You are really thick. How many times do I have to state the obvious. Complicated does not equal relative.

Relative means that was is right or wrong in one culture may not be rigth in wrong in another culture.

If there is an exception to thou the thou shal not kill rule, that just means the code is complicated not relative.

If the exception is it is OK to kill in self defense, then that rule applies to everyone on the planet. So it is not relative. Of course it is more complicated than that, it is only OK to kill in self defense if killing is the only way to stop harm or serious harm to your person. Does that means it is relative. No that just mean it is complicated.

That rule applies to everyone on the planet.

Now do you get it?

This is by far the best fat joke on here in some time.

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

Wrong, yes. Immoral, no.

When have we needed a universal moral code to impose our values on another country?

Hank Chinaski is Crucifixion Denier
 

Is Hank Italian? The Italians killed by crucifixtion. If the Jews had killed him (executed him) it would, I believe, have been a beheading. The Jews (specifically Herod) did have John the Babtist killed.

What I do know is that at this time my ancestors were either running around the forests of Northern Europe with bones through their noses, or were slaves of the more civilized people of the mediterranean.

However, is anyone every responsbile for what their ancestors did? I know this concept has been used many times as an excuse to steal property from the Jews, but no one on this board actually believes in group or tribal guilt. Correct?

I don't really get the question.

But if you believe in a universal moral code then there is nothing wrong with imposing your values on another country or people, just as long as they are the right values.

In other words, Nazis imposing their values on the rest of Europe = bad. Our imposing democratic values on Japan, Germany and Iraq = good.

Our pressuring other countries to adopt democratic and human rights = good. Our pressuring other countrys to torture prisoners = maybe not so good.

But imposing your values in itself it not a bad thing.

I state this because on of the most annoying comments of all time has got to be "what gives us the right to impose our values on other people".

Answer = if they are the right values then I believe it is our duty to impose our values on other cultures (for example pressuring other countrys to accept human rights) but if they are the wrong values, then it is really immoral for us to impose our values (for example making other countrys dismantle their environmental laws).

Like I said, the term illegal only makes sense if the two of us agree on the same legal code. The terms wrong or immoral only have "status" if we both assume that we agree on the same moral code.

You must not only believe in a UMC, you also must believe that the UMC has been fully revealed to you, and not to others.

The technical term for this is Chutzpah.

I guess Amnesty International has a lot of Chutzpah. And I am glad they do.

Exactly.

But that does not mean we view Amnesty International as possessing the revealed truth. I do not plan to make an alter to Amnesty International. In fact, I plan on disagreeing with them some of the time.

Even a Chutzpahnik can have some humility.

I had dinner with Slave last night and he said two things

1) I wasting everyone's time with this UMC B.S.

2) I have turned into a RINO (Republican in Name Only). I have capitulated to the enemy making Hank the only true conservative left on the board.

My response is that

1) without the UMC talk to board would be dead. And it is an interesting subject to me, and since it is all about me, that is enough.

2) When did I capitulate?

Many of those suggesting you are a RINO are themselves taking positions that would have been well out of step with Eisenhower or Nixon Republicans. I do not believe Republican = Fiscal and Social Conservative, regardless of what Mr. DeLay's interpretation of the UMC is.

I don't know what you are trying to say here. They definitely think that human rights are universal. So they believe in a UMC and they believe they know at least what some of it says. And they are so confident they are right that they are willing to impose their views on the whole world.

A belief in a UMC does not require an alter being made to anyone. In fact, in my opinion alters and the UMC are completely unrelated.



From my point of view, human rights are universal and they were given to us by our creator. I like the fact that Amnesty International is working to enforce the UMC. Without a UMC their actions do not make sense.

Tom Delay and I both agree on the existence of the UMC. However, I think he has got it wrong on many parts. That is why I am trying to take him out: to stop him from him imposing his version of the UMC on America, and so I can put someone in who will promote a view of the UMC that I agree with more.

Why do actions not make sense without a UMC? All we can do is choose what we think is the best path, not knowing where it leads.

Tell Slave to shove his pontificating up his ass.

A RINO is every bit a conservative as a social conservative. In fact, we RINOs are MORE conservative than our socially involved counterparts. A conservative believes in less govt interference. If you buy into the social consservative movement, you are asking Uncle Sam to play moral policeman on personal, private issues. Doesn't sound very conservative to me. Sounds pretty fucking liberal.

