Posts Tagged ‘conservative’

American Humanist Association ads part 2

November 14, 2010 3 comments

Regarding the recent AHA ads that display quotes from religious texts and then popular humanist-centric quotes. There is then a prompt to readers to; “Consider humanism”. How deliberately dishonest of an ad campaign because they fail at proper interpretation of the Bible and they fail at appropriately defining humanism as well with their bad interpretive principles. The correct reading of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 as I have already shown in the previous posts actually derives not just from it and Galatians context but there is even more context that remains consistent with the interpretation I laid out and yet again throws inconsistency at the face of AHA with their interpretation. I would like them to justify their implicit stance of the Bible being evil, and opposing woman as their website implies as well.

The other context is from Ephesians 5:28-39;

28So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30because we are members of His body.

Consider making up your own morals as a humanist in society? Or, let the framework of time tested, common sense religious text based ethics that demand high conduct stand? The choice is obvious to me.

DIJA up 200 points

November 4, 2010 Comments off

Dow Jones Industrial Average is up 200 points. Why? Republican fiscal policy and certainty promised. That is why.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) rocketed more than 200 points skyward earlier today, blowing past the 11,400 level to hit its highest point since Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 15, 2008.

Of course the line in the lamestream media will be that Bernanke is responsible… Essentially this;

The blue chip barometer continues to draw strength from the Fed’s second round of quantitative easing, or QE2, in which the central bank has pledged to buy $600 billion in government bonds.

This is me, this is you, this is America!

November 2, 2010 Comments off

Debate going down @ The Right Scoop

October 20, 2010 Comments off

Here it is folks, an intense debate by yours truly, and commenter Dan_Tumser. This was sparked by Christine O’Donnell debate against Chris Coons dealing with teaching the theory of evolution. The Right Scoop has the Beck commentary in video form. O’Donnell was questioning Coons governing philosophy of not allowing states to control school curriculum.

Also, spark up debate in the comments here! Bring it on! This is what Conservatives do, we are not afraid of the ideas.

Some highlights:

Dan_Tumser responding to geopolicy (Tony):
From your language I have to ask if you accept the veracity of cladistic phylogenetics. If this is the case then where do you draw the line in the nested hierarchy separating the “kinds,” and “sorts?” By what basis do you do this and how is it not arbitrary?Responding;
1. Look at any phylogenetic “Tree of Life,” and taxonomic classifications combined with fossil aging, the strata they have been found in and genetic analysis. Working backwards, Homo Sapiens is found as a species of Hominoidea (apes) which is part of the Anthropoidea clade. Go further back and you hit Primates.You can’t outgrow your ancestry. If you accept cladistic phylogeny at all you will need to accept the monophyletic hierarchy, which with the studies I listed and more is constructed chronologically, morphologically and when we have access to the genome, genetically, and they all line up. 

The process of systematic classification set up by the hard-line creationist Carrolus Linneaus puts us both in the apes, which comes from monkeys, making us both. He knew and admitted this himself, his challenge to the scientific community was to find an explanation for this or refute it. It has not been refuted, the basics of his taxonomy are the basis of a much more detailed and extensive system today. What did happen though was the Theory of Evolution explains this perfectly.

If the word monkey means anything at all, you and I qualify, accept it.

2. There are multiple different kinds of Speciation actually, there isn’t only what you see with ring species. What you describe is Parapatric & Peripatric speciation, but you leave out Sympatric speciation, Phyletic speciation and Punctuated Equilibrium.

Your example of the frog and fish is absurd, what you describe would in fact disprove the Evolution you claim it would evidence. It’s essentially the same as asking for a Crocoduck, and I hope you don’t like Kirk Cameron. As I showed in my response to #1, you can’t outgrow your ancestry, a frog’s descendants will always be a frog just as we will always be apes. That’s how taxonomy works.

Evolution doesn’t say such radical changes happen in single generation, something like that would be so genetically disimilar to even it’s nearest relatives even hybridization would be impossible. Evolution happens over long periods of successive incremental changes. You know this, you are either strawmanning or are misinformed.

What you say actually happens is what I compared to walking 20ft, but for some reason you insist on a barrier with no evidence stopping species from reaching the 20miles.

3. Then explain to me the Design/creation explanations for Atavisms and the ERVs in our 3billion base pair genome that we share in common with other apes in the EXACT same places. Also the evidenced relationship of T-rex and modern Aves.

4. You essentially claim induction for design is sufficient over methological naturalism. It is a leap to supernatural causation. I don’t understand why people still rely on the Teleological Argument, Hume and Kant eviscerated it ages ago.

You seem to be operating under a misapprehension. “neo-darwinists,” if you are so fond of the word, don’t say that genetic drift and environmental pressures worked any differently in the past. You point to several things that are actually argued by people like myself and somehow claim that it is evidence against our side of the public debate (there is no debate among biologists).

There is nothing about Evolution that says a frog would give birth to something so radically different as a “fish” and not be a frog. That would disprove Evolution and be evidence for creation. You concede that new species can develop so I have to ask again in case it got lost in the rest of my post.

