Manhattan Buckeye;810911 wrote:What did I do? Take pictures of myself shaking Urban Meyer's hand looking like a cabbage patch kid with a stupid half-grin on my face?

LOL

BoatShoes;812093 wrote:Chris Christie has to dodge questions about the theory of evolution out of fear of turning off the evangelicals.?

I have witnessed politicians dodging questions. They him-haw around and never give a direct answer. Christie gave a direct answer. "Its none of your business." What makes you think Christie is a closet evolutionist anyway? He sends his kids to parochial school because as he said he wants religion to be a part of their education. Perhaps he did not want to turn off the heathens?

Religion does not = not accepting that evolution happens.

And would you accept "it's none of your business" as an answer from Obama on something?

I Wear Pants;812330 wrote:Religion does not = not accepting that evolution happens.

Didn't say that. Boatshoes seemed pretty sure he believes in evolution. If would think if you were going to play the odds it would be more likely that someone who sends their children to a religious perochial school would be a die hard creationist.

I Wear Pants;812330 wrote:And would you accept "it's none of your business" as an answer from Obama on something?

Yes but it would depend on the question.

majorspark;812311 wrote:I have witnessed politicians dodging questions. They him-haw around and never give a direct answer. Christie gave a direct answer. "Its none of your business." What makes you think Christie is a closet evolutionist anyway? He sends his kids to parochial school because as he said he wants religion to be a part of their education. Perhaps he did not want to turn off the heathens?

Ok Major fair point. Certainly Dodge was not the right word. I was wrong for saying that. If there is one thing that Mr. Christie does not do it is "dodge."

If I had to guess, I imagine Chris Christie probably thinks the theory of evolution is true. I'm just guessing and I have little evidence and am relying on a hasty generalization. I don't know whether he does or not. He's an intelligent reasonable man and a great many reasonable men are at least sympathetic to the idea that evolution is true. That's all I have and admit it is not epistemologically sound.

But, if I were to ask Barack Obama, "do you believe resources ought to be allocated solely in accord with supply and demand" and he were to say "that is none of your business." Perhaps he is right, maybe it is not my business, and it is indeed a direct response. But at the same time, perhaps you might wonder why he answered in the way he did. Perhaps he is pandering to the more liberal wing of his party but perhaps not.

All I know is that from time to time I check out conservative sites like Freerepublic.com and I can remember one post wherein it was suggested that Mr. Christie came out sympathetic toward Global Warming (and I'm not sure if that's true) and you see thoughts like "Well I guess he's out...just another liberal like Romney and Pawlenty." Bottom line is; being a talented and ambitious man in the Republican party, you must agree that he would have more to lose be being more of a naturalist than a non-naturalist. But I think you were just goofing on that point.

And furthermore, fwiw, I tend to think the public demands to know a lot more things that "aren't our business." It probably is not our business how he feels on the topic. But all I've heard throughout the Bush Years and now the Obama years is that the Public has an itch to know even the most irrelevant beliefs, thoughts, and facts about our public officials. Which, in the very least, given your healthy skepticism of power in the hands of men, you might sympathize with?

I have to laugh at some people's opinions. I just saw a Facebook post by a black lady on my news feed that said "please stop disrespecting our president." So I asked her how Obama is being disrespected and she responded with "they disagree with what he is doing because he is black and it's bullshit because he only wants to make the country a better place." Haha that is hilarious stuff. Can't make that up.

I get annoyed too easily perhaps but damn people are irritating. I posted before how the guy on my Facebook keeps posting "Obama 2012." Well I keep asking him what Obama is doing or has done that is so great and he never responds. Well he finally did today and all he wrote was "Republicans only care about the rich and Obama is slashing the debt." Like I said before there should be a test you have to pass before you can vote.

Well I deleted that post IWP but I will put it back up so people understand where you are coming from in your post. There was a black lady who posted a message saying "people need to stop disrespecting the president" on her Facebook tonight and I asked her how he was being disrespected and she said "people are against him because he was black and it was bullshit because he just wanted to make the country a better place."

Well I mean, you could make that up.

But yes, that sort of thing is stupid. But I see more "herp derp socialism" posts on my feed than that sort of thing. Most recent was someone was bitching about the price of gas and the first comment was something like "It's because of Obama and his socialism and an attempt to oppress the American people". Which makes no damned sense which is why I ignore that type of person on both sides of the political spectrum because they're too stupid to even get angry about.

bigdaddy2003;812406 wrote:I get annoyed too easily perhaps but damn people are irritating. I posted before how the guy on my Facebook keeps posting "Obama 2012." Well I keep asking him what Obama is doing or has done that is so great and he never responds. Well he finally did today and all he wrote was "Republicans only care about the rich and Obama is slashing the debt." Like I said before there should be a test you have to pass before you can vote.

