Free Speech and Inflammatory Rhetoric

[WinePusher]

With the recent tragedy in Tuscon Arizona, many on the left have been blaming this on conservatives and their supposed "inflammatory rhetoric." Conservative leaders such as Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Michele Bachmann, Sharon Angle and others have been their primary targets. They have focused particular attention on Palins bullet map and the call to use "second amendment remedies" by Sharon Angle.

But let's look a little closer at this. The DNC used a bullet map similar to Palin, people on the left like Ed Schultz and Mike Malloy have called for the death of some presidents and conservative leaders, a documentary was made about killing Bush by a leftist, and Obama himself has made inflammatory remarks with violent connotations. The left also was so concerned about jumping to conclusions about Fort Hood, but jumps to conclusions about the political affiliations of this psychopath in the absense of evidence.

1) Are second amendment remedies to problems ever justified? Remember that the point of the 2nd amendment was to combat a tyrannical government.

2) Are conservatives to blame for this?

3) Are liberals being hypocrties by jumping to conclusions over this, and not jumping to conclusions over Fort Hood. Are they also being hypocrites for charging conservatives with violent and inflammatory rhetoric while leaving their own ranks uncondemned?

[Goat]

If you have been reading my posts you should know I am no fan of any media, I am suspicious of anything that is motivated by the love of money. I simply think that the core values of FOX, whether motivated by money or not are more ethical and moral than the leftist sites, whom by default tend to be less moral and ethical (when viewed by my perspective), the same way the left influenced sites seem to be more to your liking, morally or ethically. So Ms Maddox being human has lied, and its the statement where you say that MS Maddox has never lied etc that I took issue with. Never is an expansive concept! You have a habit of attempting to redirect the issues etc by bringing FOX, the local dog catcher, what we had for dinner last night etc into the fray. (ha ha just a little levity to demonstrate how I feel about your claims).


rs

Please point out the lie that Ms Maddox has done as part of her professional journalism. If you can, please do. If not, please retract this statement as not able to be supported.

I presume you mean Maddow. Do a Google search on Rachel Maddow lies and you'll find a bunch. Here's one:

http://constantlyinthedarkness.blogspot ... -your.html

Thanks for the help. Additionally I was originally addressing the claim by Grumpy insinuating that Ms Maddow never has or will lie. I wouldn't even say that about G. Washington or Data on star trek, only Jesus won't lie but even my beloved lord and savior may be difficult to understand at times!

rs

In that article, what lie did it show that Ms Maddow do? It was an opinion piece, and did not say any lie that Maddow did.

Please, show where Rachel Maddow actually LIED in her professional duties, or withdraw the claim

[Grumpy]

East of Eden

The economy suffered due to FDR's Obama-like policies of high taxes and regulation.

And a World War had no effect on the economy.

Here's some more facts for you: When President Coolidge cut the top rate from 70% to 25%, revenues went from $719 million to $1.164 billion in 1927. He was able to lower the national debt by 33%.

His policies and loose regulation caused the Great Depression two years later. Bush and Coolidge have a lot on common.

After two years of Obama...

...the mess Bush left is starting to be reversed.

Grumpy

[WinePusher]

So you don't think Bill Ayers is a terrorist? Hm, I'll just leave this alone then.

Not just me, but the courts have concluded that Ayers' involvement, while quite stupid, thoughtless(or at least rational thought), reckless, misguided or any other perjorative term of your choice, was not criminal. Terrorism IS criminal. So, by simple logic, the government does not consider Ayers a terrorist. They treat G. Gordon Liddy the same way, when he was actually convicted of crimes.

At least you have finally recognized you can't rewrite history to smear Obama.

Like I said, I'm going to leave this part alone, but the extreme lengths that you will go to defend your President have been demonstrated.

Since when is calling somone a Socialist (a term used to describe a persons economic policy) a derogatory name?

It has to do with intent. And just what is your intent?

The United States has always been a socialist country. Providing for the common good is what socialism is. But the Right has turned it into a perjoritive, just like they have done with liberal. Their intent is to disparage the concept by distorting what the word means. They have associated socialism with communism(for decades)when that is simply ignorance. When used as the conservatives mean it Obama is not a socialist. Meant as the concept actually is, the conservatives themselves are socialists.

