151. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #113705 by quill on January 20, 2008 at 11:23 am

Oh, no! They're murdering human beings! Microscopic, unicellular human beings!

I hope they keep this up, haha. The US population is overwhelmingly in favor of embryonic stem-cell research, and the religious crowd only make themselves look silly when they oppose it on grounds like this.

152. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #113467 by quill on January 19, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Fortunately for us, Ben Stein's credibility has been slipping away for years now. Remember when he went onto TV to decy the "railroading" of Larry Craig? That is, after Larry Craig plead guilty? Fun times.

153. New Findings Confirm Darwin's Theory: Evolution Not Random

Comment #113465 by quill on January 19, 2008 at 4:18 pm

This just in--evolution occurs by natural selection! x_o

In other news: Moon devoid of atmosphere, astronomers say.

154. The New Theology

Comment #113193 by quill on January 18, 2008 at 8:54 pm

Calvin College... Named for the man who burned Michael Servetus at a stake with a copy of his book nailed to his chest?

155. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #113192 by quill on January 18, 2008 at 8:37 pm

mesomodel: I'd rather he had a position on the insanity of the state of the church. I'll take what I can get.

Obama did take a few shots at "The so-called leaders of the Christian Right," last year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdDsXV4788k&watch_response

And in response, Ann Coulter got to make some smarmy comment on Fox News about how someone with the middle name Hussein should not use phrases like "Faith got hijacked."

But he also said something which is, I think, the most promising reference a Presidential candidate has made to atheists thus far:

"Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

Say what you will, but I think that's progress.

156. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #113118 by quill on January 18, 2008 at 3:37 pm

The comment about marriage was fairly incongruous for Obama. It's one of the snags that made him my third choice rather than my first (behind Gravel and Kucinich). Still, I don't think he believes anything supernatural in Christianity, and I can't see him actually vetoing a successful same-sex marriage bill, regardless of what his opinion is, can you?

He's spoken in the past about the need for liberal America to compromise a bit with the religious, so I guess this is that compromise. Honestly, I think giving up on same-sex marriage for another four or eight years is still a bargain for the other policies he promises, especially those pertaining to science and environmentalism. And everything else aside, I think his nomination over Hillary is crucial, because if she (nonGod forbid) wins the nomination, I'm sure we'll have a Republican President next January and at that point, I would regard the fortunes of the United States to be shot for the next 50 years.

157. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #113100 by quill on January 18, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Okay, that's true. We're also in the top 10 for murder rates, haha.

But really, there's no denying that the Republican Party is the party of God these days, is there? I mean can you really picture a Democratic candidate denying evolution? Judge Jones was a stellar exception but an exception he was, or so it seems...

158. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #113095 by quill on January 18, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Aw, Prankster, don't leave. :) I'm not dissed.

159. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #113090 by quill on January 18, 2008 at 2:30 pm

There are parts of the US that are virtually identical to Western Europe by any social indicator, and then there are other parts that are hopelessly backward. The result is that the national averages are always low in every category. But national averages don't honestly mean that much in America because of the regional differences that exist.

For example, I'm from Chicago, where we haven't had a Republican mayor since 1927. I really doubt the percentage of our population that denies scientific principles like evolution or global warming is anything near the national average.

(The rest of this post deleted for politeness.:)

160. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #113078 by quill on January 18, 2008 at 2:20 pm

I won't actually ask whether they "accept" evolution. That would be a leading question. It'll probably have to be multiple choice.

Btw, excellent documentary on a future Israeli scenario, appropriately titled "Endgame":

http://quicksilverscreen.com/watch?video=21749

161. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #113069 by quill on January 18, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Or maybe they will have decided to use them all before they have to do that.

Depends; if Israel commands us to attack Iran, what can we say? They know they own us.

162. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #113066 by quill on January 18, 2008 at 2:10 pm

I think if someone asked me what color was orange, I would probably respond, "A mixture of red and yellow," because, after all, I could hardly use the word orange in my definition. So maybe I'll leave that one off the survey. I will get to the bottom of these other issues, though. I want to find out once and for all exactly how stupid people over here are.

163. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #113052 by quill on January 18, 2008 at 2:00 pm

That settles it. I'm going to stand on a corner somewhere on my university campus tomorrow and find out what percentage of students here accept evolution, accept global warming, can find the Pacific Ocean on a map, and know the color of an orange. I can't bring myself to believe these horror stories until I've actually tested them myself.

164. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #112985 by quill on January 18, 2008 at 11:04 am

Gr8hands, Obama has written about his religious views in Dreams of My Father, and it doesn't seem that he takes them very seriously at all. He wrote that he became a Christian when he "recognized the capacity of the African-American religious tradition to affect social change". If he actually believed any of it, he would have said he became a Christian when Jesus entered his heart, or when he became convinced that Jesus was the Son of God, or some such. I doubt he believes any of the supernatural underpinnings. He only seems to think of religion as some sort of tradition.

Anyway, what matters most to me in this regard is policy. Though he said he regarded marriage that way, he still voted against the Constitutional marriage amendment, and that's what counts. It doesn't hurt that he's promised to double the Federal government's investment in scientific research, either.

As a side note, has anyone seen that video where Ron Paul denies evolution? I think that should be up here, too, since many independents seem to be flocking to him.

165. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #112168 by quill on January 16, 2008 at 1:47 pm

If Keith Olbermann does not make the speech of his career out of this, he is fired.

166. New attempt to end blasphemy law

Comment #109727 by quill on January 9, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Was Lord Scarman some kind of parliamentary supervillain?

167. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #109240 by quill on January 8, 2008 at 4:08 pm

And...

You know, Mesomodel's idea was actually a very good one.

I imagine it's like taking a breath--statistically, you must be inhaling at least one molecule that passed through the lungs of Julius Caesar.

It might be that every one of us here who lives in the US has, at some point in our lives, actually handled currency that belonged to everyone else.

If even a small number of atheists began blotting out the words "In God We Trust" and replacing them with "E Pluribus Unum", it wouldn't be too long before everyone in the country had seen them.

With that in mind, Mesomodel, I just vandalized about a dozen bills in your honor. :)

168. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #109225 by quill on January 8, 2008 at 3:44 pm

I've seen those "In God We Trust" license plates as well. I'm in Illinois so there aren't as many, but I see them occasionally, and yes, it's a disheartening experience--especially because most states that issue them have introduced special legislation that allows you to get them without paying the fee normally required for vanity plates.

The hard-core Christians seem to think it's their duty to remind those of us who aren't that the government considers them to have privileges the rest of us don't.

But you know, try not to let it bother you. The fact is that Christianity will drop to 69% of the population this year, and most of those people will live to see followers of their religion dwindle to an insignificant minority of the population that no one has to listen to anymore. And that'll be a lot worse than anything a mere license plate could do. ;)

169. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109217 by quill on January 8, 2008 at 3:27 pm

rthille, Losing Faith in Faith is a good introductory volume, by Dan Barker. That is, if your comment was serious.

But honestly, if you have money to waste like that, donate to UNICEF.

170. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108869 by quill on January 7, 2008 at 6:48 pm

One of the ways these Xians / Wiccans / Pagans / New Agers / Crystal Healers / Witch Doctors have managed to get their tendrils into our secular society and turn it into a bazaar of competing delusions is by having made opinions interchangable with facts. If you believe something, it's "true" to you. Kind of this postmodern view of reality which Dawkins despises, which insists all opinions are equal. That's why I use the word "accept". I think it's helpful to point out that there is such a thing as a fact.

171. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108858 by quill on January 7, 2008 at 6:32 pm

I always use the phrase "accept evolution" or "understand evolution" instead of "believe in evolution". There is such a thing as observed reality, which is on a higher plane than mere beliefs.

