Blogs 4 Brownback

May 31, 2007

Brownback Shows the New York Times What’s What!

Brownback tears evolutionists apart in his New York Times op-ed today:

There is no one single theory of evolution, as proponents of punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud today. Many questions raised by evolutionary theory — like whether man has a unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random mutations — go beyond empirical science and are better addressed in the realm of philosophy or theology.

The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers — myself included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality.

Ultimately, on the question of the origins of the universe, I am happy to let the facts speak for themselves. There are aspects of evolutionary biology that reveal a great deal about the nature of the world, like the small changes that take place within a species. Yet I believe, as do many biologists and people of faith, that the process of creation — and indeed life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him. It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science.

The man who will be our Commander-in-Chief has done his part to discredit the outlandish, atheist claims of the Darwinists among us. The least the rest of us can do is echo his objections, defy the secularists and the scientists who trumpet the dishonest status quo, and carry this message of defiance and victory on to November 2008 and beyond, into our churches, our classrooms, our households, our government, and beyond!

The 2008 election is about more than freedom, democracy, or security from terror, or even the end of American infanticide. It is about truth. We have it, the Democrats want to pretend they have it, and next year the American people will decide they prefer the real thing to the alternative.

Vote for America’s future! Vote for Brownback!

81 Comments »

  1. Senator Brownback:

    “Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.”

    You evolutionists and magicians and usurers out there are going to feel pretty stupid now that Senator Brownback has taken up the megaphone. Ha!

    It would be super if the New York Times gave Senator Brownback a regular space on the Opinion Page. That piece was probably better than anything that has been published there in the history of the paper. Treefrogs should be required to read it before they comment here.

    Comment by DPS — May 31, 2007 @ 10:17 am | Reply

  2. […] 31st, 2007 In an article in the New York Times Sam Brownback (according to some) “tears evolutionists […]

    Pingback by Sam Brownback on Evolution « Yet Another Lame Blog — May 31, 2007 @ 10:59 am | Reply

  3. I must say that compared with many things that I have read in this blog Senator Brownback come across here as a very reasonable person. His use of language is also intelligent in that he uses “feud” in place of “debate” to get his point across. It is very well done.

    Poppycock of course but well structured poppycock.

    I suppose you’ll tell me that he toned down his views to appeal to the largest audience?

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 31, 2007 @ 11:08 am | Reply

  4. “Poppycock of course but well structured poppycock.”

    I’d say much the same for the claims of evolutionists. Over time, anti-religous zealots (aided and abetted by liberal schools and the MSM) have managed to lure many unsuspecting people into their camp with their devious Darwinian nonsense, simple because “it looks good on paper.”

    Comment by Donatello — May 31, 2007 @ 11:24 am | Reply

  5. I think this article illustrates quite well why Communism failed.

    The New York Times overestimates the power of the Socialist Brainwashing it has conducted on its readership. The Soviet Union imploded due to the reality of the Gospel penetrating the State Propaghanda. The New York Times has arrogantly and foolishly given its own pages over to Brownback to proclaim the teachings of Jesus on the false teachings of the Communistic Philosophy of Evolutionism.

    Don’t be surprised if New Yorkers begin turning away from Godless Marxism and embracing Christian Capitalism like the Soviet Masses did. When people are shown the Light of Biblical Truth the sham that is Secular Humanism collapses.

    Comment by America4Americans — May 31, 2007 @ 11:36 am | Reply

  6. Sen. Brownback revealed his inherent brilliantness yet again with this hard-hitting piece. I only wish he had used my favorite anti-evolutionary analogy: the peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

    This toothsome treat which I am preparing to eat for lunch today; it did not evolve, it did not appear out of thin air, it did not spring forth from some undifferentiated primeval swamp of grape flavor and peanut scents. Having left a jar of peanut butter, a jar of jelly, and a loaf of bread, these items, each with their own unique characteristics did not spontaneously combine to form the delicate, yet hearty, meal which I am about to enjoy. No, indeed they did not.

    This sandwich was created. Lovingly. With great attention to detail. With the finest of ingredients. With a plan! And, thus, obviously, so were we.

    Evolution. Bah! God don’t play dice, but he can sure make a mean sammich.

    Comment by Everett Volk — May 31, 2007 @ 11:43 am | Reply

  7. Hahah… you guys are a crack up! thank goodness you are the VAST minority.Since a sandwich is designed then humans must be, too? hunh, I never thought of myself as an inanimate object before. I always figured I was sentient and intelligent, I guess that is why I understand evolution and it just sails above your closed sandwichy head. PLease tell me your entire “de-bunking” of a staunchly proven irrefutable scientific FACT is based on a sandwich. Please?
    Where Brownnback fails is that he presumes with NO eveidence that “man” has a specific place/purpose on earth. How can one say this without using the bible or “belief”? Coz no matter how hard I want it to be so, we still have people who feel the need to hurt others for personal gain. I could believe with all my being that peopel are inherently good, yet it still doesn’t make it so. Is brownback so allmighty powerful that his beliefs make thing real?
    And before you make fun of myspelling and typos, let me do it for you: yeah, my spelling ain’t so great and I am not a great typist. I do however have a very good education and am highly intelligent.

