So, Rush says he wants Sotomayor to fail
“Do I want her to fail? Yeah. Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yes. She’d be a disaster on the court,†he said. “Do I still want to Obama to fail as president? Yeah. … He’s going to fail anyway, but the sooner the better here so that as little damage can be done to the country.â€
Anyone not completely entrenched in hard left sheeplism will understand this very simple concept, but, as usual, those in the progressive movement do not get it
Because it was so successful last time around, Rush Limbaugh’s doubling down on that “failure†meme that has won him so much praise, and converted so many fence-sitters to the conservative cause. (Not.)
I don’t really understand why Rush Limbaugh and social conservatives like Mike Huckabee are so opposed to Sotomayor; you’d think they would be pleased by rulings like this:
Said ruling is about limiting abortion by those countries recieving aid from the United States. But, one ruling does not a complete picture make. But, hey, it is more about the narrative for Kid Icarus in showing his progressive and increasingly Excitable Andy tendencies. At one time, he was a sound, sane voice in at least the anti-jihad movement. Now, I see little distiguising him from Markos Moulitsas, Andrew Sullivan, and the barking moonbats at the Democratic Underground.
In related news, LGF2.0 catches the same old typical TEA party hatred coming from the Head Lizoid, who uses a far left group to make his weak point. And neither the source nor Icarus understands that the TEA parties were not “anit-tax.”
More: Prior to commenting on the same post as myself, DrewM at Ace of Spades starts off with
What was once a must read blog for news and analysis on my rss feed has recently become a once or twice a day stop and that’s only for the car crash quality of it all.
Excitable Andy Chucky responds to DrewM, and proves that he still. doesn’t. get. it.
Oh, and hey, look at that. My account is now blocked at LGF1.0. I guess having the difference between a Theory, a fact, and a Law explained was too much in Der Fuhrer’s world.
OK, last update. LGF2.0 is covering this same story now, and wonders who will be banned next.
OK, I lied. Notice the banner ad with Ann Coulter at 1.0? Yet, he smears her in the post that 2.0 mentioned in my first link to them.
What were you referring to regarding the “difference between a Theory, a fact, and a Law” that got you banned at LGF?
I was basically explaining that there is a difference between a Theory and a Law. He was making the Theory Of Evolution out to be a Law, by throwing around the word “fact.” Look, there is nothing wrong with being a Theory, Einstein’s thing about Relativity is a Theory, because it cannot be proved fully at this time, like Gravity, Thermodynamics, and others. Maybe one day Evolution and Relativity will be Laws. Maybe not.
Theories are not necessarily facts. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. And, apparently, after dropping this little bomb, I have been told that the Lizards went apeshit. Unfortunately, I had to run and couldn’t follow up.
A scientific theory isn’t considered a theory because “it cannot be proved fully at this time.†Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. So in a sense, a scientific theory is actually better than just a fact. Perhaps this is what the Lizards went “apeshit†about. But they shouldn’t have kicked you off for it.
Regarding the theory of evolution, the fossil record and other independent lines of evidence (biogeography, paleontology, embryology, and morphology) testify that organisms have evolved through time. Evolution is the fundamental concept that underlies all life sciences. It makes useful predictions and it contributes to advances in medicine, public health and conservation.
Do you think there’s a better scientific theory that can explain the diversity and complexity of life on earth?
It’s still a Theory, though, Silke. Regardless of any facts.
But, they didn’t go apeshit because of that. They went nuts because I questioned Charles, and that is a big no no. People are getting banned left and right, and have been for awhile. There is a huge list out there of them.
A Theory consists of facts, which is why they are no longer Hypotheses. But, it doesn’t mean the Theory still can’t be disproved. Maybe one day Darwin will be proved correct in a way that can not be disputed, such as the with Gravity, Thermodynamics, and the Law of Unintended Consequences ( 😀 ). That day is not here yet.
And maybe one day Darwin will be completely be proven wrong. Or partially correct. I’ll reserve my judgement and listen to the arguments. Heck, for all we know, Creationism and what it’s supporters say is 100% correct. We just do not fully know.
It’s still a Theory, though, Silke. Regardless of any facts.
It’s a scientific theory because of the facts, Teach.
And maybe one day Darwin will be completely be proven wrong. Or partially correct. I’ll reserve my judgement and listen to the arguments. Heck, for all we know, Creationism and what it’s supporters say is 100% correct. We just do not fully know.
Actually we know quite a bit so to treat both as equally likely ignores the facts. It’s good that you want to listen to all the arguments, but you shouldn’t let it keep you from a genuine, rigorous analysis of those arguments. Science takes competing ideas and weighs and judges them based on the available evidence. Those that don’t fit the facts or have little to no value are discarded.
Silke, I think you are missing the point about the banning.
No, I got it.
I was just referring to your comments about evolution and Creationism. You say you want to reserve judgment and listen to the arguments but there are no scientific arguments that support Creationism. To equate the two ignores the facts.
Well, to play devils advocate, you can find many Creationists who will provide what they think are scientific facts. I’ve seen some of their flyers and read some of their stuff. For ID, they can also provide you with facts. Darwinism doesn’t have enough facts to prove it as “this is the way it is, and it can be no other way.” There is also lots of evidence which contradicts Darwinism.
One day we will know what is correct for sure, with no way to disprove. That day is not here.
I’ve seen some of their flyers and read some of their stuff.
I’m sure you could find flyers about almost anything but that’s not a very rigorous standard for scientific evidence.
Darwinism doesn’t have enough facts to prove it as “this is the way it is, and it can be no other way.â€
Science doesn’t work that way. In principle, all theories are provisional, but the longer they stand up to scrutiny the more confidence we have in them. There are volumes of peer-reviewed studies that support the theory of evolution by natural selection. If you’re interested I recommend this site:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
There is also lots of evidence which contradicts Darwinism.
What do you consider the most compelling evidence against Darwinism?
One day we will know what is correct for sure, with no way to disprove. That day is not here.
Science is cumulative and self-correcting so scientific theories will always be incomplete. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have confidence in the knowledge we’ve gained so far.
😎 Charles is slipping further and further into the dustbins of history just leave the turd alone 😎