What an absurd piece of nonsense, Archduke. Saying I am a bigot for pointing out that Republicans are willing to support unqualified African-American candidates for president. I didn't call you a bigot or conservatives bigots for being willing to support Herman Cain or Dr.Carson for president. You wouldn't elect those guys to the local PTA, but president sure.

How is that bigotry to point out the outrageousness of supporting African-American candidates who have no qualifications for president merely because they repeat conservative platitudes. I am not saying that are not viable African-American candidates for president--of course there are. I voted for President Obama twice. Have you voted for a black presidential candidate?

There are plenty of reasons to think bigotry is still alive and well in the Republican Party. The Confederate Flag controversy, the Birther movement, voter suppression policies, death threats against Obama and the overall antipathy to him that cannot be explained to his overall moderate policies. But I didn't even bring that up.

You got a lot of nerve bringing that accusation The best defense is a good offense, eh? You did not justify or support it in any way. You're the one who should be checking themselves for posting something hate- filled.

freeman3 wrote:Even though there is no doubt regarding the science about evolution I get the opposition to it. If evolution is true then organized religion is false.

Freeman, I believe this is needlessly inflammatory. One can believe in the existence of God and still believe in evolution and science, as I'm sure you know. You appear to be poking at DF just to antagonize, but such arguments are pointless; it's called "faith" for a reason.

You're right it was needlessly inflammatory, George. I disagree that you can rationally believe in evolution and organized religion but I should let it alone. My bad.

Geo

One can believe in the existence of God and still believe in evolution and science, as I'm sure you know

And then Fate says this ....

fate

If God is true, then evolution is false

Fate

So yeah, looking at the order of the world and thinking it's all a random accident is an inherent contradiction.

By the way fate... evolution is not random.

rickyp wrote:By the way fate... evolution is not random.

I didn't say evolution is random.

Doctor Fate wrote:. In fact, someone who does not believe in God should not be President.

The Constitution disagrees.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:. In fact, someone who does not believe in God should not be President.

The Constitution disagrees.

It disagrees with the dubious statement I was echoing as well. Did you happen to notice that one?

Tried to stab friend in stomach...threatened mother with hammer...supposedly helped white students in high school during riot (no one else recalls it)...says he was offered scholarship to West Point (West Point denies)....pyramids are grain elevators...denier of climate change, denier of evolution...tax plan based on tithing. You couldn't make this stuff up if you wanted to.

Dr. Carson is cuckoo for cream puffs... Just plain cuckoo. Dr Carson knows brain surgery and his religion...and apparently not much else. Dr Carson knows the brain and the Bible...what else do you need to know...Renaissance man, uh, no.

Dr Carson is so out there that he makes one almost think fondly of Mike Huckabee...it was amusing to see Huckabee scoffing at Carson's claim he was getting picked on by the media.

freeman3 wrote:Tried to stab friend in stomach...threatened mother with hammer...supposedly helped white students in high school during riot (no one else recalls it)...says he was offered scholarship to West Point (West Point denies)....pyramids are grain elevators...denier of climate change, denier of evolution...tax plan based on tithing. You couldn't make this stuff up if you wanted to.

Dr. Carson is cuckoo for cream puffs... Just plain cuckoo. Dr Carson knows brain surgery and his religion...and apparently not much else. Dr Carson knows the brain and the Bible...what else do you need to know...Renaissance man, uh, no.

Dr Carson is so out there that he makes one almost think fondly of Mike Huckabee...it was amusing to see Huckabee scoffing at Carson's claim he was getting picked on by the media.

It's amusing to see liberals scoffing at conservatives complaining about getting picked on. After all, your candidate once complained of a vast right-wing conspiracy. She also goes to great pains to avoid tough interviews, instead choosing to sit down with acolytes for softball "interviews" like with Rachel Maddow.

Many Americans like Dr. Carson's up from the inner city story. Maybe they prefer someone who doesn't lie or shrug about the deaths of Americans she was responsible for (i.e. they worked for her). Maybe they don't want a President who is bought and paid for by Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street, as Mrs. Clinton is. Maybe they want a President who has done something on their own in life, unlike Mrs. Clinton. Her biggest accomplishments have been hanging onto the coattails of male Presidents.

You are way behind on the Carson story.

That's okay. He won't be the GOP nominee.

