Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I sat here wondering what one could say to Steggo. There's so much evidence over decades that whatever the hell 'conservatism' is, it's a crock. You boiled it down to the most recent nugget.
expect this to disappear from Fox News about the same time "Rethug" disappears from blogland
...I'm not a Rethug.
Always surprised that I so often agree with Ms Paglia. And those who readher. The letter about Palin is instructive. I wonder if Dick Cavette know that Lincoln's debates with Douglas are not strenographis records of what was say but editions highly polished by Horace Greeley's paper. These are who got Lincoln an invitation to Cooper Union, where his impassioned and eloquent speech confirmed Greely's opinion that Lincoln was indeed someone extraordinary. I don't expect Palin--who does not pretend to be an orator but is the best stump speaker I have ever heard--to produce another close to Lincoln. But as Ms Paglia says, I never have the slightest doubt what she means when she says it, and she is usually quite interesting. It will be interrsting to see how she performs when she comes to the conservative conference in DC in later February.
You said:
I defy ANYONE to cite a single instance of a Democratic elected official or serious observer arguing for the return of the F.D.
A simple googling of fairness doctorine turned up this:
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday defended the so-called Fairness Doctrine in an interview on Fox News, saying, “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?”
...............
In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.
"If you say climate change theory is wrong - show me the more complete model and better and more extensive data to tell me what the real effect of the changes in CO2 concentration are, not just politically or philosophically inspired gut reaction."
For informed skepticism about the Warmist faith, talk to any geologist. They tell us that the climate has been continually changing, and massively, for the entire four billion years of Earth's history. Comparatively little of this period has been affected by human industry of any sort.
The question first and formost must be: is this true or false? In fact, there is a lot of strong evidence suggesting that homosexuality is genetic: the number of gays and lesbians in a single family, the frequency with which twins share the same sexual orientation, the frequency with which gays are born as the youngest children within a family, and a fascinating study on the greater number of gays who come from families with highly reproductive females (I think it's often the brothers of women who have a lot of children: this is related specifically to gay men, not lesbians, obviously). And let's not forget the instances of gay activity among animals, who clearly are not experiencing the same pychological pressures, or family structures, that are supposed to lead to homosexuality in human beings.
I think anyone interested in the issue of genetics will tell you the answer the question "Is it nurture or nature?" with a "yes." It's both, it's a complex interweaving of many factors. But that that should rule out genetic predispositions is ridiculous. And that such talk should be silenced because it's theoretically "bad" for gay people makes no sense.
Personally, as a gay man I have no problem with the idea that my genetic make up might influence my sexuality. I see that as no more proof of a "genetic disability" than I would other elements of my personality that are likely to be genetically influenced: such as my appreciation for the arts, my intellectual strengths and my innate curiosity.
I.m sorry to say that I'm more and more afraid every day. Perhaps we have elected an excellent charismatic actor who has been playing a Presidental Candidate. He's obviously done everything perfect. Now he is faced with things he has no idea how to handle. Could it be that Sarah Palin was simply not prepared, but he has no amount of preparation can push him any furthur, plus he does not have the time. I had hoped John McCain would have been there to help him from the background, but I guess the Party of the Democrat has eleminated that possibility.
Camile keeps hitting it on the head and thensome. These mistakes and blunders.yea! trippings are all in the Democrat perview of what they hand Presidents they have lost their likeing for. What ever it is it was there the day after the election. Pelosi did not welcome him as she should have. Oh Well. WHo understands Democrats is a bit daft himself.
Paglia is summed up by Molly Ivins who said she was nothing but sweeping generalizations, to which I would add: based in manifest ignorance on nearly all political issues.
But the letters are tops!
Far be it for me to come along and make you believe in something that you've clearly consigned yourself into thinking is simply a fantastic poet and performer with regards to Jesus. It may interest you however to know , that the people working on the Shroud Of Turin Research Project included atheists and agnostics alike. One scientist who had come to the conclusion that the shroud was a fake, was shocked to discover that a couple from Kansas had stumbled upon the fact that the part of the shroud that was tested was a reweave done by French experts to repair the fire damage portions of the cloth. When he analyzed a small sample fiber he had kept , he discovered the same himself. Ultimately, this SOTRP scientist died from cancer as he was trying to get new testing done, but came to the conclusion that the shroud was not a fake. Another shroud scientist, an agnostic, came to see the unbelievable image of a man who had truly been tortured and had managed to leave a radiological imprint on a cloth that linen experts have already proven was a first century era fiber and weave used in Judea. I take it you're a proof is in the pudding gal, and need , like doubting Thomas, physical proof to rely on a faith, if any. Have a second look at the shroud of Turin and behold the single most unbelievable transferance of an image of a crucified man who wore a crown and had nails through his wrists and feet, a man I call my lord and saviour. Mohammed, by the way, was a ruthless warlord who raided villages and killed people. This is why the religion of peace can always justify it's violence in the name of it's prophet, it's prophet was a violent man. Not to mention a pedorast at best.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