The textbooks of ID say that the designer poofs these basic archetypes into existence fully formed, so what are your definitions of the “kinds,” “sorts,” or archetypes? How far back in the phylogenetic record do you go to start work with your scissors and arbitrarily cut clades out to move them off to the side arising seperately.

Examples will do, since the wording would probably be pretty vague.

(I’m working on a paper while I write this, if that was unclear, please say so and I’ll edit or fix in another post)

Geopolicy – Tony response
2. You are all wrong. Speciation has several types which are; Allopatric, peripatric, sympatric, parapatric speciation types. All dealing with extremes of geographical isolation.
Punctuated Equilibria, or PE, is not a type of speciation. It is an attempt by Stephen Jay Gould to explain the observation of lack of gradualism in the fossil record originally proposed to be there by Darwin. Gould asserts that species can change instantaneously on geologic time scales (i.e thousands of years). Speciation is the mechanism, in its many forms that could have caused PE. PE is not speciation proper.
20 feet to 20 miles. OK fine, that is completely in line with creationist thinking because the thing walking 20 miles didn’t change drastically or come from the same single cell or whatever. To follow the logic further, many different base patterns walked 20 miles genetically developing similar conserved areas along the way through convergent evolution. Into what we can observe today.3. Its a biological evolution explanation not ID or creationist. The biological evolution process is called Convergent evolution. Convergent evolution causes the independent appearance of the same trait in different lineages.4. Methodological naturalism or the Scientific Method essentially, is used significantly with ID. That is how you derive that things were designed not spontaneously happening or created in the first place. ID determines things are guided, not unguided and spontaneously happening. 

4a. A frog has to give birth to something radically different after generations. If it doesn’t than how can we have one single common ancestor? Answer is, we don’t, we have poly base patterns and poly processes that formed the tree of life that we try to follow in the fossil record today with incredible neo-darwinist assumption and bias.

4b. No ID textbook ever states that the “designer poofs these basic archetypes.” You have to separate foundations of study and interpretation if you are to understand. That sentence I quoted from you is the origin of life discussion, centered on philosophy or theology of creationism. Frankly its pretty disrespectful how you present it as well…

Quick note… Now that we know we are dealing with philosophy and theology rather then scientific observation. God could of quite possibly utilized abiogenesis, designing it to create life out of nothing. You see there is a blending of philosophy/theology and science there, that is creationist language. So, to be scientific or like an ID theorist and not a creationist, the answer is: “abiogenesis was designed to happen.”

The use of language in that manner escapes otherwise intelligent scientists forcing them to commit philosophical bias within peer-reviewed science articles.

m_quick post
This is getting ridiculous. When Beck says ignoramus crap like this it discredits everything else he says. Rush and Beck (and probably a lot of conservatives) should just stop trying to talk about science.Seriously, he sounds like an idiot. No one says we evolved from monkeys. There are about 2 dozen “missing links” from a common ancestor of all primates to homo sapians. He can easily look this up. From Australopithecus to Homo habilis to Homo ergaster etc.We have google. There’s no excuse. 

geopolicy (Tony) response

Why do these different missing links have to prove one common ancestor? Why couldn’t there be two ancestors or many original ancestors, or can be called base patterns? Why can’t these missing links be either fully primate or fully human?

One ancestor for humans, and one ancestor for primates, etc, etc. These parallel lines of ancestry produce immense similarity because of convergent evolution. It does not show one common ancestor as the new-darwinists think but two independent common ancestries.

In what way is that scientifically inaccurate to posit that? It isn’t, it is inaccurate because it contradicts your neo-darwinist philosophy.

Democrat slavery, Republican liberty

October 14, 2010 Comments off

Political party platforms define the governing political philosophies and how they are to be applied. Platforms for the Democratic party began in 1840, while the Republican party platform began in 1856. It is important that either party was entirely focused on the Constitution more so than any current platform seems to do, although Republicans are showing promise.

The very first Democrat party platform was in 1840 and it lists 9 Resolved principles of which politics form.  There is only one mention of slavery and it is number 7. It states;

7. Resolved, That congress has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that such states are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts by abolitionists or others, made to induce congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend to our political institutions.

Line one, prior to “;” essentially says that congress should not interfere with, “domestic institutions of the several states”. Now the important part surfaces, as to what these institutions are, namely institutional slavery stating that all efforts by “abolitionists” to rid the US of slavery (one of the United States most tragic histories) was actually to reduce happiness of the people and should not be entertained by any political institution, namely congress. The federal government should not determine the outcome of slavery, inherently the Democratic party saw nothing wrong with slavery, and in fact thought it made people happy. It stays the same for the 1840, 1844 and 1848 platforms until 1852 in which several other governing principles were introduced. Number 7 specifically dealt with slavery, and had lasted since 1840, it was now not given a number and moved below that last number  of 9. Then below, there is an added portion that states;

Resolved, That the democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing, in congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made.

It is clear the Democrat party does not want any change in the use of slavery for America. In 1856, the Republican party is birthed and the 1856 Republican political party platform is defined! How does the Democrat party deal with such opposition to their view that slavery makes people happy? They now make a more coherent argument for slavery, as well as concluding that they are reasserting their focused energy toward that position. The whole platform becomes entrenched with defense of slavery. I will quote some of the more interesting and telling portions below, but not quoting all parts that mention the word “slavery”.