RINO is one of those terms used buy a small, angry group of conservatives who are very afraid their death grip on the GOP is failing, and we're heading toward a more tolerant/more strictly fiscally concerned GOP.

RINO is a desperate term, used by desperate people who find themselves a smaller and smaller voice in a tent that gets bigger and bigger everyday.

The dumb sons of bitches who favor that term don't realize that without the moderate fiscal conservatives they bitch about, the GOP wouldn't have any power. But thats the problem with absolutists. Its wasted breath to even discuss compromise and negotiation with them. They know everything. "Stand on principle!" Bunch of two bit Capt Ahabs if you ask me...

Here’s a novel idea... How about letting people decide for themselves? How about setting some base rules (which do, I agree, tend to follow the 10 commandments), and letting people sort out the more personal, smaller moral issues themselves. How about observing some deference to the natural law that a man ought to be able to do as he likes in a free society, save behaviors which do harm to others?

I don't want to live under your or Tom's UMC. I prefer my own. Why do I have to follow someone else's?

Arguments about right and wrong don't make sense without a UMC.

Organizations like Amnesty International don't make sense without a UMC.

Involvement in politicis where you are trying to promote certain policies or ideas to be adopted by the whole body politic don't make sense without a UMC. (unless you are doing it purely out of self interest). But if you pushing for policies and political change that doesn't benefit you, and effects other people, you are really imposing what you think is right on other people. And that only makes sense if you believe in a UMC.

Most people (most often liberals) when they get upset about other people imposing their values on the world, are really upset because they don't like the values. If they liked the values they wouldn't complain. When it comes to our imposing women's rights around the world all of a sudden imposing our values is not wrong.

So instead of trying to argue that we shouldn't impose our values on other people or cultures (which is really what the process is all about) they should argue that the wrong values are imposed.

The argument that we shouldn't impose our values on Iraq is mainly asserted by people who think the war was a bad idea for other reasons. They just use that as another reason to critisize the war, but it is a lame argument. Especiall the argument that we should not impose democracy in Iraq.

The only time the argument about critisizing imposing democracy in Iraq is valid, is when someone argues that if we impose a democracy it will fall apart, there will be a civil war and more people will die and you still won't get a democracy. That is a valid criticism. However, the question arises, since we are not in charge, if we don't impose a democracy what do we impose?

That's one meaning. It's not the only one. Semantics are all relative.

(1) Sure they do. Arguments can be about exploring an issue rather than winning and losing.

(2) You need the rest of the syllogism or you do not have a meaningful statement.

(3) Why not? I can believe in what is right without knowing, and without even knowing that there is a right or wrong. You should read some Spinoza.

As to (1) and (2), I think the objection you've heard most often is that tiresome discussions on the existence of a UMC are immoral and violate the UMC.

As to (3) and (4), the non-R opinions that I've read on this board discuss them as a matter of policy without reference to some vague, undefinable points of morality. You have no doubt heard objections based on morality on your local Pacifica station, but there aren't any Amy Goodmans on this board.

Hank Chinaski is Crucifixion Denier
 

Spanky, we've played this game enough times before that you should be used to it by now. Hank is Italian; his wife is a Jew. I'm Jewish; my wife is Universalist Unitarian.

Any time I make a reference to the bible or to the Jewish faith, Hank makes some reply about how the Jews are Christ-killers. I respond by pointing out that it was his ancestors who in fact killed the loudmouthed Jew troublemaker. Frequently, I infer that it had to be a mob hit, sincve everybody knows that all Italians are mobbed up.

Very shortly, if he hasn't done it already, Hank will call me fat and stupid. I will ignore it, because everytbody here who knows me is fully aware of the fact that I am merely stocky and it is actually Hank who is stupid. The problem is that if you call him stupid, he gets all whiny and lies about going to Harvard. The people who actually went to Harvard are embarassed by this, so they asked me not to poke Hank with the stupid stick any more.

This is the point at which, if you were me, you would call me stupid. I just ignore that, too, because I know you also take things far too literally and I don't want to make you cry, either.

Educating the Goyim
 

That would be hubris in Latin or Greek. Tsuris is also acceptable if you want speak a little Yiddish.