    Comment by 5ive — May 31, 2007 @ 12:05 pm | Reply

  8. Since a sandwich is designed then humans must be, too? hunh, I never thought of myself as an inanimate object before. I always figured I was sentient and intelligent…

    Precisely. Since you are sentient and intelligent, you are vastly more complex than a sandwich. But you never see accidental sandwiches, do you? Of course not; something so simple as a sandwich must be the result of design and deliberate construction. Likewise, it is even more absurd that something as complex as a human could be the result of just chance and dumb luck.

    Comment by Carey Meiers — May 31, 2007 @ 12:13 pm | Reply

  9. What a pathetic attempt at fence-straddling. If you are truly interested in TRUTH, check out the following:
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/sam_brownback_defender_of_the.php#more

    Comment by justpaul, fcd — May 31, 2007 @ 12:22 pm | Reply

  10. I made an accidental sandwich once, wherein under the spell of a bleary morning mind I defiled my delightsome peanut butter and bread with a healthy dollop of hot mango pickle (a condiment preferred by the pagan Hindi of the exotic Asian sub-continent). I did not discover this mistake until lunch time whereupon biting into my much anticipated afternoon repast, I was met with a blast of spice totally unbefitting such a noble sandwich. I promptly tossed the despoiled sandwich in the garbage can, much like G*d tossing dinosaur “fossils” into the geologic “record”.

    Comment by Everett Volk — May 31, 2007 @ 12:36 pm | Reply

  11. You guys are silly.
    Sandwiches do not procreate, so cannot evolve.
    Man does, so can.
    Simple.

    Comment by robd — May 31, 2007 @ 12:46 pm | Reply

  12. Good thing Brownback will not be president.

    Comment by Joe — May 31, 2007 @ 1:02 pm | Reply

  13. “I must say that compared with many things that I have read in this blog Senator Brownback come across here as a very reasonable person. His use of language is also intelligent in that he uses “feud” in place of “debate” to get his point across. It is very well done.”

    He’s a great man. He’s going to be a great President in 2009.

    “This sandwich was created. Lovingly. With great attention to detail. With the finest of ingredients. With a plan! And, thus, obviously, so were we.”

    That’s an excellent analogy, Everett. God created Man out of dust just as I create a sandwich out of bread, mayonnaise, and ham. It’s fun to watch the liberals try to refute that one:

    “Sandwiches do not procreate, so cannot evolve.
    Man does, so can.
    Simple.”

    We already knew that the Democrat party is obsessed with sex. It’s their defining trait as a party, hedonistic lustfulness and wanton depravity. To see them extend it into their pseudo-sciences should surprise no one, frankly.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 31, 2007 @ 1:17 pm | Reply

  14. Sandwiches do not procreate, so cannot evolve.

    It is a simple step to go from man-on-man sex to man-on-sandwich sex. That’s the real agenda of the “gay” rights movement. If we’re not careful, before you know it we’ll have a race of mutant gay sandwich creatures on our hands, all under the control of Hillary and demanding special treatment.

    Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

    Comment by Carey Meiers — May 31, 2007 @ 1:28 pm | Reply

  15. OK, Sisyphus. I will trust you that this is not a parody blog. I am sure you are doing all you can to live the way G-d intended you to live. I am sure you have a long beard, as that is clearly what G-d intended for men to have. I am sure you will allow your daughters to begin having sex at age 11 or 12, as G-d clearly intended. I am sure that you would never wear corrective lenses, as G-d clearly wants our eyesight to diminish with age. I am sure that you are not confused at all by G-d’s obsession with foreskins in the Books of Moses. (I, on the other hand, am thoroughly confused by it; why doesn’t G-d just start making penises WITHOUT FORESKINS?)

    I am sure you follow all of the laws of Leviticus. I will not question you again.

    Comment by smedley — May 31, 2007 @ 1:29 pm | Reply

  16. By “tears evolutionists apart” you must mean “just regurgitates many of the same painfully weak and well-refuted canards creationists have been making for decades” plus “chickens out on actually saying anything ANYTHING about what he actually believes in the realm of science.”

    Seriously: does Brownback agree that all the evidence shows that life on Earth is related through a historical process called common descent? That human beings are, in fact, a subset of apes taxonomically (as even creatonists recognized long before Darwin was even around)? How old is the earth according to the evidence?

