…no more calling the Vice President “Dick” then, eh? :-/”
    – RJ Elliott

    Um, how about a “Draft-dodging Dick”…?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    emmy:

    You really can’t blame cheney — ever get a draft on your dick?…oh sorry, didn’t mean to embarrass you, it wasn’t cold in Hawaii, was it?

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    You can say that a vile word does no damage to a group of people all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that it does. I bet if you took a poll, you’d find that a majority of women would rather not be called that.

    But Arch DID NOT call a majority of women that, nor did he call any group that, nor did he call women in general that. He used the term ONLY in referring to a specific woman with no suggestion that it was merited by her being a woman rather than her specific individual behavior.

    And as for the vileness of the term, in other English-speaking cultures it’s used much more commonly than in the US – as Christopher should know – and with a level of offensiveness roughly equivalent to our use of ‘dick’.

    Dave

  • http://paullevinson.blogspot.com Paul Levinson

    Dave wrote: And as for the vileness of the term, in other English-speaking cultures it’s used much more commonly than in the US – as Christopher should know – and with a level of offensiveness roughly equivalent to our use of ‘dick’.

    And? … last time I checked, we were conversing in this English-speaking culture.

  • Dr Dreadful

    in other English-speaking cultures it’s used much more commonly than in the US – as Christopher should know – and with a level of offensiveness roughly equivalent to our use of ‘dick’.

    Absolutely wrong, Dave. In Britain it’s just about the worst name you can call anyone – male or female.

  • STM

    “And as for the vileness of the term, in other English-speaking cultures it’s used much more commonly than in the US – as Christopher should know – and with a level of offensiveness roughly equivalent to our use of ‘dick’.”

    I’ll put it this way Dave: I wouldn’t use it in mixed company, and I’d be careful if I ever used it in male company, but I’d have no hestitation calling someone a “dick” in female company, as it really means nothing if used inoffensively.

    And in male company, the yardstick for offence in regards to the C-word is: it depends greatly on how it’s used. I suppose you could use it as a throw-away word in the pub, if it wasn’t directed at anyone in particular, but more often than not it’s directed at someone you REALLY, REALLY don’t like – and can cost you a good smack in the mouth if not careful. I wouldn’t suggest Archie be banned for using it, but I reckon he should be mindful.

    There are better, far more descriptive and less offensive ways of slandering Hillary.

  • MCH

    “emmy:
    You really can’t blame cheney — ever get a draft on your dick?…oh sorry, didn’t mean to embarrass you, it wasn’t cold in Hawaii, was it?”
    – Clavvy

    Colder than Texas, Alabama and Florida.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I stand corrected on the cheapening of the offensiveness of the ‘C’ word. Duke de Mondo uses it so freely I figured everyone did. Maybe it’s an Irish thing.

    There are better, far more descriptive and less offensive ways of slandering Hillary.

    Yes, but we’re dealing with Archie here. Imagination isn’t his strong suit. When he tries to think all he gets is a screensaver of aborted fetuses.

    Dave

  • STM

    Dave wrote: “Yes, but we’re dealing with Archie here. Imagination isn’t his strong suit. When he tries to think all he gets is a screensaver of aborted fetuses.”

    Lol. And on the Irish use of the word:

    A primary school teacher in Dublin asks her 10-year-olds to give an example of how to use the word contagious …

    Little Johnny: “Ooh, Miss! My mum said I shouldn’t come to school with a cold because I’d be contagious.”

    Little Sarah: “Ooh, Miss! … my pet goldfish had a virus, and all the other fish died because it was contagious”.

    Little Sean: “Ooh, Miss! The next-door neighbour is painting his house with a three-inch brush, and me dad says it’ll take the contagious.”

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Gee, reading the comments on this list only makes me grateful and very glad that no christ-killing, well poisoning, money grubbing kike that drinks a Christian’s blood Jew is running for office for the top spot in your country.

    And how come nobody is going after Obama Barak for being a Moslem? Has he at least distanced himself from CAIR, the way Rep. Ellison (DFL-MN) hasn’t?

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Ruvy, Obama actually isn’t a muslim. His nearest muslim relative is one of his grandfathers. He’s nominally some sort of speaking in tongues and falling on the floor Christian – which is not much better.

    Dave

  • Dr Dreadful

    Or what if he was in one of those snake-handling cults? He could take his oath of office with a struggling king cobra in one hand instead of a Bible! Cool!!! πŸ˜‰

  • Dr Dreadful

    Ruvy, it looks like you were possessed by Borat for a few seconds there!

  • MCH

    “Zedd, comment #96 is moronic, because I apply the same standard to free speech regardless of who the target of the insult might be. Since your comment is nonsensical and baseless it amounts to the equivalent of a personal attack on me. But I don’t care.”
    – Dave Nalle

    So you preface your opinion, that because Zedd’s comment is nonsensical and baseless it’s a personal attack, by calling her moronic…?

    Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy there?

  • Dr Dreadful

    Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy there?

    Well, you see, Dave’s reasoning is that it’s not a personal attack because he called Zedd’s comment moronic not her personally but then using his own argument her comment to him is a personal attack because it was moronic however his isn’t because he doesn’t care about hers I need to stop now because my brain hurts…………

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    On the subject of personal attacks, Dave’s opinion doesn’t count. The only one that matters is mine. Mine I tell you! *Cackles maniacally*

    You should all just go about your business and trust that the great comments editor in the sky will protect you. Regular worship and high value tributes gratefully accepted! Har Har!!

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    You should all just go about your business and trust that the great comments editor in the sky will protect you. Regular worship and high value tributes gratefully accepted! Har Har!!

    Aha!!! That’s it!!

    When you argue the illogicality of the faithists, you’re really just trying to eliminate the competition, aren’t you??

    You’ve outed yourself, Rose.

  • http://happyhunter.iblog.com SCFMH

    Leave Archie alone! Every time he posts he harms the cause he believes in, so don’t stop him.

  • bliffle

    California wines are overpriced and it’s difficult to get a decent one at a modest price. Even here near the wineries. But in France excellent wines can be had for $5-10 easily. Last month I made a hit at a dinner of vignerons with a Cahors I bought for $5 that afternoon at the SuperU. The next day it was gone from the shelves.

  • http://slashdot.org/ whoisgod

    Not believing in evolution is not as alarming as the large segment of society that believe in a magical alternative.

    I wish that the large religious segment of US society would re-examine their beliefs using logic of an adult. Think about “God” plainly for a moment. It helps to use a term other than “God” to allow your mind to think this way. Assume “Bob”.

    “Bob” is an invisible, silent creature that wants everyone to worship his goodness, or else.

    “Bob” is an alien society of one that created everything, and needs no spaceship for transportation.

    “Bob” can talk to everyone at the same time, but the communication channel is very bad. Often you hear what you want to hear.

    Religious people often think space aliens are silly, but then believe a magical force out there controlling everything.

  • sr

    UP YOURS

  • Jon Schroeder

    The evolution question is irrelevant. Just as a question on atheism would have been irrelevant at the Democratic debate.

    Needless to say, I like Mike (Huckabee, that is). Or Obama — it’s communication that’s important, not issues.

    But to ask a “call-out” question of candidates like that… that’s just unfair.

  • Michael Seattle

    “For any right-wingers out there who deny evolution.. Try denying gravity too (which is only a theory), preferably from the roof of a 20-story building.”

    LOL! There is no scientific evidence to support evolution, you idiot. Glad to hear that the blind masses are alive and well. Baaaaaaaaaa!

  • http://www.buyingone.com Christopher Rose

    Do you have any evidence to support that assertion?