I agree with you, but you are just arguing for another UMC. Certain things may be immoral, but it is also immoral to make such things illegal. So under your code and mine (or what we believe the code says), lying in many circumstances may be immoral, but it would also be immoral for the government to make a law that punishes lying (except of course, under oath, were we think lying should be punished). Preventing governments from imposing laws that restrict our freedomes is a moral position.

Being condesending and judgemental may be immoral, but I think it would also be immoral for the government to enact laws punishing such activity.

The US often pressures other government to stop outlawing acts most American think are immoral, but our government believes laws outlawing such immoral acts are also immoral. For example, laws where adulteres are either incarcerated or put to death.

That is a fair point.

It would be a hell of a lot more fun if there were.

I don't know which is more unbelievable:

(1) that you would waste your time having dinner with Slave, or
(2) that he would ONLY say two things.

An evening with Slave is never dull. That is a lot more than people can say about me.

Are you an old Avatar from before my time or are you a new sock?

No. I am not. I am not necessarily assuming anything about your belief system (or the belief system of whatever miscreant I may be addressing) when I say that something is "wrong." I am making a statement based on my own belief system.

For example, let's assume that I am discussing issues of politics and morality with Mr. Al Zarqawi. I might well tell him that certain things are "wrong" or "immoral", but he and I will likely disagree even on such basic points as who is an "innocent."

That will trouble me not.

No, I am not. See above. What is wrong to me may well be right to you, but in that case you are still wrong.

Spanky, you're stuck on a basic, natural law approach to moral reasoning. (There have been some developments in the past 250 years.) That is fine if it works for you, but is ultimately circular -- as The Captain has been pointing out.

"Because God says so" doesn't ultimately solve much of anything.

Res ipsa loquitur.

S_A_M

At this point if you said that we are both right under our own systems. And that what is right and wrong changes from culture to culture then you are a relativist. But you also said:

If you think the other person is wrong then you believe in a UMC. You are saying there is one set of rules and yours is the right one. There is a UMC and you understand it better.

I asked earlier if anyone can come up with a rational reason why killing innocent people is wrong. No one did.

No one did because I don't believe you can. You just have to accept it as - what you want to call it - a natural law. So basic moral rules can't be reasoned. In addition, we all believe that these moral rules are universal.

This leaves the situation where either

1) deep down our cousciences all agree with what is right or wrong, and other factors make it difficult for us to understand or listen to our consciense. Or has Ty likes to say we are looking through a dark colored lense that makes it hard to see. But over time if we discuss these issues society will begin to agree to what the UMC says. Like overtime most everyone has agreed that Slavery is wrong, that we all have human rights, and people should have a say in the government that represent them. A long time ago the majority of people disagreed with these sentimnents, but once people really got intouch with their consicences it became clear that these were universal moral laws. But these concepts have no rational basis, people just have to accept them as just and true. That is why I think there is a UMC, and that is all imbeded in our conscisness. If that were not the case over time the world society would not reach agreement on such issues such as human rights. Especially when such rules have no rational basis.

2) the other possiblity is that deep down we have a different take on the UMC. In other words everyones consciences have differening opinions, and the same UMC is not imprinted in all of us. And, like someone said, if that is the case, we are headed for WWIII.

I agree. People should have every right to say anything they want to one another. They can be as judgmental as they want to be and wag their moral figers and tell every heathen they see how he'll surely spend eternity in hell.

Where the judgmental step over the line is trying to inflict their moral code on others.

There are a few baseline rules, regarding killing, hurting others, stealing, slavery, etc... which must be enforced against everyone. We fucked up as a nation years ago when we started allowing laws which were meant to shape social behaviors (blue laws, prohibition, laws against sodomy, etc..). The liberal view that laws should be written expansively to cover all sorts of private behaviors has ruined this country.

We need to get back to two concepts we forget far too much - assumption of the risk and respect for other people's privacy. Too many lawsuits abound, and far too many people can't keep their noses where they ought to be.

My friend, the Physicist from Caltech and I have been debating the UMC. He believes there is no UMC and no God.