    Brownback neatly dances away from actually saying anything more than that he agrees that species can change over time.

    Comment by plunge — May 31, 2007 @ 1:45 pm | Reply

  17. People, Evolution is a just a theory. Theories are like opinions, they can’t be proved.

    The only proof one needs of the validity of evolution comes from the Bible. IT IS A LIE. God created the Earth in 6 days, then took a day of rest. Just as it is told in the Bible.

    Look what happened after evolutionists began to poison the minds of the young: abortion at record highs, welfare queens driving Cadillacs, the homosexual agenda and, most importantly, the ouster of God from the classroom.

    God Bless Senator Brownback.

    Comment by theorist — May 31, 2007 @ 2:17 pm | Reply

  18. “It is a simple step to go from man-on-man sex to man-on-sandwich sex. That’s the real agenda of the “gay” rights movement. If we’re not careful, before you know it we’ll have a race of mutant gay sandwich creatures on our hands, all under the control of Hillary and demanding special treatment.”

    This sounds plausible to me, except that I’m not sure men and sandwiches can breed. But the act of letting people have sex with sandwiches in public is definitely a part of the homosexual agenda. The treefrogs want to have sex with everyone and everything in public- sandwiches, lamp posts, mailboxes, trees, dogs. You name it, and the Democrats want to let you have sex with it. I don’t think that’s right.

    “I am sure you follow all of the laws of Leviticus. I will not question you again.”

    Thank you. I also refrain from eating shellfish.

    “Brownback neatly dances away from actually saying anything more than that he agrees that species can change over time.”

    He really agrees with us, but we all know he has to appeal to some idiots in the center in order to make sure the Democrats can’t steal this thing.

    “God Bless Senator Brownback.”

    Amen, theorist. And God bless these United States! That was a great post, by the way.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 31, 2007 @ 2:29 pm | Reply

  19. I am laughing so hard at all the Leftist Democrats on here sputtering in vain trying to defend the “theory” of Communistic Evolutionism.

    All the Democrats are going to have to campaign on in 2008 is Moonbat Surrenderism and Mindless Collectivism.

    Brownback will easily Rudy McRomney and the other Moderate Republicans in the Primary and sail into Victory in the General Election.

    Brownback for Values and Victory in ’08!

    Comment by America4Americans — May 31, 2007 @ 2:47 pm | Reply

  20. Right on, America4Americans!

    Brownback’s going to win this thing, treefrogs! Get over it!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 31, 2007 @ 3:02 pm | Reply

  21. FLIP FLOPPER!!!! HAHA!!! BROWNBACK JUST KILLED HIS CAMPAIGN!!!

    Comment by Bresin — May 31, 2007 @ 3:07 pm | Reply

  22. NICE!!!!! 3 of the 10 GOP candidates dismiss evolution as a possibility and Brownback was one of them – a whole 26 days ago!!!!! Now he does the flip-flop and kills his campaign! Gotta love the morons for being just that! Now what’ve you got? A flip-flopping Xtian fearing his mythological god, a cross dresser from NYC, your next favorite – the mormon – and a viet nam vet who took Barney’s place as the white house dog!!! Classic GOP!

    Comment by Bresin — May 31, 2007 @ 3:12 pm | Reply

  23. […] in favor of a Bible-based approach? Of course this sends more conservative blogs into a tizzy of support. Joe of Yet Another Lame Blog tears apart Brownback’s arguments: Brownback: There is no one […]

    Pingback by Sex with Sandwiches and Other Choice Bits of Discourse « Fitness for the Occasion — May 31, 2007 @ 3:23 pm | Reply

  24. Sisyphus,
    You apparently never checked out the link I left back on comment #9. Rather than “Brownback tears evolutionists apart..”, the post at that link tears Brownback’s pathetic op-ed apart.

    Why not try this one, which answers most common creationist claims:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

    It’s quite extensive, spend some time there.

    Comment by justpaul, fcd — May 31, 2007 @ 3:29 pm | Reply

  25. I think you need to go back and try to read Senator Brownback’s essay again, Bresin. Let us know if you have trouble with the big words, we can tell you what they mean.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 31, 2007 @ 3:30 pm | Reply

  26. Thanks for the link, justpaul. It’s an interesting assortment of sophistries.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 31, 2007 @ 3:40 pm | Reply

  27. “We already knew that the Democrat party is obsessed with sex. It’s their defining trait as a party”

    And who is obsessed with homo-sex? Tag, you’re it!