Resolved, That we reiterate with renewed energy of purpose the well considered declarations of former Conventions upon the sectional issue of Domestic slavery, and concerning the reserved rights of the States.

1. That Congress has no power under the Constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the Constitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.

2. That the foregoing proposition covers, and was intended to embrace the whole subject of slavery agitation in Congress; and therefore, the Democratic party of the Union, standing on this national platform, will abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts known as the compromise measures, settled by the Congress of 1850; “the act for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor,” included; which act being designed to carry out an express provision of the Constitution, cannot, with fidelity thereto, be repealed, or so changed as to destroy or impair its efficiency.

3. That the Democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made.

As you can see, point 1 mirrors point 7 from their historical platforms from 1844 to 1852. The great Compromise of 1850 had already finished, halting a four year confrontation between slave supporting states of the South and then non-slave states of the North or free states. This uneasy tension that culminated in 1850 followed the Mexican-American War (1846–1848). Thus in point 2, the Democratic platform was the support of the “compromise measures”, thus because of it being law, could not be agitated or repealed, etc. Point 3 is again a reiteration of what was stated in the 1852 Democrat party platform.

How did the Republican party deal with such law and entrenched interests by the Democrat party? Their 1856 party platform states the following;

This Convention of Delegates, assembled in pursuance of a call addressed to the people of the United States, without regard to past political differences or divisions, who are opposed to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise; to the policy of the present Administration; to the extension of Slavery into Free Territory; in favor of the admission of Kansas as a Free State; of restoring the action of the Federal Government to the principles of Washington and Jefferson; and for the purpose of presenting candidates for the offices of President and Vice-President, do

Resolved: That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied in the Federal Constitution are essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions, and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the States, and the union of the States, must and shall be preserved.

Resolved: That, with our Republican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our Federal Government were to secure these rights to all persons under its exclusive jurisdiction; that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein. That we deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislation, of any individual, or association of individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be maintained.

Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism—Polygamy, and Slavery.

The first paragraph calls for a restoration of principles to “Washington and Jefferson”. Secondly the reliance upon the Declaration of Independence as embodied within the Constitution is honored and preserved which is essentially, if arguing against slavery, liberty for all! Thirdly after paraphrasing the pertinent parts of the Declaration of Independence, the Republican duty is presented;

… to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein.

Thus to Republicans, the Democrats are interpreting the Constitution in an incredibly racist way, not using an honest originalist perspective. If all are to have liberty and if the Constitution is the best government to facilitate and foster individual liberty and it being the supreme law of the land, to the Republicans;

it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism—Polygamy, and Slavery.

Obama has been owned

October 13, 2010 Comments off

Oh man Obama and the Democrats just raised $13.3 million for Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie’s organization American Crossroads. Hey Obama, keep up the good work! Never thought I would say that, but this occasion renders it a must! Daily Caller has the details.

Since the White House began attacking the conservative group last week for not disclosing their donors, the organization has raised $13.3 million — destroying their original fundraising goals and allowing them to target traditionally “low-risk” Democrat House seats.

They Think Big Thoughts?

October 11, 2010 Comments off

Big Government posted the Ricochet podcast, entitled “The Brain Sandwich”. I was surprised that Rich Lowry didn’t sound Conservative and David Brooks I could do without. Peter Robinson, want’s to be pro immigration and doesn’t see the established path for citizenship for the pass several decades. That is my major beef with this podcast, the immigration portion.

Big brains on the big show this week as Rob Long and Peter Robinson are joined by New York Times columnist David Brooks and National Review Editor-In-Chief Rich Lowry. They think big thoughts about entitlements, the Bush tax cuts, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Bob Gates for president, potential democratic challengers, and whether infidelity is the root of all social evil.

I will not buy the argument that illegals do our jobs so therefore we shouldn’t press the border issue to hard because the benefit of having illegals work outweighs the cost of securing our border. Is this, or is this not America? What is this dolt talking about? He would rather not enforce laws because Latinos work at jobs? I tell you what, you start eliminating the illegal presence within jobs that actual Americans may utilize, I think the economy would show significant gain.

You pass then enforce the Arizona immigration law federally, as it mirrors federal law to its core. Then as this nation-wide application of already established law begins, especially in California as the podcast specifies, then the expiring of extended unemployment benefits may coincide. In this way, Americans are given the choice of work, or no money. I would think Americans would choose the work the illegals who were either deported because of felony, or stay due to comprehensive work programs left over by Americans who will not occupy the positions.

This is obviously a start and a rough sketch of principles necessary for enforcement through law. None of the individuals on the Ricochet podcast even glanced at any possibility. Where the result is an overwhelming of traditional values and institutions, namely LAW! I mean come on, this is basic, nobody used it as a counter-argument, there was no critical thinking or debate to challenge little ideas and make them into truly big ones.

Where is the discussion of such sensible policies that I have laid out, if not in specificity then in principle? Ummm, nowhere!