Physicist:

Harris disucsses the idea of moral being realistically right/wrong (not moral relativism). This doens't imply that someone designed such morals. I quote Harris:
The fact that our ethical intuitions have their roots in biology reveals that our efforts to ground ethics in religious conceptions of 'moral duty' are misguided… We simply do not need religious ideas to motivate us to live ethical lives. Once we begin thinking seriously about happiness and suffering, we find that our religious traditions are no more reliable on questions of ethics than they have been on scientific questions generally. P172
Robert Wright in the Moral Animal describes in detail how smart social creatures like ourselves would gravitate to certain behaviors because they are optimal for our species over time. Many economic behaviors follow from these moral or ethical behaviors - some that would not be technically rational when you only focus on economic utility of the particular item in question. Dean Kahneman, the Nobel lauerate in Economics, pursues these further to demonstrate humans are not in fact 'rational economic players' in all cicumstances, because we were built to operate in different envrionment from today's global marketplace. We were actually village people. YMCA.

Spanky:

There can be no morality without a higher power. Without a higher power morality jests comes down to self interest.

Without a higher power there is absolutely no rational reason why you should not take possessions from another person (steal) if such possessions will improve the quality of your life and if the taking of such possessions has no chance of effecting you life negatively in any way (and even if the taking of such possessions will cause extreme suffering to the person you take them from).

Do you disagree?

Physicist:

Absolutely disagree. Did you ever read the Moral Animal, or at least read my blog of it?

We are hardwired with emotions and we are not rational creatures - we are emotional creatures. In our evolutionary history, the higher brain - neocortex - with the powers of rational thought are new to the party. Before that our limbic (mammalian) brain governed us via crude emotions. Since most of the folks you'd encounter in your daily neolithic life would be the members of your family and your village, your emotions would be programmed to make you feel guilty for stealing from such folks.

In today's world, which is not what your genes were selected for, you encounter many strangers, and rationally - yes you should not worry, but you still do. Read about why you feel guilt when you don't help a homeless person in my blog about the Moral Animal.

Spanky:

You said - yes you should not worry but you do. Isn't that the bottom line. Just because we are instinctually programmed to do something does not make it right. Our instincts may tell us to be afraid of the dark, but that is not always a rational response. Our instincts tell us not to let needles be stuck in us, but we overcome that to get a vaccine shot. Once you understand an instinct is not in your best interest ignore it. Is that not the rational thing to do?

So the reason to avoid stealing is not because it is wrong but to avoid guilt? Then if you could engineer your brain, or take a drug to get rid of guilt you should, because then you could act rationally. Correct?

So I stand by my statement:

"Without a higher power there is absolutely no rational reason why you should not take possessions from another person (steal) if such possessions will improve the quality of your life and if the taking of such possessions has no chance of effecting you life negatively in any way (and even if the taking of such possessions will cause extreme suffering to the person you take them from)." Our instincts and conscience may tell us not to, but our instincts are telling us to not act rationally so we should ignore them.

Again, do you disagree?


PS. I don't need to read the "Moral Animal" to understand that there are evolutionary purposes behind our conscious and our concepts of good and evil. But as Nietzsche said, once you understand that these instincts for a conscious and good and evil are instincts that you don't need once you understand the game, you can move beyond good and evil, and become a superman because your can discard you conscience.


Physicist:

For those of us who can overcome our guilt, society has created laws and punishments precisely because we do overturn these genetic emotions.

None of this requires a higher being or intelligent design.

Since you are so stuck on this point, I really think you should at least read the blog of the book. You keep wanting validation. What's that about?

Nietzsche's superman (ubermensch - over man) from his epic Zarathustra doesn't exist today. He said it was something that we might create in the future (he thought via education, eugenics, discipline, but probably it will be genetic engineering, robotics that will create our successor species). And it is totally off-topic.

Spanky:

I don't understand what you mean by validation? I am searching for the truth. In order to search for the truth, you need to take position and then test that position. I have made a statement that seems to be true. You told me it was wrong, but then you didn't seem to be able to refute it. I am curious to know if you can refute it, and I am also curious to know if you can't refute it, why a rational person would not admit that. Is that hard to understand?

I stated:

Without a higher power there is absolutely no rational reason why you should not take possessions from another person (steal) if such possessions will improve the quality of your life and if the taking of such possessions has no chance of effecting you life negatively in any way (and even if the taking of such possessions will cause extreme suffering to the person you take them from).

Do you disagree?

You stated you disagree, but then you when you gave me the reason you disagreed you seem to actually agree. You said: and rationally - yes you should not worry, but you still do". You seem to say that rationally you should steal.