    Comment by rob — May 31, 2007 @ 4:01 pm | Reply

  28. rob,

    If evolution were more than just a theory, it could provide an explanation for homosexuality as a purportedly “innate” trait. It cannot, as homosexuals cannot procreate, which is antithetical to the theory of evolution. Hence, evolution is proven wrong, and homosexuality is proven to be a lifestyle choice. Of course, you’ll probably dredge up lots of so-called “scientific evidence” of homosexual behavior in other creatures besides humans. It’s not convincing, of course, because those animals are all burning in Hell along with the other sinful sodomites, roundearthamentalists, copernicans, heliocentrists, liberals, and other assorted soulless atheists.

    Comment by Everett Volk — May 31, 2007 @ 4:26 pm | Reply

  29. “And who is obsessed with homo-sex? Tag, you’re it!”

    Please don’t touch me.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 31, 2007 @ 4:28 pm | Reply

  30. “The treefrogs want to have sex with everyone and everything in public- sandwiches, lamp posts, mailboxes, trees, dogs. You name it, and the Democrats want to let you have sex with it. I don’t think that’s right.” Sisyphus at # 18

    Absolutely right Sisyphus,

    The ultimate goal of the homesexual moonbat variety “treefrog” is to make it legal to have sex with actual homosexual treefrogs. They aren’t even satisfied with opposite sex treefrog relations. They would much prefer same sex treefroging in public, on a mailbox, while eating a sandwich made with soy or hummis or some such other gay inducing food substance. The depth of their depravity is astounding. I know this for a fact.

    Keep up G-D’s work Sisyphus

    Comment by ec1009 — May 31, 2007 @ 4:39 pm | Reply

  31. I see Everett Volk (@ 28) has finally come around.

    Sisyphus’ blog is making a real difference.

    Go USA! Go Brownback!

    Comment by DPS — May 31, 2007 @ 4:43 pm | Reply

  32. Brownback begins the piece by bemoaning our sound-bite political culture, and then proceeds to slip into equally shallow hemming-and-hawing and fence-straddling. He should show some courage and just say: I believe the earth is 6,000 years old and I don’t care what science says.

    Comment by Ken — May 31, 2007 @ 4:44 pm | Reply

  33. “Roundearthamentalists”

    Well done sir.

    Comment by ec1009 — May 31, 2007 @ 5:23 pm | Reply

  34. Wow. Some of you people are laughably stupid.

    Comment by Adam — May 31, 2007 @ 5:39 pm | Reply

  35. […] Brownback Shows the New York Times What’s What! Brownback tears evolutionists apart in his New York Times op-ed today: There is no one single theory of evolution, as […] […]

    Pingback by Top Posts « WordPress.com — May 31, 2007 @ 6:01 pm | Reply

  36. “Wow. Some of you people are laughably stupid.”

    They can’t help it. No doubt they’re all products of liberal brainwashing academies (otherwise known as the public school system). Any deviation from Lefist dogma is threatening to them, so they have to go on the attack.

    Comment by Donatello — May 31, 2007 @ 6:27 pm | Reply

  37. “Wow. Some of you people are laughably stupid.”

    I agree. Darwinism is laughably stupid. Postmodernism and Relativism have gone too far.

    Comment by Red Blooded American — May 31, 2007 @ 6:36 pm | Reply

  38. “They would much prefer same sex treefroging in public, on a mailbox, while eating a sandwich made with soy or hummis or some such other gay inducing food substance. The depth of their depravity is astounding. I know this for a fact.”

    I like this use of “treefrogging” very much. I think it’s an excellent euphemism.

    “I agree. Darwinism is laughably stupid. Postmodernism and Relativism have gone too far.”

    It’s time to take back America!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 31, 2007 @ 6:43 pm | Reply

  39. If evolution were more than just a theory, it could provide an explanation for homosexuality as a purportedly “innate” trait. It cannot, as homosexuals cannot procreate, which is antithetical to the theory of evolution. Hence, evolution is proven wrong, and homosexuality is proven to be a lifestyle choice. Of course, you’ll probably dredge up lots of so-called “scientific evidence” of homosexual behavior in other creatures besides humans. It’s not convincing, of course, because those animals are all burning in Hell along with the other sinful sodomites, roundearthamentalists, copernicans, heliocentrists, liberals, and other assorted soulless atheists.

    Everett, you are a little bit confused. Traits that are not central to biological reproduction often evolve alongside traits that are. Also, there are non-biological selective pressures that work on humans (sociological ones). You seem to be mistaking a very strawman black and white approach to natural selection with the whole of evolutionary theory. I won’t even get into the invalidity of your argument even if the premise of evolution being “proven wrong” was correct.

    It’s time to take back America!

    Sisyphus, you’ll have to go through me first to get one more shred of power for the fundamentalist right. And I’ll have a host of right and left wing allies at my back. Separation of Church and State is too vital to lose to the ravings the ignorant and the fearful.