Meanwhile, someone who is a demonstrable liar and law-breaker will be your nominee. That's something to be proud of.

geojanes wrote:

Archduke Russell John wrote:Check out this article as an example of what I am talking about above. It talks about how conservatives like Cruz and Carson probably won't win the nomination because of the unequal power of the moderate Republican vote in the Northeast and California.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... -and-cruz/

Very interesting. Thanks.

My pleasure.

You want to see an example of Progressive orthodoxy check out the story currently playing out at Yale re: Halloween costumes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... age%2Fcard

You need to watch the video of the girl going apeshit on the House Master. It is rather sad.

Sassenach wrote:So out of interest, why have none of them stood for the nomination ? Not that I think all this identity politics stuff actually matters as such, but you'd have thought that any Republicans with executive experience would fancy their chances, and especially so if they also happen to be black or female at a time when so much attention is placed on that. As it was, the only serving governors who stood were Walker and Christie. One of them has already bailed and the other doesn't seem to have made any headway at all.

I can't answer that because I don't know the personality or desires of those particular individuals. Perhaps it is because they are all still new to their offices. It could be they don't want to put their families through the rigors of a liberal hit job through the media.

Sassenach wrote:If the Republicans have a load more potential candidates who are much stronger (and I'm sure they must do) then why are they not interested in running for President ? I think you have to concede that Ben Carson is woefully under-qualified, as are most of the remaining candidates. If at all possible without resorting to whataboutery concerning the quality of the field for the Democrats, could somebody have a stab at explaining to me why the quality of candidates for the Republicans for the last two Presidential election cycles has been so godawful ?

I also disagree with the premise of this question. First off, 2012 was an incumbent reelection year. It doesn't matter what party is in office, there is usually a dirth of candidates in the opposition party because there is an assumption the incumbent will win.

As for this year, I think the is a load of quality candidates. There are 15 candidates. Of those, I would say that 5 or 6 of them are serious, good quality candidates based on policy positions. I think that is a great number considering historically, a party would be ecstatic to have that many good candidates. Unfortunately, they are being smothered by media hoopla of Trump/Carson/Fiorina. Nobody thinks one of them is going to win the nomination. Yet they get all of the media coverage. Therefore, you don't see the serious candidates and how they are rising. Rubio is surging. From what I read Christie is starting to climb in the New Hampshire polls (I haven't checked them so I could be incorrect there.).

freeman3 wrote:What an absurd piece of nonsense, Archduke. Saying I am a bigot for pointing out that Republicans are willing to support unqualified African-American candidates for president. I didn't call you a bigot or conservatives bigots for being willing to support Herman Cain or Dr.Carson for president. You wouldn't elect those guys to the local PTA, but president sure.

How is that bigotry to point out the outrageousness of supporting African-American candidates who have no qualifications for president merely because they repeat conservative platitudes. I am not saying that are not viable African-American candidates for president--of course there are. I voted for President Obama twice. Have you voted for a black presidential candidate?

There are plenty of reasons to think bigotry is still alive and well in the Republican Party. The Confederate Flag controversy, the Birther movement, voter suppression policies, death threats against Obama and the overall antipathy to him that cannot be explained to his overall moderate policies. But I didn't even bring that up.

You got a lot of nerve bringing that accusation The best defense is a good offense, eh? You did not justify or support it in any way. You're the one who should be checking themselves for posting something hate- filled.

And Freeman follows his typical style. Makes a hate-filled comment, gets called on it, posts a reply that attempts to defend himself with a longer hate filled post that he tries to make look like an apology.

Your comments are bigoted because they are filled with dog-whistles. Your comment that Republicans will support any African-American is basically calling them Racist. Calling African-American conservatives kooks is calling them Uncle Toms.

You are just a hate filled bigot and I am tired of just letting it go by.

Archduke Russell John wrote:You need to watch the video of the girl going apeshit on the House Master. It is rather sad.

Wow. I think she needs some counseling. Or something.

geojanes wrote:

Archduke Russell John wrote:You need to watch the video of the girl going apeshit on the House Master. It is rather sad.

Wow. I think she needs some counseling. Or something.

30 years ago, I worked with a guy who said our motto ought to be "To protect and not to offend."

The "right not to be offended" has become confused with "the right to not be discriminated against." In other words, "offended" does not equal "discriminated against." They can certainly overlap, but they don't in all cases.

The problem is simple: some people on the Left have decided any idea that is contrary to what they believe is offensive and should be punished. They have lost the core content of what "freedom of speech" means. It's not "You are free to say anything with which I agree."

I don't need to be called hate-filled and a bigot. I was thinking of responding in kind but what good would that do ? Good luck with the site, Brad.