Scooternyc, socialized healthcare is not a case of the government taking care of people, it's a case of people taking care of each other. It says something about our society that we have people actually expressing disdain for such measures. If you close your eyes and try to picture Utopia, do you see a society in which people have to pay money to be healthy? And if they don't have money, they're left in the street to die? The fact that we have so many people in America who don't understand the value of humanity or even its meaning makes me depressed for the future of our species. If, in another hundred years, artificial intelligence has made human beings obsolete, I believe, if we haven't learned to treat each other any better than we do now, we'll deserve to be exterminated.

172. Blind Faiths

Comment #108737 by quill on January 7, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Yes, the only thing of value in the Muslim world is oil, and we have, what do you think, twenty years tops until nobody cares about oil anymore? I really wish Harris, Ayaan and Hitch would get off the "Muslims are going to destroy civilization" schtick. It doesn't help.

173. Blind Faiths

Comment #108729 by quill on January 7, 2008 at 1:39 pm

I find myself disagreeing with Ayaan Hirsi Ali more and more. She seems to be building Islam up into something it's not. We all know it's dangerous, but there is such a thing as hyperbole, and it invalidates her argument that she does not seem to know when she crosses the line. Neither does the author of the book she's reviewing.

A violent clash between Muslims and non-Muslims is not inevitable--As soon as oil ceases to be a valuable export, what happens in the Middle East will be of no consequence to the rest of the world. And the way she describes Islam as a cancer rapidly spreading to all corners of the earth is just pure fantasy. All religion is declining, including Islam. With every year, the percentage of the world's population that is not religious increases, and the percentage that is religious shrinks. This is fearmongering worthy of Karl Rove. It's no surprise she's been working with those "Project for a New American Century" neocons.

174. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108717 by quill on January 7, 2008 at 1:13 pm

I use terms like "fiscal conservatives" and "industrialists" interchangeably.

But no, I really will emigrate if Huckabee wins. I've already decided that I'll be moving up to Alaska after college, and could easily just make it Canada instead.

175. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108711 by quill on January 7, 2008 at 1:01 pm

I attended a public school as well, but I don't think there was anyone in my class so stupid as to not be able to identify the Pacific Ocean. Even those who eventually dropped out could have done that.

I do recall one experience--being asked by a senior, when I was a junior, who won the Civil War. I was aghast. That was easily the dumbest girl in the class, hands down--yet I think even she would have been able to identify the Pacific on a map.

Actually, now that I think about it, the education I received from my public school was not that bad. I recall one test in Sociology class, on which we were asked to list several reasons for the economic and social stagnation of Europe during the Middle Ages. One of the correct answers, a theme which our textbooks hit on repeatedly, was: "Only the priesthood was allowed to read." ;)

176. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108674 by quill on January 7, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Waiiiit a minute.

It says at the end that "at least 300 people" were surveyed. That's what, six people per state? Assuming they even got to every state.

I'm going to remain skeptical. I don't think 30% of Americans my age are unable to identify the Pacific Ocean.

Although I will confess that I probably would not have been able to tell Iran apart from Iraq prior to 2003.

177. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108670 by quill on January 7, 2008 at 12:05 pm

I can believe that in one school, one district or even one state, but it's just beyond my capability to accept that if I go outside and start asking people to identify the Pacific Ocean on a map, even one in ten will not be able to.

178. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108667 by quill on January 7, 2008 at 12:01 pm

25% of Americans can't find the Pacific. The was a Natl. Geo. study a while back.

I have a lot of trouble believing that's accurate. If it is, then there's something peculiar going on since looking at the UN Human Development Report 2006, the US seems to be ranked higher than the UK in education, for some reason. That's not to bash the UK--it's only a difference in score between 0.971 and 0.970--but I really can't believe that more than 1% of people in either country would fail to identify the Pacific Ocean if asked.

179. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108616 by quill on January 7, 2008 at 10:53 am

After seeing the numbers in New Hampshire, I'm not as worried about Huckabee as I once was. It seems the old-school industrialists within the Republican party are actually starting to pit themselves against the Evangelicals this time around, since they can no longer just take them for granted as they did during the Bush years. McCain and Romney both look to beat Huckabee by 20 points in the next caucus.

180. Stop House Resolution 888

Comment #107902 by quill on January 5, 2008 at 2:54 pm

JemyM said:

Once Christianity erased history.

Then ADH said:

That's quite a claim you're making for Christianity! If it succeeded in erasing it, how could you possibly know that it did? Which history did it erase? Have you got some kind of covert access to this putative history that has been denied to the rest of us? Maybe you could enlighten us!

In their efforts to convert the native population of Mexico to Christianity, Catholic priests collected and burned hundreds of thousands of Aztec and Maya codices in a single event, believing them to have been the words of the Devil--effectively destroying the entire history of civilization in America up to that point. There were many libraries renowned throughout the Mesoamerican world at that time, but of them, only four books survived the torch--four pitiful books which today make up almost all we know about an entire world and its people. It is as if they never existed.

Tragically, that is more or less precisely what the Christians did to the Roman world, when they came to power. It was a Christian mob which burned the Great Library of Alexandria to the ground. All the knowledge we have of Plato, Aristotle, and other Classical (pagan) thinkers, preserved in part by Greek-speaking scholars in the Middle East, is only a tiny fraction of the knowledge and history that was destroyed by the early Christians, and which will never be rediscovered.

JemyM was correct when s/he said that Christianity once destroyed history, except that it actually did so not once, but twice, in two different worlds, a thousand years apart. It's as Ingersoll said: "Give the church a place in the Constitution, let her touch once more the sword of power, and the priceless fruit of all ages will turn to ashes on the lips of men." The churches are ready and willing to rekindle the flame at a moment's notice, should they ever be given the power to do so.

181. Stop House Resolution 888

Comment #107807 by quill on January 5, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Angry letter sent.

My representative did not vote for the Christmas resolution, so it was probably a meaningless exercise, but at least he'll have a little reading to do over the weekend.

182. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107736 by quill on January 5, 2008 at 5:21 am

Epeeist, following a Presidential turnover, the entire Executive branch typically gets replaced along with most of the previous administration's appointees to the Federal judiciary. I doubt either Obama or Clinton would be keen to keep any of Bush's flunkies around, whether they're affiliated with "Regent University" or not. The only exceptions will be his appointees to the Supreme Court, who sadly, are there for life.

And Roger, IMHO I don't think the definition of terrorism is so loose as to encompass America's revolutionaries. Terrorism involves coercion through violence against civilians, doesn't it? A uniformed military rebellion seems like something else.

183. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107700 by quill on January 5, 2008 at 2:35 am

al-rawandi:

How do you propose that we should have "pushed for democracy in the region"? The people who have the power are unlikely to give it up out of the goodness of their hearts.

Please don't be one of those people who's willing to say that democracy will never work in Afghanistan because we're talking about Afghans. That's basically racist. Democracy can be established by force, even in places where it has never existed before--remember Japan in 1946. If you're not in favor of a US military presence in Afghanistan, then what, at the present time, is your strategy? Leave and let the Taliban regain control? What point is there in complaining about our current path if there are truly no others to choose from?

184. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107422 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Not at all. If it's to reverse the violation of Poland and France's sovereignty, that's fine.

So, conducting military actions in another country without their permission is "fine" as long as that country has committed some grave offense, or if by doing so, the sovereignity of another country can be strenghthened? That's good, I totally agree. Now in what other circumstances might it be permissible? Let's make a list. I think you'll find by the time you get to the end of it that considering a military strike against al-Qaeda in Pakistan is not necessarily a war crime.

185. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107407 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Yes, international counter-terrorism is "vigilante justice". You do it without regards to international law, without permission from the host country.

And have I advocated that? Or did I merely say I would not chastise Obama for "considering" it?

I suppose sixty years ago you would have decried the invasion of Normandy as a gross violation of Nazi Germany's national sovereignity? Like it or not, there are circumstances in which such things become acceptable. I don't think I can be called an imperialist for having said so.

186. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107400 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 1:01 pm

I find it disappointing that you haven't answered any of my questions on this page? What recourse is there for countries that don't have the resources to engage in vigilante justice that you advocate?

It's interesting that you should ask that. First, tell me: Have I advocated vigilante justice? Have I even advocated any kind of military intervention? Please tell me where I have advocated these things, because it seems to me that this is merely what you've been reinterpreting me to have said.

187. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107397 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Rtambree said:

That's very magnanimous of you, considering that the USA outspends the rest of the world combined in military force. How are these other countries supposed to do it without retaliation?

Rtambree, no offense, but:

1. I said not too long ago on this very thread that I was in favor of slashing the US military budget at least by 50%, and probably way more than that.

2. We're not talking about invasions, we're talking about counterterrorist operations, so what you just said was essentially a non sequitur - the amount the US spends on its military is irrelevant here.

188. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107393 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 12:56 pm

"In essence, what you're saying is "Might is right, like it or lump it, America Right or Wrong".

That isn't the issue at all. It's not an issue of "might makes right". It's an issue of what countries should be able to get away with in certain situations. Everything I have been saying, and a lot of what mikecbraun has been saying, is simply getting reinterpreted to mean what you guys want it to mean, so you can portray us as imperialist tyrants. This is really disheartening.

189. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107382 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Rtambree said:

Yeah, but you're advocating some vague arbitrary rules here. They apply to other countries, but there always seems to be a reason why they can't apply to the USA...

Let's be fair here. Earlier I said that if UK operatives apprehended a terrorist inside the US without permission, I would not be upset with them. Obviously it would be a diplomatic blunder, but I would not interpret it as an "act of war", or indeed any act of aggression against the United States. But now you're accusing me of holding the US to a different standard? What have I indicated that the US could do, but other countries could not? Because to my knowledge I've been saying that other countries are entitled to the same rights as the United States.

You are being very quick to interpret things that I say as Imperialist. I never indicated that the rules which apply to other nations do not apply to the US. I think perhaps that's just what you would like me to have said.

190. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107356 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Hey, I never said they should, but it's one option. :)

191. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107353 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Sorry, I deleted my first comment.

You may be right. I know that Bill Clinton signed the treaty to establish the ICC. Supposedly Bush "unsigned" us, but I'll have to look into it.

192. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107346 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Rtambree, don't be facetious. You know countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan are orders of magnitude more backward and more violence-soaked than the US. Even the most deluded fundamentalist pro-Israel Xian in America has some understanding of the rule of law. We're not quite down to tribal justice here.

And those South American countries who demand extradition for political prisoners hiding in the US are typically fascist dictatorships.

193. Can Atheists Be Parents?

Comment #107336 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 12:02 pm

What... the... x_x

That law is probably 230 years old. It's as if a judge in the UK actually tried to enforce one of their blasphemy laws with hanging.

Oh, wait, it's from 1970?

194. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107329 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 11:56 am

Thank you, Rtambree. :)

I think I'm going to take a break. Sorry if I've annoyed anyone.

195. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107323 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 11:48 am

He also discussed, openly, military strikes on Iran if they don't bow to our will.

He asked at what point, "if any", such strikes would be considered. You're seriously painting him as a warmonger because he "discussed" it?

196. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107315 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 11:44 am

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. You provided this quote:

Obama told the Tribune, "[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?"