Remind me again, who is the primary producer and controller of goods and products in the United States? The private sector or the public sector? Something you call a "pejorative" I call an "apt description" and I see this as another instance of the left trying to censor dissenting speech by playing the to well played Victim Card.

Some of Romney's policies resembled socialism, others didn't. You judge a public official by the policy the propose and support, not what they or their supporters say by word of mouth. How is Socialism defined again? TARP, Financial Regulation, Bloated Central Banking, Wasteful Spending.

I rest my case. TARP? Bush. Financial regulation(the failure thereof), Bush. Bloated Central Banking, every president since Roosevelt. Wasteful Spending, Bush is the all time champion. 11.5 trillion in eight years.

Who's the fierce advocate of a return to the gold standard and the auditing of the Federal Reserve? The fiscal conservative (not socialist) Ron Paul. Who championed the filibuster againist TARP in the Senate, the conservative (not socialist) Mitch McConnell. Which party fought aganist Financial Regulation, the conservative republicans (not socialists). Whose the all time champion of wasteful spending done all in the name of economic recovery? Obama, the socialist.

I produced two obvious and blatant lies by the Oxford Graduate

That is a lie, you were immediately shown your error.

It doesn't help your credibility when you try to justify one lie because it was made by your favored talking head and condemn another lie because it was made by a talking head you don't like.

Hey, in conservative schools of thought we were always taught to respect and understand the other side.

So you didn't learn anything there, either. The Fox school teaches to lie about, denigrate and demonize your opponent in order to avoid questions, evidently.

Hey, what we did learn was to apply fair standards to situations, a value the left needs to discover.

1) Expells ID from being taught in schools

As they should. ID is Creationism light(same taste, less god). It is religious belief and unless you want Santaria Priests sacrificing chickens for daily prayer, religion is not taught in our public schools.

Oh, when did atheists get to decide what can and can't be taught in schools? It's not religion, it's a competing explanation for nature. And the explanations validity should be determined by the individual. Thanks, I appreciate you guys looking out for school kids, but they don't need you determining for them what they should and shouldn't learn.

2) Tries to knock off conservatives from the airwaves.

Protesting the idiocy they spew is not trying to ban them.

Didn't hear about Sharpton's campaign to get Limbaugh off the air, huh?

Come on, you know you can't win if you play fair so you have your agenda taken to the courts time and time again because if they were put to the people you would lose.

Funny how conservatives denigrate our court system as unfair. I can understand, the courts have stopped your agenda so many times.

The proper term for it is judicial activism, Grumpy. It's when a Judge rules on something based on their own opinion rather than what the law or constitution says. You know, it's when the constitution flat out says something like that the people have a right to bear arms and than then the liberal hacks on the Supreme Court rule againist that right. Or it's when a Judge says that White Firefighters can't get their promotions because not enough minorities passed the test because of the constitutional clause that says so. Unfortunately, I am unaware of this clause, however it must exist because Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg ruled it that way, can you help me out?

[Wyvern]

Like I said, I'm going to leave this part alone, but the extreme lengths that you will go to defend your President have been demonstrated.

And the extreme lengths you will go to in order to defame the president has also been demonstrated.

It doesn't help your credibility when you try to justify one lie because it was made by your favored talking head and condemn another lie because it was made by a talking head you don't like.

Just because you keep calling it a lie will not make it magically transform into one, the instances you have brought up have been shown not to be lies at all while on the other hand the lies told by conservative talking heads have been shown to be lies which you have not proven otherwise.

Hey, what we did learn was to apply fair standards to situations, a value the left needs to discover.

Fair as in fair and balanced? We have seen Fox's idea of what constitutes fairness.

Oh, when did atheists get to decide what can and can't be taught in schools? It's not religion, it's a competing explanation for nature. And the explanations validity should be determined by the individual. Thanks, I appreciate you guys looking out for school kids, but they don't need you determining for them what they should and shouldn't learn.

Well then you should be happy then, it is not atheists that determine what gets taught in science class. As the Dover case showed ID is not science and as the people of the Dover district showed once the plot to insinuate ID into the classroom was revealed they kicked all the people off of the board of education that were involved. Refusal to accept reality wont make it change.