    Comment by fitnessfortheoccasion — May 31, 2007 @ 8:12 pm | Reply

  40. Carrie, humans are complex precisely because of dumb luck. If we were not in the form we are today and say only had 1 eye and a half leg, you would likely go around saying, “Boy, isn’t God wonderful to have designed us so WELL?”
    Really, humans and life in general is complex, but perfect? Nope. Perfect would be an extra set of arms or a nice hard exoskelaton, or maybe th simple and plausible possibility of having seperate tubes through wich we breath and eat so as not to end up choking.
    Look at the appendix, It was useful when we were eating a lot of raw meat, like 10,000 years ago, but not so useful now, so do we still have it in a fucntional manner? No it is small and useless. That didn’t hapen inthe course of one generation, but took over 6,000 yers to change. It was not “designed” like a sandwich, but selectively bred out. Some people have a genetic trait that allows for the digestion of a differetn animals milk ppast the age of 5ish. SOme people don’t, thatis another example of recent human adaptation and evolution.
    Although I think now that we have successfully killed evolution in humans due to fertility clinics and modern medicine and the fact that people so dense as some I could name *ahem* are still around reproducing.
    But again, trying to educate most people like you guys is like talking to avery righteous and dense brick wall covered in religious graffiti. You regurgitate nicely, but are incapable of listening and learning for yourself anything that goes against your little make-believe world of God.
    Adn Sisy, really, do you truly believe al the thigns you say? you are so freaking wierd that you come off sounding like someone trying to make fun of people like Brownback.
    “That’s an excellent analogy, Everett. God created Man out of dust just as I create a sandwich out of bread, mayonnaise, and ham. It’s fun to watch the liberals try to refute that one”
    I mean really. this has NO basis in reality, who couldn’t refute? My 9 year old son even finds that ludacris. sigh.

    Comment by 5ive — May 31, 2007 @ 8:41 pm | Reply

  41. “Nope. Perfect would be an extra set of arms or a nice hard exoskelaton, or maybe th simple and plausible possibility of having seperate tubes through wich we breath and eat so as not to end up choking.”

    So your idea of a “perfect” human is an oversized bug with separate food and breathing tubes? I’m glad God is in charge, not you.

    Comment by Donatello — May 31, 2007 @ 8:52 pm | Reply

  42. Some great parody here. Thanks for the laugh.

    I used to get chills at the idea of parents telling their children that fossils are just a test of god(s) who reward ignorant obedience over reason and logic. Now I’ve recovered my faith in the children to see through nonsense, and really only worry at the few actual scientists who preach against intellectual integrity. Those who don’t adapt and think really don’t matter in the end. We’ll tolerate their intolerance and let them free-ride on modern conveniences.

    I don’t really understand the supposed tie between religion and communism or fascism or US political liberalism: could someone explain an atheist conservative, or does that just go in the treefrog/faggot category?

    Comment by eew — May 31, 2007 @ 10:01 pm | Reply

  43. Sisyphus,

    It sounds to me like fitnessfortheoccasion can’t even get her underthings on frontwards, so I wouldn’t worry about her.

    I think 5ive might be ‘special’ so try to take it easy on him. That’s WWJD, I think. (Could be drugs though, in which case you’d better set him straight?)

    Comment by DPS — May 31, 2007 @ 10:18 pm | Reply

  44. Separation of Church and State is too vital to lose to the ravings of the ignorant and the fearful.

    Comment by fitnessfortheoccasion — May 31, 2007 @ 8:12 pm

    Listen babycakes, without the ignorant and the fearful this country would be in Dire Straits and I for one don’t want to be forced to listen to “Sultans of Swing” all day. Without us I’s and F’s this country would not have elected Bush, invaded Iraq, ignored the 4th, 5th, and 6th Ammendments and the Geneva conventions and on and on. In short, the terrorists would have won. I bet that would make you happy though you Islamocommiemomma.

    p.s. If you’re not a chick forget about the babycakes comment. I’m not into that sort of thing.

    heterosexually yours,

    Comment by ec1009 — May 31, 2007 @ 11:04 pm | Reply

  45. Still so many points are there in favor of Brownback. I really appreciate it.

    Comment by Loanshub — June 1, 2007 @ 3:40 am | Reply

  46. But again, trying to educate most people like you guys is like talking to avery righteous and dense brick wall covered in religious graffiti. You regurgitate nicely, but are incapable of listening and learning for yourself anything that goes against your little make-believe world of God.

    5ive, Zing!

    eew, you see, the islamofascistliberalgayamphibians have figured out a way to neatly tie together every idealogy that isn’t rabid Bible thumping to fight red-blooded Americans like Sisyphus and friends. We’d be geniuses if not for our obvious flaws like logic and reliance on empirical proofs.