Then you stated that for those of us that overcome that guilt society has created laws. But that does not contradict my statement. In other words you don't steal to avoid punishment. If there was no punishment then you should steal. What you stated does not seem to contradict my statement but validate it.

Again, is my statement incorrect, and if it is, why is it incorrect?

Physicist:

If we had no laws against stealing - but we do, and we had no emotions providing guilt - but we do, and if we could be guaranteed no retribution nor punishment of any sort to us or anyone that we cared about, then perhaps we would all steal with impunity. But no such world exists? And if it did, how does this prove anything about a higher being.

The fact that people don't steal all the time today is precisely because of the things I pointed out, not because of a higher being. I'm sure - in your never ending quest for the truth - you could create some simple experiments to test this hypothesis. In fact, if you read, you may come to discover that these experiments have been done already. But that is your quest - not mine.

Lastly, to answer your question "Without a higher power, there is no rational reason why you should..." I already answered that by telling you that you have genetically programmed emotions to make you feel guilt, to feel empathy, to feel sympathy, etc. So there's your answer w/o needing a higher entity. Occam's razor cuts your higher being out deftly on this one.

Spanky:

I NEVER SAID IT PROVED ANYTHING ABOUT A HIGHER BEING. THE BELIEF IN A HIGHER BEING COULD MAKE THE ASSERTION UNTRUE SO I INTENTIONALLY EXCLUDED THE EXISTENCE OF A HIGHER BEING TO MAKE THE STATEMENT TRUE. IN ADDITION, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT SUCH A WORLD DOES EXIST. YOU CAN DO IMMORAL THINGS ALL TIME AND GET AWAY WITH IT. THERE ARE CERTAIN WAYS YOU CAN CHEAT ON YOUR TAXES AND NEVER GET CAUGHT. AT MY SCHOOL WE HAD THE HONOR CODE AND YOU COULD TAKE EXAMS IN YOUR ROOM WITH THE DOOR LOCKED. YOU COULD CHEAT AND THERE WAS NO WAY YOU WOULD GET CAUGHT. IN ADDITION ONES INSTINCTS, INCLUDING OUR CONSCIENCE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH REASON. MY INSTINCTS TELL ME NOT DO A LOT OF THINGS THAT I KNOW FROM A RATIONAL POINT OF VIEW I SHOULD NOT DO. MY INSTINCTS TELL ME NOT TO EAT VEGETABLES. BUT I DO IT ANYWAY BECAUSE I KNOW IT IS HEALTHY. MY INSTINCTS TELL ME NOT TO LET MY PHYSICIAN STICK HIS FINGER UP MY ASS BUT I DO IT ANYWAY BECAUSE I KNOW MY INSTINCTS ARE NOT WHAT ARE IN MY BEST INTEREST. IF MY CONSCIENCE IS TELLING ME TO DO SOMETHING THAT I KNOW IS NOT IN MY SELF INTEREST I SHOULD IGNORE IT. ISN'T THAT THE RATIONAL THING TO DO.

YOU ARE MAKING SOMETHING VERY SIMPLE COMPLICATED. IF GUILT AND PUNISHMENT ARE THE ONLY THINGS STOPPING YOU FROM DOING CERTAIN ACTS THAT ARE YOU IN YOUR BEST INTEREST, THEN IF YOU ARE SURE YOU CAN AVOID PUNISHMENT, THEN YOU SHOULD IGNORE YOUR GUILT AND DO IT.

WHY DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT STATEMENT.



SO YOU ARE SAYING YOU DON'T STEAL PURELY BECAUSE OF A FEAR OF PUNISHMENT AND GUILT. ABSENT THOSE TWO THINGS YOU WOULD STEAL.

THE ANSWER THAT WE ARE GENETICALLY PROGRAMMED TO FEEL CERTAIN THINGS DOESN'T ADDRESS MY ASSERTION. SUCH AN ASSERTION IS IRRELEVANT TO MY STATEMENT.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS I SAID THAT WITHOUT A HIGHER POWER, THERE IS NO RATIONAL REASON (FEELINGS DO NOT QUALIFY AS A RATIONAL REASON) TO NOT STEAL IF STEALING WILL BENEFIT YOU AND YOU KNOW THERE WILL BE NO RETRIBUTION.