The proper term for it is judicial activism, Grumpy. It's when a Judge rules on something based on their own opinion rather than what the law or constitution says. You know, it's when the constitution flat out says something like that the people have a right to bear arms and than then the liberal hacks on the Supreme Court rule againist that right. Or it's when a Judge says that White Firefighters can't get their promotions because not enough minorities passed the test because of the constitutional clause that says so. Unfortunately, I am unaware of this clause, however it must exist because Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg ruled it that way, can you help me out?

What right about bearing arms has the supreme court curtailed? If you disagree with the law get involved and change it. Just like the incessant attempts by the right to overturn Roe v Wade and when that doesn't work the equally incessant attempts to curtail access to abortions.

[WinePusher]

Like I said, I'm going to leave this part alone, but the extreme lengths that you will go to defend your President have been demonstrated.

And the extreme lengths you will go to in order to defame the president has also been demonstrated.

So it is now defamatory to bring to light a Presidential candidates associations? The list of what constitutes political correctness continues to grow larger and larger.

It doesn't help your credibility when you try to justify one lie because it was made by your favored talking head and condemn another lie because it was made by a talking head you don't like.

Just because you keep calling it a lie will not make it magically transform into one, the instances you have brought up have been shown not to be lies at all while on the other hand the lies told by conservative talking heads have been shown to be lies which you have not proven otherwise.

No, they are lies that Maddow has made and what you and Grumpy have unknowingly done is show that a persons perspective has a great deal of influence on what actually constitutes a lie. Isn't it strange that all the laws you guys have come up with are made by conservatives, is the rational person really supposed to conclude that no lies have been made by liberal commentators?

Oh, when did atheists get to decide what can and can't be taught in schools? It's not religion, it's a competing explanation for nature. And the explanations validity should be determined by the individual. Thanks, I appreciate you guys looking out for school kids, but they don't need you determining for them what they should and shouldn't learn.

Well then you should be happy then, it is not atheists that determine what gets taught in science class. As the Dover case showed ID is not science and as the people of the Dover district showed once the plot to insinuate ID into the classroom was revealed they kicked all the people off of the board of education that were involved. Refusal to accept reality wont make it change.

Look at the Dover Trial in its entirety. Who was at the forefront of this case, of course, the ACLU. Notice what the curriculum actualy entailed:

Students will be made aware of the gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design.

Are you saying that we have no current gaps in our understanding of life, and that intelligent design is absolutely an inviable alternative? The curriculum required alternatives to be presented, not taught as facts or pushed upon the students as true. Is it a bad thing to allow students to have an understanding of what the otherside of the aisle believes instead of censoring them?

The proper term for it is judicial activism, Grumpy. It's when a Judge rules on something based on their own opinion rather than what the law or constitution says. You know, it's when the constitution flat out says something like that the people have a right to bear arms and than then the liberal hacks on the Supreme Court rule againist that right. Or it's when a Judge says that White Firefighters can't get their promotions because not enough minorities passed the test because of the constitutional clause that says so. Unfortunately, I am unaware of this clause, however it must exist because Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg ruled it that way, can you help me out?

What right about bearing arms has the supreme court curtailed? If you disagree with the law get involved and change it. Just like the incessant attempts by the right to overturn Roe v Wade and when that doesn't work the equally incessant attempts to curtail access to abortions.

When Ginsburg, Breyer, Stephens and Sotomayor ruled againist McDonald in Chicago v. McDonald in the name of the right of the sovernigty states and local governments to create laws regulating gun ownership. The majority of the court upheld the 2nd amendment, the minority of liberals voted to shoot this amendment down. They did not decide according to what the constitution said, the decided according to their liberal conscience. By the way, can you mention an explicit place in the constitution where a right to abortion is permitted. From what I read, the government has a duty to defend life.

[Wyvern]

So it is now defamatory to bring to light a Presidential candidates associations? The list of what constitutes political correctness continues to grow larger and larger.

