Well, it's official, everybody hates the GOP

what could be more "traditional" than Bible values?! The fact you label those values as "extremist" and "nut cases" shows how it's the Democrats who have abandoned traditional values in favor of supporting licentiousness of all sorts, the most untraditional approach to good government.

that a good part of the moral teachings in that book did surreptitiously slip into some of the principles upon which this nation was founded.

......as a mention in a lecture about the founders. It does not make it a science book or even a history book, since a lot of the "history" retold in it has turned out to be inaccurate. Heck, the Gospels contradict each other in many places.

You chose to mention it rather scornfully after saying:

"The Republican party has completely lost touch with its traditional purposes and values." (underline is mine)

I'm just pointing out that your dismissive treatment of the book is contrary to the treatment it was given when this nation was being born. Sometimes we keep and use something for what we like about it rather than toss it out because it has some feature we don't like.

There were Parties which had some of the elements of today's Republican Party.

"Founded in the Northern states in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs, and ex-Free Soilers, the Republican Party quickly became the principal opposition to the dominant Southern Democratic Party and the briefly popular Know Nothing Party. The main cause was opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise by which slavery was kept out of Kansas. The Northern Republicans saw the expansion of slavery as a great evil. The first public meeting where the name "Republican" was suggested for a new anti-slavery party was held on March 20, 1854 in a schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29

How surprising that the Republican Party arose from the Know-Nothings. Irony barbell Emoticon here.

So Republicans have no legitimacy in harking back to the intent of the Founders, because their founding principles were ad hoc 1850's issues particularly opposition to slavery, a position they appear to have entirely abandoned since Nixon era Southern Strategy began co-opting the inheritors of the pro Slavery, Segregationist South. And Free Soilers are anathema. Something for nothing people dependent on a Government Hand-out. And the North East, where they originated is now Democratic, or RINO country. Democrats have roots going back to the founding of the Nation, but not the Republicans, though Democrats too have entirely changed their beliefs and position over time because of the malignant effect of Slavery and the Southern Democrats.

Free-Soilers were in effect Socialists. How strange. Government should give away land so people could get a leg up in life. Yeah, I'm sure the Republicans see it that way now. Sarcasm Emoticon here.

"Republican" and "traditional purposes and values" are a contradiction in terms, though you could say as much about the Democrats and their former values.

Rob

assumption and assertion that the Republican party arose from the Know Nothings. I see nothing in history or even YOUR history lesson that makes that anywhere near factual.

You have 'attacked' me on many occasions for my openly admitting that I hate BO and what he has been doing to this country, and yet you have no problem admitting your 'hate' for the GOP with nothing more than your 'opinions' and name calling. What is so different between 'my' hate and 'yours' other than you think you can justify YOURS and I'm another 'extremist nut case'?

And where is your link to your statement that we think the Bible should be a science text when we have been arguing 'forever' just the opposite when it comes to our values vs liberal values?

Just because people want both versions of our existence taught in schools and not to exclusively teach ape=man evolution doesn't even come close to your suggestion/accusation that the GOP believes the Bible to be 'science' text.

As for your other worry about my sleep ability......I sleep just fine, Josh. And with THIS president and the allies he has in this administration that were all hand-picked and totally incompetent but kneel at his feet followers, I wouldn't put it past him to even suggest someone along Ayers' background as a nominee to our SCOTUS.

In one sentence you both confirm and deny that people want mythology taught as history/science. If you want creationism taught in a class on religion and mythology, that's fine with me. I encourage it, in fact. But it has no place in a history or science class other than to illustrate what explanations people came up with before they had any actual knowledge.

You can no more prove it's a Myth than I (or you) could prove the Big Bang actually happened.

LOL, Bernanke probably believes the universe began with the Big Bank.

Other cultures which don't use the Bible believe in a creation theory of the universe. Big Bang isn't science since it can't be proven or quantified, it's really just another "faith".

