Maybe you all should go back to citing blog quotes after all?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The Economist:



I hope the Dems can manage the politics well enough that voters will blame the Republicans for wrecking the economy.

Agreed, and you have reminded me that I was going to post something about that Goldman estimate too.

"So be it" says the speaker of the house. Shameful.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

for "wrecking the economy?" do you think it solid today?

It's more solid than it will be with 2 points less growth.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Perhaps I was too dry, but my first point was intended as an insult to the argument, "You can't prove God (or a soul) doesn't exist." It's one of the worst defenses for intelligent design and creationism ever made, almost as pathetic as the use of Pascal's Wager to justify faith.

I didn't say there was a scientific explanation for "certain" things. The crux of my point was there is a scientific explanation for every single thing you can point to as evidence of a soul. The takeaway from that, if I have to go through the tedious exercise of articulating it, is that the soul is a manifestation of physical abilities and phenomenon.

Your "facts change" argument is one of the classic last stands of the defeated. You'd do better to not reply at all. (Suffice it to say, this debate is not on global warming, or revisiting the Warren Report. There is no outside chance the science tying physical areas of the brain, and activity in it, to things you consider evidence of a soul, will be found deficient in 100 years.)

I think you can be intellectually honest and have a problem with abortion. I never said otherwise. What I said was that one cannot be taken seriously if he believes a sensate, conscious life is being snuffed during a first trimester abortion. That is clinically untrue. And anyone claiming otherwise is intellectually dishonest, or unaware of applicable scientific data.

In the future, don't change the debate or misrepresent what I've argued. I don't like rewriting to address your attempt at a grand, "See, I'm right! We agree!" finisher. Particularly when you use an argument as laughable as "God can't be disproven," and completely miss the fact that I was making fun of the damn thing.

It must be nice to be so sure of yourself.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No we don't. You know what "conscious" and "aware" means, and a newly fertilized egg is nowhere near either.

Yes, neither is a 1-year old conscious (not meaning "awake") or self-aware. A dog is more conscious and aware than a toddler. Neither can pass a Turing test. Parents should be able to abort well past birth if those are the tests. (As they should if we take "soul" out of the equation and engage in cost/benefit analysis "weighing")

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Worms move on their own. *Plants* respond to stimuli. Hence "vegetative state", rather than "worm-like state".

PS: Good stuff from TNC.

There's also Kanye's view.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

There's also Kanye's view.

"Gold diggin' bitches be getting pregnant on purpose." Love you too, Kanye.

Okay, so make it clear that an abortion in exchange for $$ from the alleged father is illegal. Some pro-lifers would term that "murder for hire", I'm sure.

[Adder]

But this is a a terrible waste of resources, and a stupid case to bring. On top of being an obvious content-based restriction on speech.

[sgtclub]

Newt may be retarded:

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law has sparked a constitutional crisis as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law.

Gingrich for the first time raised the specter of Obama’s removal from office, noting that, if a “President Sarah Palin” had taken a similar action, there would have been immediate calls for her impeachment.

Obama Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday that the administration will not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, which has banned recognition of same-sex marriage for 15 years. President Clinton signed the act into law in 1996.

Obama’s decision to forego a legal defense of the law has caused a firestorm of anger from conservative groups.

Gingrich slammed Obama for his decision, telling Newsmax that he is not a “one-person Supreme Court” and his decision sets a “very dangerous precedent” that must not be allowed to stand.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Newt may be retarded:

He may be. Let's see if his party take's his lead.

ETA: Actually, that isn't true. Newt's a very smart guy. He just makes his living off of saying extreme, stupid things.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Newt may be retarded:

it sounds like lots of people are disturbed by the law. can't Obama just have it deleted from the books?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

it sounds like lots of people are disturbed by the law. can't Obama just have it deleted from the books?

Isn't the correct historical approach just to ignore it? You know, like Reagan and the Contras or Nixon and the War Powers Act?

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

"Rachel Maddow is no Glenn Beck". Duh. Everyone knows that lesbian Rhodes Scholars are dangerous, lunatic radicals and Kinsley is implicitly denying it.

Maddow's a woman?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Maddow's a woman?

More than a little bored this afternoon?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Two great tastes that taste great together!

[LessinSF]

Classic. While they are dealing with assholes, I nominate Kanye next.