If it wasn't for the fact that you are attempting to make the association that Obama is also a terrorist I wouldn't mind. You are trying to read way too much into what was a brief and professional association. As opposed to Bush's personal associations with drug dealers which I don't recall anyone making a big deal of especially the right wing. Also when Obama had his association with Ayers he was not a terrorist he was a college professor. So yes you are correct Obama had an association with Ayers a college professor. If you want to bring up Ayers past and apply it to Obamas present then you have a much bigger job.

No, they are lies that Maddow has made and what you and Grumpy have unknowingly done is show that a persons perspective has a great deal of influence on what actually constitutes a lie. Isn't it strange that all the laws you guys have come up with are made by conservatives, is the rational person really supposed to conclude that no lies have been made by liberal commentators?

Do you and EoE go to the same paint supply store? You definately both use the same size brush. The instances you have brought up about Maddow supposedly lying turned out that once you actually read the articles you provided they turned out not to be lies at all. How do you come from a single individual not lying to all similar people not lying?

Look at the Dover Trial in its entirety. Who was at the forefront of this case, of course, the ACLU. Notice what the curriculum actualy entailed:

So because the ACLU took part in this trial the ruling that a conservative judge comes to should be thrown out? Are you saying the people of the Dover school district were wrong to throw out of office everyone involved in trying to insert ID into the science curriculum? What point are you trying to make by making an issue of the lawyers used?

Students will be made aware of the gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design.

Are you saying that we have no current gaps in our understanding of life, and that intelligent design is absolutely an inviable alternative? The curriculum required alternatives to be presented, not taught as facts or pushed upon the students as true. Is it a bad thing to allow students to have an understanding of what the otherside of the aisle believes instead of censoring them?

Once ID is shown to be science instead of just creationism under a different name you might have a point. Also as the trial showed the book "Of pandas and people" which was donated by an "anonymous" donor and to be used as a supplemental biology book under this new curriculum guideline happened to be in the previous edition a creationist book then for the ID version the word god was replaced with the word intelligent designer and little else. The mistake most creationists make is they think that if the ToE is disproven then creationism will be the only option and because of that they spend most of their time and money on trying to disprove evoltion instead of bothering to back up their own pet theory.

The proper term for it is judicial activism, Grumpy. It's when a Judge rules on something based on their own opinion rather than what the law or constitution says. You know, it's when the constitution flat out says something like that the people have a right to bear arms and than then the liberal hacks on the Supreme Court rule againist that right. Or it's when a Judge says that White Firefighters can't get their promotions because not enough minorities passed the test because of the constitutional clause that says so. Unfortunately, I am unaware of this clause, however it must exist because Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg ruled it that way, can you help me out?

What right about bearing arms has the supreme court curtailed? If you disagree with the law get involved and change it. Just like the incessant attempts by the right to overturn Roe v Wade and when that doesn't work the equally incessant attempts to curtail access to abortions.

When Ginsburg, Breyer, Stephens and Sotomayor ruled againist McDonald in Chicago v. McDonald in the name of the right of the sovernigty states and local governments to create laws regulating gun ownership. The majority of the court upheld the 2nd amendment, the minority of liberals voted to shoot this amendment down. They did not decide according to what the constitution said, the decided according to their liberal conscience. By the way, can you mention an explicit place in the constitution where a right to abortion is permitted. From what I read, the government has a duty to defend life.

So your answer is that the supreme court has not impinged on the second amendment. You have to understand that the job of the supreme court is to interpret the constitution as it relates to the issues of the day. Yes they did make the determination based on what the constitution says, unless you have some magical document that spells clearly what the constitution means on every issue. As far as abortion goes Roe v Wase made it to the supreme court and was upheld, it has been challenged a number of times in various courts and it has been upheld every time. By no means am I an expert in constitutional law but I do know that it has been upheld as being constitutional by the highest court in the land.

[WinePusher]

So it is now defamatory to bring to light a Presidential candidates associations? The list of what constitutes political correctness continues to grow larger and larger.

If it wasn't for the fact that you are attempting to make the association that Obama is also a terrorist I wouldn't mind. You are trying to read way too much into what was a brief and professional association. As opposed to Bush's personal associations with drug dealers which I don't recall anyone making a big deal of especially the right wing. Also when Obama had his association with Ayers he was not a terrorist he was a college professor. So yes you are correct Obama had an association with Ayers a college professor. If you want to bring up Ayers past and apply it to Obamas present then you have a much bigger job.