.....doesn't make any of them appropriate for a science curriculum. And I'll take the Big Bang over a giant invisible wizard who created the earth by merely willing it to exist.

that went "BANG!!"? Oh...it was just always there? No need to try and answer. Humans can only guess.

should deal with what is there, what we know for sure, not something that is falsely called "science" when in fact it's just a different and unsupported belief system based on suppositions. Long before science began getting it right about the world, sun, moon, universe, the Bible was already there with the knowledge of things such as a round earth, rivers in the oceans, rivers in the sky (gulf stream for example), tectonics (as in the days of Peleg when the earth was divided), and many others.

OK....so you don't believe in God and THAT'S why you have no problem with our president, who you love to pieces, deliberately leaving that word out of speeches and pledges, etc. that have the word God in them. I get the impression from this debate of yours that you could easily be one of those RADICALS that protest in front of city halls, schools, and the Treasury Dept to have the word GOD removed from everything, including our money. Very interesting, Josh.........and you call ME a radical?

Your post makes no sense at all. And yes, "invisible wizard." I don't think mythology and fairy tales should be taught in science class. That makes me a "radical" in your eyes?

You're the one who called God an 'invisible wizard', not me.

is more like a Reader's Digest version of what actually happened...simple people needing simple explanations. Maybe they couldn't buy the the story that:

"Well, there was this big explosion out in space and, over time, well...we just all showed up!"

Heh, heh, it's those troubling little questions the Scientist try to avoid answering.

Our Judaeo-Christian Creation Myth is covered in the Bible. The New Testament covers a period of about 100 years. The Old Testament covers roughly 4000 years of the 4.54 billion years the earth has been around, or the 50,000 years people like those all round us in the world have been around, or the genus **** which has been around for 1.8 Million years.

All of this, particularly the age of the fossil dinosaurs, or fossil hominids and **** sapiens can be proven by various dating methods, particularly Potassium Argon dating for the early Hominids and **** Sapiens, and Calibrated Radio Carbon, or Carbon 14 for the more recent, say 20,000 years.

And curiously, the Big Bang has evolved out of evidence, and mathematics, not out of some Invisible Hand which is accepted on faith alone, kind of like Adam Smith's creation "The Invisible Hand" in economics which is as much faith and as undemonstrable as religion.

Rob

and vituperation and your Republican Noise Machine links, and your virulent antipathy to the President for no apparent reason than that he isn't a W Bush Know Nothing Republican, or is it skin colour? which is how it appears certainly though you assiduously avoid any mention of it.

I can remember you invoking the sanctity of a sitting President when some of us expressed our doubt and dissatisfaction with George W. Bush, or called his veracity into question. No, we weren't allowed to say that. He was the President, and we had to stand behind him, regardless of all the information about the absence of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Saddam Hussein's demonstrated murderous hatred of Al Qaeda. None of that was convenient, so it was denied endlessly.

Indeed, I remember you being one of those who thought Colin Powell was a weak Secretary of State, insufficiently in **** Cheney's pocket, not committed enough to the Bush Plan for World Domination or the squandering of American lives for nothing. Iraq worked out so well for America didn't it? We went into a neutral dictatorship, and stirred up everybody to hate us, then we backed out having enraged the entire Muslim World and recruited tens if not hundreds of thousands of jihadists who will plague the US for the next 50 years or more. What a brilliant Mission to Accomplish. How proud you must feel.

Rob

I NEVER invoked the sanctity of a sitting President, even with regard to Bush. There were quite a number of things he did that I didn't agree with. I just never believed YOUR vitriol, along with some others here, with regard to how YOU all spoke against him, including how he 'stole' two elections. You were ready to hang him from the nearest tree for that, do you remember THAT part from your historical memories.....and yet THIS azzhole leader can do no wrong, even when he's breaking laws left and right. It's totally sickening to see how many brown lips there are in here when it comes to BO.

I never thought Colin Powell was a weak SoS.....where ARE you getting this crap? In fact, I distinctly remember a conversation here in SE where I endorsed him if he sought a Presidential future.....until he came out for BO, of course.

You are disgustingly without facts today.......

that I have total distaste and hatred for BO because of his skin color just put you far lower on my list of credible people than you had been previously. This is EXACTLY the type of diversion and misdirect a conversation that liberals are notorious for when they have NOTHING of importance left to say or debate with. Crawl back under your medicated rock, you slimeball.

are turning into Al Sharptons.