Commentary on the so-called Creation/Evolution/Intelligent Design Debate and Right-Wing nuttery in general - and please ignore the typos (I make lots!)

Saturday, November 15, 2008

I really don't understand Conservatives

At least not the politically active ones, be they advocates, pundits, spokespersons, or politicians themselves.

Read though a few 'analyeses' of this past election by them.

As usual, the blame game and revisionism is up and running at full speed in the right-wing fantasy land, where Obama's and the Democrat's victories, despite being above and beyond anything the Republicans have seen in decades, is diminished, where Bush's slimmer victories were heralded as 'mandates', Obama is already being blamed for the economic crisis despite not even being president yet, etc.

But what really baffles me is the notion, exhibited by many on the right including Sarah Palin, that republicans have to be MORE conservative to win again. They have to be MORE hawkish, MORE religious, MORE anti-immigrant, MORE tax-cuts for billionaires, MORE pro-death penalty, MORE in love with embryoes, MORE anti-Constitution, etc. That they must go FURTHER to the right because they somehow think that mainstream America is conservative like they are.

Are these folks for real?

Did they actually look at the election results?

Liddy Dole -right-wing bible nut W-is-my-hero lost in North Carolina!

Draft-deferment monger and reliable right-winger Saxby Chambliss won election to the senate with a 7% lead (at 53%) in 2002. This year, there will be a runoff election as nobody earned more than 50% of the vote.

Ted 'Felon' Stevens won his last election with 78% of the vote - this year, there is a re-count as it is too close to call, with his Democratic opponant holding a slight lead as of the writing of this post.

And so it goes. Even those conservative Republicans that held on to their seats did so with much less of a margin than in past elections, including Mitch McConnell, Wicker in Mississippi (winning his House seat with 66% of the vote in 2006, winning his senate seat this time with 55%), etc.

The "true" conservatives LOST their wide margins of victory, and in many cases LOST altogether.

Yet the true believers insist that to win, the party must go even further to the right!
It is like Robert E. Lee insisting that one more open field charge at Gettyburg would have won the battle for them*.

They keep saying that America is a center-right country, but this year's election says something different. The times are changing, and if the Conservative movement wants to survive, they are going to have to change, too.

Frankly, I've had enough of these people. I hope they DO go further to the right. I hope they DO put forth Palin as their presidential candidate next time around. She won't be able to hide from reporters as the Presidential candidate, and the more she opens her mouth, the more idiotic and incompetnet she makes herself out to be (which doesn't say much for the Alaskans who keep votinng for her). I hope they adopt a platform premised on a requirement that all Republicans must take an oath pledging to be biblical fundamentalists, to give tax cuts only to the wealthy (for we all kow how well trickle down works), to increase military spending and start more wars against the heathen, the execution of homosexuals and abortionists, the de-funding of public education, etc., etc., etc.

Let the rational people in this country - the REAL real Americans - see just how fucked up loony these people are so they can be officially marginalized - as they should be.

*Lee ordered an open-field charge (a march, really) by George Pickett's division (and others)- Pickett lost nearly half his division; Lee later ordered him to rally his division to defend the Confederate line, Pickett is said to have replied, "Sir, I have no Division."


Allopatrik said...

Amen, brother. The neocon religious fanatics hijacked the party, drove it into the ground,and who's to blame? The liberal media, of course. It's like Nixon had never left.

Dave Wisker

Chris said...

Darwin did not have the blessing of having electron microscopes that we have today. Darwin himself said "if it can be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possible have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down". (Origin of Species) 1872 p. 154.
What you see above is the nail in the coffin for the Darwinian evolutionary theory. A recent email from an evolutionist said " I am asking you to not look around at all the different species now present, but for the fun of it go back to a time when a simple cell miscodes and starts a new direction." There is a problem with this, you cannot back to when the cell was simple that time does not exist!! The cell from the very start has been complex and there simply is no evidence that ever shows a time when the cell was anything but complex!
Life in all aspects of it, when properly studied reveals that there is simply nothing simple about life. From the tiniest cell (which by the way you are made up of billions of) to the complex galaxy and even further the universe in which we exist is absolutely, mind blowing, unfathomably complex!! How does this level of complexity arise by chance and left to itself. This the evolutionist simply do not have an answer for.

Check out this website and realize that we are fearfully and wonderfully made... Psalm 139

Doppelganger said...

Hi Chris,

Please do not assume that all people are as prone to being taken in by ICR propaganda as you are.


Chris said...

Again you have been reduced to name calling! Where is the facts man?? WHat evidence to discredit ICR??

Doppelganger said...


Name calling?

I don't see it:

Hi Chris,

Please do not assume that all people are as prone to being taken in by ICR propaganda as you are.


Namecalling? Do you understnad what namecalling is? It appears not.

Here is some evidence to discredit ICR:

The recent decoding of the human genome has allowed scientists to determine that cystic fibrosis is caused by a random change of three nucleotides in a gene that codes for a 1480-amino acid-long ion transport protein.7 The human genome has three billion nucleotides, or base pairs, in the DNA.8 Since a random change of three nucleotides in a three-billion-part genome is fatal (0.0000001%), how is it remotely possibly that a chimp could be the evolutionary cousin of a human? The lowest estimate of the genetic differences between our DNA and that of chimps is at least 50 million nucleotides (some estimates of the disparity are much higher). Quantitative information in genetics today is proving evolutionary theory as simply a man-made and irrational philosophical belief.

One top geneticist recently conducted a computer analysis to quantitate the ratio of "beneficial mutations" to harmful mutations.9 Only 186 entries for beneficial mutations were discovered (and even they have a downside), versus 453,732 entries for harmful mutations. The ratio of "beneficial mutations" to harmful mutations is 0.00041! Thus, even if a very rare mutation is "beneficial," the next 10,000 mutations in any evolutionary sequence would each be fatal or crippling, and each of the next 10,000 imaginary mutations would bring the evolution process to a halt.

A very simple refutation - any two non-related humans differ in their genomes by some 12 million bases. If what that ICR essay had any merit, we should all be dead 4 million times over.