The fact that universities have stooped to such a low point that they would hire a terrorist, radical left wing advocate reflects poorly on their credibility as an institution of objective learning, it's not my problem. You see, every single thing that has surfaced about Obama which harms his character, whether it be associating himself with a terrorist or sitting in a church for an extended period of time where the Pastor is Anti-American and spews Anti-American propoganda, you have tried to justify and make excuses for.

No, they are lies that Maddow has made and what you and Grumpy have unknowingly done is show that a persons perspective has a great deal of influence on what actually constitutes a lie. Isn't it strange that all the laws you guys have come up with are made by conservatives, is the rational person really supposed to conclude that no lies have been made by liberal commentators?

Do you and EoE go to the same paint supply store? You definately both use the same size brush.

You're unaware of what MediaMatters and the Huffington Post are, huh? Wait, I bet you guys think they're objective sources of news too......The irony is so thick.

Look at the Dover Trial in its entirety. Who was at the forefront of this case, of course, the ACLU. Notice what the curriculum actualy entailed:

So because the ACLU took part in this trial the ruling that a conservative judge comes to should be thrown out? Are you saying the people of the Dover school district were wrong to throw out of office everyone involved in trying to insert ID into the science curriculum? What point are you trying to make by making an issue of the lawyers used?

What I'm saying is that the repsentation for the representation for the plantiff consisted of an atheist, ultra liberal institution, known as the ACLU. Are you going to say that they're an objective institution as well?

.......Students will be made aware of the gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design........Are you saying that we have no current gaps in our understanding of life, and that intelligent design is absolutely an inviable alternative? The curriculum required alternatives to be presented, not taught as facts or pushed upon the students as true. Is it a bad thing to allow students to have an understanding of what the otherside of the aisle believes instead of censoring them?

Once ID is shown to be science instead of just creationism under a different name you might have a point. Also as the trial showed the book "Of pandas and people" which was donated by an "anonymous" donor and to be used as a supplemental biology book under this new curriculum guideline happened to be in the previous edition a creationist book then for the ID version the word god was replaced with the word intelligent designer and little else. The mistake most creationists make is they think that if the ToE is disproven then creationism will be the only option and because of that they spend most of their time and money on trying to disprove evoltion instead of bothering to back up their own pet theory.

You didn't address my point. Are you saying that we have no current gaps in our understanding of life, and that intelligent design is absolutely an inviable alternative? And let me get this straight, when a non-religious anti ID parent or advocate wants only their favored perspective taught and all others excluded, it should be granted. When a religious ID parent wants all perspectives presented and nothing to be excluded, you guys get upset and do what you do best. Somemore double standards?

[Wyvern]

The fact that universities have stooped to such a low point that they would hire a terrorist, radical left wing advocate reflects poorly on their credibility as an institution of objective learning, it's not my problem. You see, every single thing that has surfaced about Obama which harms his character, whether it be associating himself with a terrorist or sitting in a church for an extended period of time where the Pastor is Anti-American and spews Anti-American propoganda, you have tried to justify and make excuses for.

Since you seem to be ignoring it, Ayers is a college professor. Ayers WAS a terrorist but when he an Obama had their association that was more than twenty years in the past. I understand you are a conservative but how long are you going to hang on to the past? Is Obama to be held responsible for everything anyone he comes into contact with says or does? Last time I checked what that pastor said is protected speech under the first amendment, just because you don't like it is too bad. I guess things are only objective if they are congruent with your viewpoint.

You're unaware of what MediaMatters and the Huffington Post are, huh? Wait, I bet you guys think they're objective sources of news too......The irony is so thick.

What are you talking about? I was commenting on how you and EoE prefer to paint your characterizations with a very broad brush. You went from being unable to show Maddow has lied to saying no liberal commentators lie.

What I'm saying is that the repsentation for the representation for the plantiff consisted of an atheist, ultra liberal institution, known as the ACLU. Are you going to say that they're an objective institution as well?

The job of a lawyer is to represent their client and if a court case is involved it is to try to win not to be objective as you seem to think. From what I recall of the case the other side was also represented by an equally non objective institution.