    DPS couldn’t muster enough patriotism to reply directly to my comments, and so chose to discuss my underthings. I know what you’re thinking, but this is just as classy as presuming I was female. (Although I am curious how that happened…)

    ec1009, thanks for setting me straight. My manparts are all aquiver at the thought of President Cheney’s insertion into Iraq, and I salute you for reminding me of the cost of believing in evolution.

    Heterosexually yours,

    Dan Fitness, Patriot.

    Comment by fitnessfortheoccasion — June 1, 2007 @ 6:49 am | Reply

  47. At last, I have found a home.

    Comment by Fred Farkle — June 1, 2007 @ 7:21 am | Reply

  48. fitnessfortheoccasion actually thinks 5ive’s ‘regurgitating brick wall’ metaphor is *good*.

    That sentence right there tells you everything you need to know about fitnessfortheoccasion and 5ive, I think.

    If these two are the best advocates you hippies and losers can come up with, it’s looking like it’ll be a cakewalk for the Senator in 2008.

    Comment by DPS — June 1, 2007 @ 8:27 am | Reply

  49. “it’ll be a cakewalk for the Senator in 2008”

    We shall greet him as our liberator, with flowers.

    Comment by Fred Farkle — June 1, 2007 @ 8:58 am | Reply

  50. It sure will be a cakewalk, heckuva job Dr Pepper!
    Fred, are you totally stoked to topple some statues?

    Comment by fitnessfortheoccasion — June 1, 2007 @ 9:48 am | Reply

  51. This just has to be a parody site. Right?

    Comment by Philo — June 1, 2007 @ 10:18 am | Reply

  52. “At last, I have found a home.”

    Welcome! Be sure to vote Brownback!

    “Separation of Church and State is too vital to lose to the ravings of the ignorant and the fearful.”

    This is the most disgusting sentiment I’ve ever heard. You want to hand our children and our schools over to Satan. I have no use for treefrogs like you. We’re fighting a war for national and spiritual survival; comments like this are objectively pro-terrorist.

    “This just has to be a parody site. Right?”

    No.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 1, 2007 @ 11:14 am | Reply

  53. “This just has to be a parody site. Right?”

    I’m really sick of liberals hurling these accusations. Crawl back to Democratic Underground if you can’t accept the fact that there are people who think differently than you do.

    Comment by Donatello — June 1, 2007 @ 11:17 am | Reply

  54. Actually communism is based on an incorrect interpretation of human nature that evolved by Darwinian natural selection. Communism contradicts what we have learnt about our species from evolution and genetics studies. This lead E.O. Wilson to remark about communism, “good idea, wrong species”. He was referring to social insects such as ants and bees where a communal society is a survival mechanism. Human beings, though a social species are fiercely independent. In addition, we are such an advanced and intelligent species that to constrain us by bringing us down to the same level hurts us all. Communists believe that all people are equally talented and that if someone is successful, it is because he received an unfair advantage by exploiting people. I think that we need to encourage the more brilliant among us to develop life-saving cures and to develop great technologies, while acknowledging that every person has innate value regardless of talent. As for post-modernism and moral relativity, these are also contradicted by evolutionary theory and science in general. Post-modernism is antithetical to the true objective nature of science that 99.9% of scientists agree with. Moral relativity has been shown to be false, because as social species we have been hard-wired to accept certain moral intuitions and a flexibility to change our decision making matrix to adapt to changing social conditions.

    Comment by cassdenata — June 1, 2007 @ 11:47 am | Reply

  55. After reading some of Brownback’s letter and the comments, I came to the conclusion that USA has become a very sad/ugly country. When in the 21st century creationists are still around in the most technologically advanced country, something is wrong. You are losing ground because of these nocive creationist ideas.

    As another commentator said, if you really want an informed opinion read this:
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/sam_brownback_defender_of_the.php#more

    Comment by Luca — June 1, 2007 @ 12:12 pm | Reply

  56. “Fred, are you totally stoked to topple some statues?”

    That depends entirely on teh statue. Some will be toppled into rubble, then stomped on.

    But others? Oh, they shall be exalted!

    So the answer to your question is: Yes. And, no.

    Comment by Fred Farkle — June 1, 2007 @ 12:44 pm | Reply

  57. This is the most disgusting sentiment I’ve ever heard. You want to hand our children and our schools over to Satan. I have no use for treefrogs like you. We’re fighting a war for national and spiritual survival; comments like this are objectively pro-terrorist.

    “This just has to be a parody site. Right?”

    No.

    Finally, the one spot in our political discourse where a “LOL” perfectly sums up the sheer joy of the experience. All signs point otherwise, General Sisyphus! But for the benefit of the fundies who take that statement seriously:
    There are alternatives to shoving Christianity down every child’s throat that don’t include Satan worship. Like science, other religions, etc.
    Actually, dissolving the separation of Church and State and feeding the conflict in Iraq is pro-terrorist. The latter literally helps them make money and recruit, and the former is a realization of their political aims with a different religion substituted in.

