On Jan 13, 2008, at 10:35 AM, B. wrote:
> ...Shane Mage...wonders why someone
> would pick on a pro-civil liberty, anti-war candidate:
> Well, I wonder why someone would defend...a...
> anti-evolution...candidate...
>
Well, to point out that a particular attack on a particular candidate is
spurious does not amount to the "defense" of that candidate--just
a questioning of the psychopolitical basis for that attack. Particularly
when the attacker compulsively repeats precisely the "anti-evolution"
accusation that has been proven spurious, and that he admits to be
spurious.
>
> ...I watched the whole... clip, too,...Paul says he doesn't believe
> the
> theory of evolution is necessarily correct -- the jury
> is still out on it!...
Incidentally, I am more than slightly bemused by B's "8 years of one of the most religiously regressive administrations ever." That is surely a theological judgment--but why should any theological delusion be "regressive" compared to some other? If he is trying to mean regressive in terms of the constitutional ban on establishment of religion, surely Ubu is a secularist compared to the administration that put "IN GOD WE TRUST" on the US currency and the one that put UNDER GOD in the "Pledge of Allegiance."
Shane Mage
"Thunderbolt steers all things...it consents and does not consent to be called Zeus."
Herakleitos of Ephesos