You didn't address my point. Are you saying that we have no current gaps in our understanding of life, and that intelligent design is absolutely an inviable alternative? And let me get this straight, when a non-religious anti ID parent or advocate wants only their favored perspective taught and all others excluded, it should be granted. When a religious ID parent wants all perspectives presented and nothing to be excluded, you guys get upset and do what you do best. Somemore double standards?

Science is not democratic, just because someone believes something that is not scientific does not mean they get to have that taught to our children. Creationism is not science, ID is not science evolution IS science. If you can elevate whatever pet theory you have to the level of science it would be taught. Instead all you anti evolutionists seem to be stuck on the idea that all you have to do is invalidate evolution and your own idea will automatically be taught in schools and you either don't understand or refuse to understand that you have to prove your theory is scientifically valid first.

[Abraxas]

So it is now defamatory to bring to light a Presidential candidates associations? The list of what constitutes political correctness continues to grow larger and larger.

If it wasn't for the fact that you are attempting to make the association that Obama is also a terrorist I wouldn't mind. You are trying to read way too much into what was a brief and professional association. As opposed to Bush's personal associations with drug dealers which I don't recall anyone making a big deal of especially the right wing. Also when Obama had his association with Ayers he was not a terrorist he was a college professor. So yes you are correct Obama had an association with Ayers a college professor. If you want to bring up Ayers past and apply it to Obamas present then you have a much bigger job.

The fact that universities have stooped to such a low point that they would hire a terrorist, radical left wing advocate reflects poorly on their credibility as an institution of objective learning, it's not my problem.

It is your problem. You are the one claiming it somehow reflects on Obama because they happened to be in some of the same professional circles. As the University hired this individual who is, legally, innocent until proven guilty and has never even been accused of actually hurting anyone to my knowledge, and this is the only way Obama came into contact with him, aside from a political meeting arranged by a third party, it is very much your problem.

You see, every single thing that has surfaced about Obama which harms his character, whether it be associating himself with a terrorist or sitting in a church for an extended period of time where the Pastor is Anti-American and spews Anti-American propoganda, you have tried to justify and make excuses for.

On what basis do you make that claim? How much of his pastor's speech have you heard besides the few soundbytes replayed ad nauseum on the news cycle during the manufactured controversy?

No, they are lies that Maddow has made and what you and Grumpy have unknowingly done is show that a persons perspective has a great deal of influence on what actually constitutes a lie. Isn't it strange that all the laws you guys have come up with are made by conservatives, is the rational person really supposed to conclude that no lies have been made by liberal commentators?

Do you and EoE go to the same paint supply store? You definately both use the same size brush.

You're unaware of what MediaMatters and the Huffington Post are, huh? Wait, I bet you guys think they're objective sources of news too......The irony is so thick.

Really simple solution, find a factual error made by Maddow not retracted. As far as Fox News goes we can find dozens of factual errors not only made, but repeated long after having been corrected.

Look at the Dover Trial in its entirety. Who was at the forefront of this case, of course, the ACLU. Notice what the curriculum actualy entailed:

So because the ACLU took part in this trial the ruling that a conservative judge comes to should be thrown out? Are you saying the people of the Dover school district were wrong to throw out of office everyone involved in trying to insert ID into the science curriculum? What point are you trying to make by making an issue of the lawyers used?

What I'm saying is that the repsentation for the representation for the plantiff consisted of an atheist, ultra liberal institution, known as the ACLU. Are you going to say that they're an objective institution as well?

I am, actually. They have intervened on both sides of the political spectrum to uphold the constitution.

.......Students will be made aware of the gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design........Are you saying that we have no current gaps in our understanding of life,

No, I wouldn't say that. I will say they are few and they are being worked on.

and that intelligent design is absolutely an inviable alternative?

Yes. I will say that. ID is a completely unworkable, inviable alternative because it is inherently untestable and completely unevidenced.

The curriculum required alternatives to be presented, not taught as facts or pushed upon the students as true.

Which alternatives? Are we giving air time to the creation myth of every society in human history in a science class?

Is it a bad thing to allow students to have an understanding of what the otherside of the aisle believes instead of censoring them?

It is a bad thing to present unscientific, religiously motivated objections as somehow being on the same level or of the same credibility of the theory of evolution.