YOU AGREE WITH ME. WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY YOU AGREE WITH ME INSTEAD OF MAKING IT COMPLICATED BY BRINGING UP STUFF THAT WAS IRRELEVANT TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT ASSERTION IS TRUE. THOSE BEING

1) THE ASSERTION DID NOT ASSERT THERE IS A HIGHER POWER. SO YOUR DISCUSSION OF A HIGHER POWER DID NOT ADDRESS THE VERACITY OF THE STATEMENT.

2) THE ASSERTION TALKS ABOUT RATIONAL DECISIONS, SO EMOTION, INSTINCT AND A CONSCIENCE ARE IRRELEVANT TO WHETHER OR NOT THE STATEMENT IS TRUE.

3) THERE ARE TIMES IN THE REAL WORLD WHERE YOU CAN STEAL WITHOUT ANY FEAR OF RETRIBUTION, SO MY EXAMPLE DOES HAVE A REAL WORLD APPLICATION.

Physicist:

It is impossible for me to remove my emotions and genetic tendencies. I can attempt to overrule them, but you cannot eliminate them. You are oversimplifying things by discounting them out of hand. They are extremely powerful in human behavior, and to remove them from the equation is not realistic in my estimation.

So your example is not realistic, and doesn't really reflect the human condition. For machines, perhaps this is possible.

Spanky:

You may not be able to eliminate them, but don't you think you can overrule the. In other words, can't humans act rationally or are we trapped by our instincts?

And if you can act rationally (by overruling them), and if you can avoid punishment, why act morally?

Physicist:

You can overrule them, but you can't not feel them - w/o radical brain surgery perhaps. These feelings and laws are the true source of your moral code, but by cutting them out you are left with nothing but creatures that are not human for your experiment - rendering it meaningless. I believe these items describe actual human behavior quite well, and no higher beings or universal moral codes are necessary.

Many people overrule their emotions in circumstances where (immediate) punishment can be avoided. Here's an example from Sam Harris:

The notion of moral community resolves many paradoxes of human behavior. How is it, after all, that a Nazi guard could return each day from his labors at the crematoria and be a loving father to his children? The answer is surprisingly straightforward: the Jews he spent the day with torturing and killing were not objects of his moral concern… As we have seen, religion is one of the great limiters of moral identity, since most believers differentiate themselves, in moral terms, from those who do not share their faith. P176

They are not part of his moral concern because they can't punish him in any way, and because he feels no guilt in people whom he cannot identify with (even though he is capable of emotions). And in that circumstance he is able to steal the ultimate thing from another person - their life.

Where's the universal code to stop this person? Why do we feel this is so abhorrent? Precisely because we react emotionally - we would feel immense guilt, and can't fathom how you can continue to act normally by going home and playing with your children after slaughtering 100s of innocent, helpless fellow humans. Yet, we give no second thoughts to men who do the same in this country every day when they return after slaughtering 100s of fellow creatures; it's just that those fellow creatures are only pigs or cows so they elicit no feelings since they are 'not objects of your moral concern.' Bon appetit!

Dude, you need to tag that Serbian a little more often. And might I suggest hash?

2. Substituting a physicist for lawyers does little to sex up the discussion.

The Spanky family Christmas
 

Screwed by the White House and the Party
 

Those bastards just couldn't let me have this one. This sucks.

http://www.houstonpress.com/Issues/2...ews_print.html

I may have to kill you for quoting that whole long-assed post.

The difference between the two is clear in my mind, but I'm not at all sure what you think a UMC is. I've tried to explain where I'm coming from, so that you can say where you disagree, but no dice.

No, we still have those differences, potentially. People can still disagree about what the moral principles are, etc. And whether you think democracy might work in the Middle East might turn on a whole lot of other things.

Screwed by the White House and the Party
 

My favorite sentence in that profile is this one:

He has since entered private practice as a partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, inducing oil and mining companies to rebuild natural habitats harmed by their activities.

And the great thing is, these clients pay him $695/hour to induce them to do the right thing! Nice gig.

Screwed by the White House and the Party
 

That article makes it sounds like he is taking such a huge risk and taking on the establishment. Give me a break. He is the establishment candidate that is there in case Delay falls so they can hold onto the seat.

If we had not run Pat Baig, they would never had run this guy.

And people wonder why I hear you in an Owen Meany voice.