Well I deleted that post IWP but I will put it back up so people understand where you are coming from in your post. There was a black lady who posted a message saying "people need to stop disrespecting the president" on her Facebook tonight and I asked her how he was being disrespected and she said "people are against him because he was black and it was bull**** because he just wanted to make the country a better place."

TWO PERSON ANECDOTE.... POINT PROVEN.

/next

republicans= no new ideas. the same old ones that got us in this mess in the first place.

wgh raider;812430 wrote:republicans= no new ideas. the same old ones that got us in this mess in the first place.

Thank God the Dems are fixing the issues, eh?

I Wear Pants;812330 wrote:And would you accept "it's none of your business" as an answer from Obama on something?

1. They were asking about his children. Children should be off-limits in political discourse, don't you think? If they asked Barry something about his kids that he didn't want to answer and said, "it's none of your business", then that would be quite appropriate. Oh....by the way...kids are off limits to the press unless their last name is Palin, Bachman, Perry or Christie. Notice any similarities in these 4 names???

2. Barry has answered, "it's none of your business" on questions about his collegiate education. Apparently, just saying you are the smartest fella ever to sit in the Oral Office is plenty...no need to ask about proving it. Shouldn't we know as much as possible about our POTUS, whom has the ability to destroy the planet at his fingertips?

3. Boat's point:

But, if I were to ask Barack Obama, "do you believe resources ought to be allocated solely in accord with supply and demand" and he were to say "that is none of your business." Perhaps he is right, maybe it is not my business, and it is indeed a direct response

. This is hardly a personal question. He needs to address his economic beliefs to the country he is currently pounding into economic ruin. Or do we just trust all of his great intentions, shut up, and watch how he does? Isn't that a different standard than what was applied to GWB?

BoatShoes;811570 wrote:Michelle Bachmann failing would have nothing to do with her being a woman or the ole boys club and Barack Obama has not governed like a socialist. But the facts will not persuade you.

I'll stay with my opinion. Bachmann is hated almost as much as Palin and would have much trouble developing coalitions, persuading the socialists in Congress, and keeping a leash on the RINO's. Her ideas on what ails us are spot-on, although I know you disapprove. Barry doesn't believe in European socialism? Hmmm....he is a capitalist like Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford and Disney? Huh...coulda fooled me with all of his social justice jargon, his SCOTUS appointments, ObamaKare, ObamaDebt, Obamanomics, Cap-n-Tax, outsourcing energy, "necessarily skyrocketing electricity costs", rewarding failure with MORE taxpayer dollars, shutting down Boeing in South Carolina in order to benefit union political backers, and his beliefs in wealth redistribution. But carry on with his, "he's not a socialist" mantra just the same.

wgh raider;812430 wrote:republicans= no new ideas. the same old ones that got us in this mess in the first place.

Oh really? What "Republican" ideas would those be?

Tax cuts for the rich? Umm...Barry just re-upped them for 2 more years. Going with your thesis, if these contributed to our downfall, then why continue them?
TARP bailouts? Umm...Barry voted, "yes", when these came up for a vote in the Fall of 2008. He's happily continued the program with "loans" (scuse me...hahahahahehehehehoho) to GM, Chrysler, AIG, etc.
Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac reforms? The cornerstone of our current demise has not been touched by Barry. Bush wanted to stop them and provide more oversight, but Barney Frank and Chris Todd insulated their cheif funding agency.
Government and Deficit spending? Umm...Barry is the creme-de-la-creme of deficit spenders. Nobody does it better. Makes Bush appear to be an amatuer when it comes to spending other people's money.

Seems to me Barry is just fine and dandy with what Bush started...matter of fact, he's significantly enhanced much of it. So why do you hate these "Republican" ideas so much again?

wgh raider;812430 wrote:republicans= no new ideas. the same old ones that got us in this mess in the first place.

You obviously have not read the Paul Ryan budget proposal.

I have a serious question for the people of the left on here. What ideas does Bachman have that make her bat shit crazy?

bigdaddy2003;812529 wrote:I have a serious question for the people of the left on here. What ideas does Bachman have that make her bat **** crazy?

According to Derek, it's because she lives in a cold weather state and hunts, like Palin. Seriously.

quaker oats the ryan budget is what the GOP is about and its leading to there demise in 2012.

bigdaddy2003;812529 wrote:I have a serious question for the people of the left on here. What ideas does Bachman have that make her bat shit crazy?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-10-craziest-michele-bachmann-quotes/

Now not all of those are particularly good examples but he thoughts on homosexuality are. The idea that by saying "homosexuality is okay" people are promoting or pushing people into a gay life is insane. Especially her quote about the Lion King. Noting that a composer for a movie is gay is certainly not making an implication that he is better at his job because he's gay.