And you gave it the caption:

Also Obama advocated surgical missile strikes against Iran if Iran did not bow to American demands. Is this prudent? (Chicago Tribune article, Sept. 26, 2004)

How was that quote, in any way, indicative that Barack Obama "advocated surgical missile strikes against Iran"? How? He asked, "At what point, if any, are we going to take military action?" And you consider that to be advocating military action--and specifically, surgical missile strikes? Are you kidding? Seriously, this is getting silly. Obama advocated no such thing. You are just making this up.

197. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107313 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 11:39 am

Yes, al-rawandi, you got me: My statement that Ron Paul supporters were typically, in my own inexperience, overly quick to generalize those with whom they disagree as being uninformed automata was itself a generalization. Therefore you don't have to listen to what I said--you can just dismiss it outright--and your statements regarding how I was "one of those people" who think terrorists hate us for our freedom was perfectly valid. Congrats.

1) Obama said he would send MORE troops to afghanistan.

We need more troops in Afghanistan. I was opposed to the Iraq war and am in favor of slashing our military budget in half, so please, no accusations of being called a neocon for saying this, but an increased US military presence in Afghanistan, preferably coupled with better US military leadership and greater congressional oversight in Afghanistan, would be, for the moment, a good thing.

2) Considering an attack IN Pakistan means he either thinks it acceptable or he doesn't know if it is acceptable.

I would give it the same consideration, not because I think it is acceptable, but because I think it possible that it could be acceptable under certain circumstances which would have to be carefully considered and weighed against the obvious fact that a counterterrorist strike in another country without the permission of that country's legitimate government is illegal under international law. For example, if I, as President, had concrete proof that bin-Laden was in Pakistan and on the verge of acquiring one of its many nuclear weapons from its legitimate government (possibly one of the many tribal governments which control most of its territory), then I might consider such a strike more acceptable than it would otherwise have been. That is what it means to consider something. It does not mean you advocate it. It means you consider.

198. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107297 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 11:22 am

One attribute I find to be almost universal in Ron Paul supporters (including former Ron Paul supporters) is the speed with which they denounce anyone who disagrees with them as being a neocon, or a Fox News viewer, or "brainwashed", or a corporate drone, or some other sort of automaton incapable of thinking for itself. They always tend to act as though they are privy to some level of awareness that ordinary human beings are not, and that those around them, especially those who disagree, are merely mindless cogs in a machine. And they do this, in my experience, without any knowledge of the other party, or even of the positions of the candidate they are supporting, or any interest in learning such things before denouncing. Yes, al-rawandi, I am "one of those people who thinks terrorists hate us for our freedom". Whatever makes you happy.

199. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107295 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 11:14 am

al-rawandi, time and again you tell me what my opinions and positions are without ever having asked. I am amazed that you could know so much about me to enable you to make such calls.

You just don't understand terrorism. Every "strike" is fuel on the fire.

You act as if I, just like every other person who's thoughtful enough to visit this website, do not already know this. Honestly, you're addressing me as if I were eight years old. I am perfectly aware that apprehending or killing terrorists makes martyrs of them, and that yes, economic prosperity abroad is a better way of fighting terrorism than military interaction. Who do I look like - Rudy Giuliani? Again, everyone here understands these things. But do they have any bearing on this conversation? Obama was not advocating an "invasion" of Pakistan, nor even an attack on Pakistan "and its citizens", as you were portraying him as having done. The most he said was that he would consider a counterterrorist strike. You can't possibly be so blinded by ideologies pertaining to nationalism that you can't see the difference between these two things.

And finally:

Well put. Quill appears to be one of the people who feel terrorists hate us for our freedom.

I'm not even going to respond to this, because I think it is so ridiculous that it should not even warrant a response. I just felt I would point it out.

200. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107281 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 10:58 am

Pay attention, he said attack and pakistan.

If taking two words out of a sentence he said and rearranging them in a different order is the best evidence you have that Obama was advocating military action against Pakistan and not merely against al-Qaeda, then I'm just going to rest my case.