    Luca, that post is amazing.

    There is also some confusion about what faith can accomplish. I reject faith, yet somehow I have value and meaning in my life, I feel empathy for those who suffer, and I love. I do not need your dogma to understand those matters. I do so by observing my own life, the lives of others, the consequences of actions on people—by considering just the material world, not assuming an irrelevant supernatural one.

    Well said!

    Fred, How shall we know which are to be toppled, and which exalted? Will there be a faith-based test?
    Supposing one statue was part french, part red blooded american. Can we make it lean?
    The leaning Statue of Liberty? It’ll be the wonder of the second dark ages!

    Comment by fitnessfortheoccasion — June 1, 2007 @ 1:05 pm | Reply

  58. VOTE BROPNBACK R MOVE TO CUBA TRAITORAS!!!

    Comment by Jack Fremont — June 1, 2007 @ 1:15 pm | Reply

  59. I assume you are refering to Dr. Gunther R. Bropnback, PHD,DDS,LMT and famed Noahsarkical scholar now running for congress in Kentucky’s 6th district. I presume you have not heard that sadly he was recently indicted for biblical relations with a treefrog. I believe he is being framed by the vast athiestocommie prosecutorial conspiracy. Please send any money you can spare to his defense fund at http://www.ididnothavesexualrelationswiththattreefrog.org

    Comment by ec1009 — June 1, 2007 @ 4:52 pm | Reply

  60. Jack, where can I buy those vote candles?

    Comment by ec1009 — June 1, 2007 @ 4:54 pm | Reply

  61. I think an author at the other B4B said it well when he said…

    “…the adherents of the Church of the Holy Darwin attempt to denigrate people of my view by claiming that we also think the world is flat, or other such nonsense…even though no educated Christian ever believed the world to be flat. The basic thrust of the attack against us is that if we don’t believe in Darwinism, then we’re just ignorant fools. I don’t consider myself ignorant, while fool is a subjective judgement – all I can say is that I’ve been given heavy doses of Darwinism ever since I was a child, and the theory always struck me as greatly flawed; it never appealed to my reason…though I can see how easily it would appeal to someone’s pride – someone, that is, who wants to think of himself as a free agent without any responsibility to a Creator who prefers some things to others (of course, the people who thusly latch on to Darwinism are ignoring the fact that if Darwinism is correct, then their alleged broad minded and advanced thinking is nothing but a response to physical stimuli for which they are no more responsible than a rock is responsible for sliding downhill).”

    Of course he was wrong about one issue in there but who can be expected to remember what happened before last week let alone 1835.

    Comment by carsick — June 1, 2007 @ 6:30 pm | Reply

  62. Mr. Noonan is a great man. He helps defend a great President. Please don’t speak ill of him, carsick. He loves this country more than Democrats ever will.

    Comment by Marcia P. — June 2, 2007 @ 8:59 am | Reply

  63. I thought Peggy Noonan was a woman. Well, you learn something new every day.

    Comment by ec1009 — June 2, 2007 @ 10:14 am | Reply

  64. “Their alleged broad minded and advanced thinking is nothing but a response to physical stimuli for which they are no more responsible than a rock is responsible for sliding downhill.”

    A rock is like a treefrog that won’t listen to reason. Who is more responsible. The man who pushes the rock uphill towards God and reason or the rock which insists on sliding downhill? I prefer to blame the rock. What say you Sisyphus?

    Comment by ec1009 — June 2, 2007 @ 12:10 pm | Reply

  65. “I thought Peggy Noonan was a woman. Well, you learn something new every day.”

    I think she means Mark Noonan, the one who runs Blogs For Bush.

    “A rock is like a treefrog that won’t listen to reason. Who is more responsible. The man who pushes the rock uphill towards God and reason or the rock which insists on sliding downhill? I prefer to blame the rock. What say you Sisyphus?”

    I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there, ec1009.

    You’re on fire today!

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 2, 2007 @ 12:16 pm | Reply

  66. “Dr. Gunther R. Bropnback, PHD,DDS,LMT and famed Noahsarkical scholar”
    Comment by ec1009 — June 1, 2007 @ 4:52 pm

    That should be Noahsarkeological scholar. What was I thinking?

    Comment by ec1009 — June 2, 2007 @ 3:30 pm | Reply

  67. Man, this really shows the flaws of the American education system, apparently you can graduate without ever having taken a biology class…

    I think Brownback would be better off running for president in Iran: I’m sure the Guardian Council would approve of him.