And she was one of the ones with her panties in a bunch over the Obama India trip citing ridiculous $200+ million costs that were just made up.

wgh raider;812771 wrote:quaker oats the ryan budget is what the GOP is about and its leading to there demise in 2012.

Hardly. But it's as though you cannot even see how the obama/pelosi/reid budgets have brought the entire nation to the brink of bankruptcy.

Keep trying.

The reason for the unabated bashing of Bachman and Palin by the left and their media is they simply could not stand the notion that the first female to become president or vice-president could be a conservative. Why that would fly directly into the face of the progressive female movement that they believe is the impetus for a woman to even be in position for such a high-ranking job. Ergo, the hysterical attacks in order to preserve such a position for a liberal.

Your foil hat is showing again Quaker.

quaker bush pushed us towars bankruptcy by attacking the wrong country. instead of finishing the job and get bin laden he went on a magical mystery tour for WMD. its 2011 and we still cant find them????

BGFalcons82;812505 wrote:I'll stay with my opinion. Bachmann is hated almost as much as Palin and would have much trouble developing coalitions, persuading the socialists in Congress, and keeping a leash on the RINO's. Her ideas on what ails us are spot-on, although I know you disapprove. Barry doesn't believe is European socialism? Hmmm....he is a capitalist like Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford and Disney? Huh...coulda fooled me with all of his social justice jargon, his SCOTUS appointments, ObamaKare, ObamaDebt, Obamanomics, Cap-n-Tax, outsourcing energy, "necessarily skyrocketing electricity costs", rewarding failure with MORE taxpayer dollars, shutting down Boeing in South Carolina in order to benefit union political backers, and his beliefs in wealth redistribution. But carry on with his, "he's not a socialist" mantra just the same.

Keep going BG...you're on a roll.

BoatShoes;812389 wrote:If I had to guess, I imagine Chris Christie probably thinks the theory of evolution is true. I'm just guessing and I have little evidence and am relying on a hasty generalization. I don't know whether he does or not. He's an intelligent reasonable man and a great many reasonable men are at least sympathetic to the idea that evolution is true. That's all I have and admit it is not epistemologically sound.

You could be right. I don't know his beliefs either. Many intellegent and reasonable men can can reach the conclusion a supreme intelligent being created all things within the bounds and rules that the Creator set up. Elements of that creation have been given the ability to evolve and adapt to their environment. I fall in this category. Maybe Christie does as well. I hope you don't believe that those of us that believe the Universe and any life that inhabits it were formed by mere happenstance are ignorant neanderthalls.

BoatShoes;812389 wrote:But, if I were to ask Barack Obama, "do you believe resources ought to be allocated solely in accord with supply and demand" and he were to say "that is none of your business." Perhaps he is right, maybe it is not my business, and it is indeed a direct response. But at the same time, perhaps you might wonder why he answered in the way he did. Perhaps he is pandering to the more liberal wing of his party but perhaps not.

Questions as to how a politician will govern concerning an issue are far more relevent. For instance I believe abortion is the taking of a human life and marriage is a union between one man and one women. Now say I held political power at the federal level and I had the opportunity to use federal power to enforce my personal beliefs upon 300+ million. My political beliefs on the separation of powers and the constitution leaves these decision to the states would be far more relevent. That is how I would govern reguardless of personall beliefs. Hence questions as to how one would govern are more relevent. Gotcha questions to use ones personal beliefs are quite different.

BoatShoes;812389 wrote:All I know is that from time to time I check out conservative sites like Freerepublic.com and I can remember one post wherein it was suggested that Mr. Christie came out sympathetic toward Global Warming (and I'm not sure if that's true) and you see thoughts like "Well I guess he's out...just another liberal like Romney and Pawlenty." Bottom line is; being a talented and ambitious man in the Republican party, you must agree that he would have more to lose be being more of a naturalist than a non-naturalist. But I think you were just goofing on that point.

Comments on left or right wing cites are never an accurate gauge. I was goofing to make to a point.

BoatShoes;812389 wrote:And furthermore, fwiw, I tend to think the public demands to know a lot more things that "aren't our business." It probably is not our business how he feels on the topic. But all I've heard throughout the Bush Years and now the Obama years is that the Public has an itch to know even the most irrelevant beliefs, thoughts, and facts about our public officials. Which, in the very least, given your healthy skepticism of power in the hands of men, you might sympathize with?

I think the same thing. The public can demand whatever it wills. Right or wrong. They will judge the answer with their vote. It was a direct answer and Christie will bear the consequences of it. Good or bad. I have no problem with the question nor the answer in this context.