Once ID is shown to be science instead of just creationism under a different name you might have a point. Also as the trial showed the book "Of pandas and people" which was donated by an "anonymous" donor and to be used as a supplemental biology book under this new curriculum guideline happened to be in the previous edition a creationist book then for the ID version the word god was replaced with the word intelligent designer and little else. The mistake most creationists make is they think that if the ToE is disproven then creationism will be the only option and because of that they spend most of their time and money on trying to disprove evoltion instead of bothering to back up their own pet theory.

You didn't address my point. Are you saying that we have no current gaps in our understanding of life, and that intelligent design is absolutely an inviable alternative? And let me get this straight, when a non-religious anti ID parent or advocate wants only their favored perspective taught and all others excluded, it should be granted.

Only if the evidence supports that viewpoint.

When a religious ID parent wants all perspectives presented and nothing to be excluded, you guys get upset and do what you do best.

Not if the evidence supported them (it doesn't). Some perspectives aren't worth presenting in a science class because they are not science, ID among them.

Somemore double standards?

Nope. We support the scientific and evidenced theories being presented in science and unsupported unevidenced dogma not being presented. Consistant all around.

[WinePusher]

It is your problem. You are the one claiming it somehow reflects on Obama because they happened to be in some of the same professional circles.

Obama has called him a friend. Also, what were they doing in this so called "professional circle?" What were the goals of this so called "professional circle?" You make it seem as if they coincedentially popped up onto the same committee, is that so?

You see, every single thing that has surfaced about Obama which harms his character, whether it be associating himself with a terrorist or sitting in a church for an extended period of time where the Pastor is Anti-American and spews Anti-American propoganda, you have tried to justify and make excuses for.

On what basis do you make that claim? How much of his pastor's speech have you heard besides the few soundbytes replayed ad nauseum on the news cycle during the manufactured controversy?

Are you saying that the examples of speech which have been played ad nauseum do no properly reflect his character, is that your argument? If that isn't your argument, then your objection is cavil.

Really simple solution, find a factual error made by Maddow not retracted. As far as Fox News goes we can find dozens of factual errors not only made, but repeated long after having been corrected.

I did, and so did others, and others wrote them off as invalid. Do you disagree with what I wrote: 'No, they are lies that Maddow has made and what you and Grumpy have unknowingly done is show that a persons perspective has a great deal of influence on what actually constitutes a lie. Isn't it strange that all the laws you guys have come up with are made by conservatives, is the rational person really supposed to conclude that no lies have been made by liberal commentators?'

What I'm saying is that the repsentation for the representation for the plantiff consisted of an atheist, ultra liberal institution, known as the ACLU. Are you going to say that they're an objective institution as well?

I am, actually. They have intervened on both sides of the political spectrum to uphold the constitution.

I never said anything to the contrary. Now, which side of the aisle have they usually been on a majority of the time?

.......Students will be made aware of the gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design........Are you saying that we have no current gaps in our understanding of life,

No. I am saying they are few and being worked on.

And I'm sure you fully expect these gaps in our knowledge to be filled in one day, but at the present moment you're plugging the gap with your anticipation, as indicated above.

and that intelligent design is absolutely an inviable alternative?

Yes. I will say that. ID is a completely unworkable, inviable alternative because it is inherently untestable and completely unevidenced.

Sorry, but what's evolutionary theory based off of Abraxas? Observation, not "testability." We've observed speciation, we've observed the embryological process, we've observed organs that currently have no functions. ID advocates claim observation as valid evidence in the same way observations have evidenced evolution. So the standards you use to judge ID as invalid equally show evolution to be invalid. And please don't say no evidence has been presented or that it is completely unevidenced. That's just wrong, a more honest statement would be that you personally believe that the evidence presented for Intelligent Design is weak.

The curriculum required alternatives to be presented, not taught as facts or pushed upon the students as true.

Which alternatives? Are we giving air time to the creation myth of every society in human history in a science class?

Yes, thank you for making my point, you've pointed out a clear distinction between ID and Creationism. No ones saying we teach any creation narrative, whether it be of the Christians or the Hittites. ID is not synonymous with creationism, to make an attempt to do so would be to draw false equivolency.