    Comment by Skeptic — June 3, 2007 @ 9:02 am | Reply

  68. Skeptic @ 67:

    “Man, this really shows the flaws of the American education system, apparently you can graduate without ever having taken a biology class…”

    I’m sure that the Senator was forced to learn about the hideous Darwinist lies, but his nimble mind and iron faith proved resistant to indoctrination. I wish that the same were true for you.

    “I think Brownback would be better off running for president in Iran: I’m sure the Guardian Council would approve of him.”

    After President Bush or Brownback conquers Iran, there won’t be a Guardian Council anymore.

    Comment by DPS — June 3, 2007 @ 9:39 am | Reply

  69. Skeptic hates America. Check his IP, Sisyphus. He may be posting from France, or even from San Francisco.

    Comment by Marcia P. — June 3, 2007 @ 12:22 pm | Reply

  70. Skeptic, right on. Its more than that, Brownback clearly doesn’t understand the difference between starting with a conclusion and fishing for premises, and starting with data and finding an theory that yields repeatable results.

    “After President Bush or Brownback conquers Iran”, DPS, at least you came out and admitted it. What shall we do with our other successfully conquered territories? Are we going to take over the entire Middle East?

    This may be hard to swallow, but open up Brownback supporters. Liberals love America, and we won’t let you guys turn this place into a fascist theocratic dump on our watch. The very fact that you need to strenuously oppose reason and science shows how lacking your world view is. You really can’t convince people without first making sure they are ignorant, can you?

    Comment by fitnessfortheoccasion — June 3, 2007 @ 1:18 pm | Reply

  71. ‘“After President Bush or Brownback conquers Iran”, DPS, at least you came out and admitted it. What shall we do with our other successfully conquered territories? Are we going to take over the entire Middle East?’

    We should establish freedom-loving American-style governments in them, and then leave. Ideally, some of these countries will learn to love freedom before we have to conquer them, which would spare us some trouble. That’s not happening so far, though, so we need to keep it up with the conquest.

    “Liberals love America, and we won’t let you guys turn this place into a fascist theocratic dump on our watch.”

    What are you going to do? Scare us off by eating salad? Or by wearing ladies’ undergarments?

    Comment by DPS — June 3, 2007 @ 2:30 pm | Reply

  72. DPS, do you honestly believe that those countries hate freedom? You do know that Iran has a young population that has been demonstrating and pushing for more freedom, all on their own. When we start thumping our chest at them, they forget their internal struggles and band together to oppose outside forces imposing their will. All conquest buys us is more blood and tyranny, at home and abroad.

    “What are you going to do? Scare us off by eating salad? Or by wearing ladies’ undergarments?”.
    Frankly, just letting you folks speak for yourselves seems to pack the most wallop.
    Letting reality slap you around seems to work as well. Even if you folks don’t learn from your mistakes, observers certainly do.

    Comment by fitnessfortheoccasion — June 3, 2007 @ 3:03 pm | Reply

  73. ‘“What are you going to do? Scare us off by eating salad? Or by wearing ladies’ undergarments?”.

    Frankly, just letting you folks speak for yourselves seems to pack the most wallop.
    Letting reality slap you around seems to work as well. Even if you folks don’t learn from your mistakes, observers certainly do.’

    I’ll take that as a ‘yes.’

    Comment by DPS — June 3, 2007 @ 4:14 pm | Reply

  74. Thanks for the laugh DPS. Really? Pointing out the self destructive tendencies of the far right is tantamount to eating salad?
    Glorious!
    If you want more meat in my answer: We intend to continue the momentum of 2006 and move more of the reality based community into office. Votes, elections, that kind of thing. It presumably goes without saying. Thankfully we have the more ridiculous among your ranks to help us campaign.

    Here’s a few questions for you champ: How will you get a far right fringe candidate like Brownback elected President? How far do you intend to go dissolving the separation between Church and State? Which church will be the official state church?

    Comment by fitnessfortheoccasion — June 3, 2007 @ 7:01 pm | Reply

  75. Brownback will win because patriotic Americans outnumber tree-hugging moonbats by a large margin. It’s as simple as that.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 5, 2007 @ 10:11 am | Reply

  76. Why is it that you consider patriotism to be right wing? Can a patriot not be a liberal, or tree hugging moonbat in your terminology?

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 5, 2007 @ 10:28 am | Reply

  77. “Why is it that you consider patriotism to be right wing? Can a patriot not be a liberal, or tree hugging moonbat in your terminology?”

    No. Can water be dry?

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 5, 2007 @ 10:35 am | Reply

  78. Another non-sequitur.

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 5, 2007 @ 10:44 am | Reply

  79. Whatever.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 5, 2007 @ 10:47 am | Reply

  80. No no, come on, answer the question.

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 5, 2007 @ 10:57 am | Reply

  81. “Can water be dry?”

    Ever heard of ice?

    Comment by Skeptic — June 5, 2007 @ 11:20 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: