Patterico's Pontifications

I think it will be interesting to see if the DNC goes ahead and seats the Dem winner of MI, since Hillary and Granholm really pulled one over on Obama and Edwards. Then again, if you are not politically astute enough to leave your name on the ballot, maybe you do not deserve to win. Either way, from the party that claims to want to count every vote, they should have a mess on their hands when it comes to counting delegates from MI and FL. That would be a bad way to start off the general election, so I suspect they will just make it go away.

JD (3cdc37) — 1/15/2008 @ 7:13 pm

Is it too early to predict riots at at least one of the parties’ nominating conventions?

Al (b624ac) — 1/15/2008 @ 8:44 pm

Al – Those peace loving hippies tend to get violent at greater rates than accountants, so I would be willing to bet on the Dems.

JD (3cdc37) — 1/15/2008 @ 8:56 pm

JD: I hope the party holds the line on this one. Otherwise we’ll have primaries in September of 2011.

aphrael (48df67) — 1/15/2008 @ 9:08 pm

aphrael – Do you really think that they will alienate, or Allah forbid, disenfranchise the Dems of Florida and Michigan immediately prior to heading into the general election. It would be nice to see the DNC show some principle, any principle at all would do, but I cannot see them pissing off their constituents in FL and MI. Wouldn’t be prudent.

JD (3cdc37) — 1/15/2008 @ 9:13 pm

Huckabee wants to amend the constitution to make this a Christian nation.

David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/15/2008 @ 10:14 pm

And thus proves his utter lack of understanding of what the nation is founded on.

Freedom of religion”

Which isn’t btw, the same as “freedom FROM religion” as so many seem to think these days.

Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 1/15/2008 @ 10:28 pm

We have freedom FROM religion too! Athiests nationwide have every single enumerated right. Moreover athiests have the right to marry — providing they’re not of the same gender.

David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/16/2008 @ 6:14 am

8, No, David, you are wrong as usual. People who believe and espouse Religion have just as much right to free speech as you do to spread your stupidity.

PCD (5c49b0) — 1/16/2008 @ 6:22 am

JD, I’m confused. The DNC sanctioned MI and FL for moving the primaries before 2/5; and stripped them of 100% of their delegates. The RNC sanctioned MI and FL too, and also SC, WY and NH, and stripped them of 50% of their delegates, for moving their primaries before 2/5.

So, I’m not sure what your point is regarding the DNC. I agree with aphael and hope that both parties hold the line on this so we won’t be having primaries earlier.

Dubium (0a6237) — 1/16/2008 @ 6:29 am

Raw votes in primaries are mere beauty contests. The votes that count are the ones for the declared delegates.

nk (95162d) — 1/16/2008 @ 6:54 am

I support same sex marriage. I think that Congress, using the Fourteenth Amendment’s Enabling Clause, should impose it nationwide. Then, after about a total of 10,000 or so same sex marriages of which 9,000 were between women the country can just relax and say, “What the hell was all that fuss about?”

nk (95162d) — 1/16/2008 @ 7:01 am

Indeed, nk!

David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/16/2008 @ 7:12 am

I think Dubium is right on the DNC issue; they’ve already done the right thing or close to it.

As to Ehrenstein, dude, we know that a bunch of Democrats invented him to make some Republicans look silly. Good for you! It worked!

If it works better than anyone imagined, I can only quote famous literary character Moe Szyslak: “It’s not so bad. They let you keep the piece of the brain they cut out.”

–JRM, and you did even better inventing Huckabee than you did with Ron Paul.

JRM (355c21) — 1/16/2008 @ 7:23 am

Athiests nationwide have every single enumerated right

Yes they do. And I consider “lack of any faith” to be a form of religion. EI the absense thereof.

Just because person A does not believe in any form of god does not mean that my kid reading the bible at school is doing Person A harm.

What you suggest is if we force people to have SOME believe if a greater power (agnosticism or more), which is not, in any way shape or form what happens.

Freedom of, not freedom from. I believe in Jesus as my savior. Does that offend you as someone who is jewish? I ask, because your lack of beliefe doesn’t offend me at all.

We can think each other wrong all the live long day, but when we part company, have you been harmed in some way?

Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 1/16/2008 @ 3:48 pm

And frankly, I don’t personally support amendments and/or laws baring gay marriage.

Let ’em marry, I say. They have every right to be as miserable as us straight folks…

“I support gay mariage, especially if both chicks are hot.”

Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 1/16/2008 @ 3:49 pm

“And I consider “lack of any faith” to be a form of religion.”

Religion is so fucking narcissistic. It cannot imagine anything outside itself. It adamantly refuses to take “no” nofr an answer. Fucking PIGS!

David Ehrenstein (3734da) — 1/17/2008 @ 6:14 am

Simmer down, David.

Patterico (4bda0b) — 1/17/2008 @ 6:50 am

I’m sorry, but anytime a “believer” says atheism is a religion . . .

David Ehrenstein (3734da) — 1/17/2008 @ 7:13 am

Good luck on that goal, Patterico. It’s right up there with King Canute’s quest.

The fellow cannot help himself at the keyboard. It’s like a cycle or something. The sad part is how valuable and interesting his posts can be….

Eric Blair (839cfb) — 1/17/2008 @ 8:10 am

Religion is

so fucking narcissistic. It cannot imagine anything outside itself. It adamantly refuses to take “no” [for] an answer.

Atheism says,

Fucking PIGS!

I would have been infinitely more successful as a criminal defense lawyer if my clients had sense enough to keep their mouths shut.

nk (95162d) — 1/17/2008 @ 9:53 am

What crime have I committed? Failure of fealty to Huckabee?

David Ehrenstein (3734da) — 1/17/2008 @ 10:01 am

I have never denied that you are very intelligent, David. Excellent dodge.

nk (95162d) — 1/17/2008 @ 10:04 am

Your crime, David…

A lack of diversity….

Seems like that is a crime in society today….

Your lack of diversity….you have no respect for people who believe in a religion….

We’ve agreed on very VERY little since I’ve begun reading this site…but, I’ve never seen anyone here hammer your homosexuality the way you’ve hammered religion here…

And, we “conservatives” have a lack of diversity, according to you “liberals”….

reff (99666d) — 1/17/2008 @ 10:40 am

Better get an umbrella, reff. The storm approacheth. The conventional wisdom of your erstwhile opponent is asymmetry: he can disparage religious people, but his own personal issues are sacrosanct. You couldn’t possibly understand the latter, but the former is fair game. Or so the game will be played.

Personally, I think that staying away from personal attacks and profanity is a good idea in someone else’s virtual home, but that is my own minority opinion.

Eric Blair (839cfb) — 1/17/2008 @ 10:59 am

I don’t disagree….but, it is so typical of that type of believer, to deny a belief while ripping others for theirs…as for the storm, I survived Betsy, Hilda, Camille, and Katrina, along with a few other events in my life that he could never conceive of facing…what the not-so-immortal David E could bring would not even be close to a real storm….

reff (99666d) — 1/17/2008 @ 11:04 am

“Don’ know why
There’s no sun up in the sky
Stormy Weather. . .”

“Your crime, David…

A lack of diversity….”

I’m black, gay, half-Jewish and raised as a Roman Catholic. Yeah, right.

David Ehrenstein (3734da) — 1/17/2008 @ 11:26 am

Actually, the problem is when you tell other people—people you don’t even know—to, in your words, “…shut up and sit down..” on topics of your choosing.

You certainly don’t like it when people tell you that you shouldn’t comment on things outside your own experience.

“Vera redit facies, dissimulata perit.”

Business as usual, oh Loki.

Eric Blair (839cfb) — 1/17/2008 @ 12:04 pm

A laundry list of “identity groups” yet a complete lack of ability to even imagine that someone may not share your thought process. Diversity is not limited to physical characteristics, David. But we all know diversity of thought is not the good kind of diversity.

JD (75f5c3) — 1/17/2008 @ 12:30 pm

JD, I’m posting on this blog — which is chock full of people who don’t share my thought processes. Why else do you think I come here?

As for my “physical characteristics” that sounds like a come-on to me.

Do you want to know what I’m wearing?

David Ehrenstein (3734da) — 1/17/2008 @ 12:36 pm

You copld not be less appealling, not because of your physical characteristics, but because of the way you comport yourself.

JD (75f5c3) — 1/17/2008 @ 12:58 pm

“Why else do you think I come here?”

Oh….let’s see….to argue with people?

On the other hand, David E. can post interesting and incisive prose when he feels like it. I hope he does again, soon.

Eric Blair (839cfb) — 1/17/2008 @ 1:05 pm

You post here, but make no effort to actually engage, to discuss, to learn. You mock, call names, denigrate the religious, and incessantly talk about teh ghey, as though any of us care.

JD (75f5c3) — 1/17/2008 @ 1:05 pm

Yes and your post shows just how little you care, JD.

David Ehrenstein (3734da) — 1/17/2008 @ 1:12 pm

Fascinating and fabulous, David. Gag.

daleyrocks (906622) — 1/17/2008 @ 1:30 pm

“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
— Thomas Jefferson

Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 1/17/2008 @ 2:41 pm

Since the topic of the thread has changed now, I guess, and just ’cause I’ve decided DRJ is my role model for this site from now on, am going to be nice:

David,
Couldn’t help noticing your post above, so excuse me for asking, but were you serious above when you called religious people “f****** PIGS”? I mean, did you mean it? Or were you just angry? Or joking? Or what? Would just like to know. Thanks.

no one you know (1f5ddb) — 1/17/2008 @ 3:15 pm

Serious AND angry. Anytime anyone says atheism is a religion.

It’s like saying death is life, OK?

David Ehrenstein (3734da) — 1/17/2008 @ 3:47 pm

Thanks for answering.

no one you know (1f5ddb) — 1/17/2008 @ 3:52 pm

It’s perfectly fine with me.

Atheism = death.
Religion = life.

I can accept that.

nk (95162d) — 1/17/2008 @ 3:54 pm

Stone cold atheism requires a certain degree of “faith” in a very, very complex universe—at least in my opinion. This statement usually upsets atheists, which is not my intention. But since so many atheists seem to feel free to say overly negative, ill-informed, and profane things about believers, I think I can probably get away with what I just said: I have been respectful, noninsulting, and what I wrote is defensible.

I suspect that what most so-called atheists really mean is that they are agnostic. I deeply respect that point of view, in fact. Most so-called atheists seem to me to be angry at organized religion, or only see the negative aspects of faith…and are reacting to those things.

In a universe as strange and wonderful as ours, it is hard to see how any mere human being could truly understand it well enough to say for certain that there is no Creator. There seems to be a certain degree of hubris in such a statement, or so it seems to me.

Saying that a human being cannot know one way or another has a long and proud philosophical history. To borrow from Augustine, I wish such people well, and hope they do the same for me.

Eric Blair (839cfb) — 1/17/2008 @ 4:14 pm

“It’s perfectly fine with me.

Atheism = death.
Religion = life.

I can accept that.”

Ya giot that backwards. Religion is all about Death, and our refusal to accept it. It constructs an imginary “after;ife” for us all in which the good are rewarded and trhe wicked punished — unlike life where the opposite usually holds sway.

Atheism is about dealing with life as it is in the Here and Now — not imagining another one “after” it.

David Ehrenstein (3734da) — 1/17/2008 @ 4:22 pm

Ah….kinda proves my point, right folks?

Eric Blair (839cfb) — 1/17/2008 @ 4:31 pm

You don’t need to accept all, or any particular part of, The Great White Legend. But neither do you need to accept that this is the only life you will ever have. You would not be here without faith — in the future if nothing else.

nk (95162d) — 1/17/2008 @ 4:48 pm

“You would not be here without faith — in the future if nothing else.”

Not the same thing. We believe the dawn will rise tomorrow because we saw it rise today and the day before, etc.

We believe in the Great Invisible B-Polar Daddy Who Lives in the Sky because.

David Ehrenstein (3734da) — 1/17/2008 @ 5:00 pm

Tru dat, nk. But notice how you don’t claim absolute knowledge, and how you don’t call other people stupid or evil when they disagree with you.

It’s philosophical, maybe, but I am surprised how much people who dislike authority when it is applied to them by others seem to want to act as an authority toward others. I’m Socratic on that subject: I know enough to know how little of the Logos I really understand.

Eric Blair (839cfb) — 1/17/2008 @ 5:01 pm

Εν οιδα, οτι ουδεν οιδα.

“I know one thing, that I know nothing.”

We don’t really know. We are only convinced that something is a fact. Or … we only believe.

nk (95162d) — 1/17/2008 @ 5:16 pm

Atheism could just be “Ehh, what God? Prove it.”

But all too often, atheism is about “I want to live like a hedonist, and screw anybody who dares judge me”. That, and a good dose of “I am such a screwed up person, I will pre-emptively reject any and all traditional value systems as bunk so that I don’t have to accept any moral judgements”

You can spot these guys a mile away because they reek of Evangelical Atheism, an Atheist who acts like they have a cross to bear, and lashes out angrily at those with religious morality.

martin (02a441) — 1/17/2008 @ 5:16 pm

As an non-preachy atheist, I find Evangelical Atheism as annoying as Evangelical Religionism. Discussions are fine, personal abuse is just rude.

I think many of the rotten, amoral atheists are to be found in unlikely places — as ministers conducting faith-healing scams and the like. To do such stuff, you’d have to be both pretty rotten, and sure there is no God!

Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 1/17/2008 @ 5:27 pm

“But all too often, atheism is about “I want to live like a hedonist, and screw anybody who dares judge me”. That, and a good dose of “I am such a screwed up person, I will pre-emptively reject any and all traditional value systems as bunk so that I don’t have to accept any moral judgements” “

IOW Christopher Hitchens

David Ehrenstein (3734da) — 1/17/2008 @ 5:46 pm

Atheism (which I view identically to teapot agnosticism) isn’t faith; like David E., I think such views are misinformed.

But I’m with Bradley J. Fikes and many others on this: It’s just unnecessary to drop profanity on those we disagree with, especially when they are polite about it. It doesn’t do anyone a service. Calling out all religious people as bad people is severely misguided, and not just from a PR standpoint.

On a side note, I disagree strongly with Mr. Fikes that folks like Peter Popoff are likely to be atheists. I’m convinced that the scammers are, indeed, religious, believing that they have been blessed by god to enrich themselves (thus increasing His glory.) It’s surely a wretched form of religious belief, but belief it is.

I know this thread has wandered off the rails. I apologize for keeping this particular train running, but there were interesting points here.

–JRM

JRM (de6363) — 1/17/2008 @ 7:05 pm

It’s just unnecessary to drop profanity on those we disagree with, especially when they are polite about it. It doesn’t do anyone a service. Calling out all religious people as bad people is severely misguided, and not just from a PR standpoint.
Comment by JRM — 1/17/2008 @ 7:05 pm

Well said.

no one you know (1ebbb1) — 1/17/2008 @ 7:17 pm

Your crime, David…

A lack of diversity….”

I’m black, gay, half-Jewish and raised as a Roman Catholic. Yeah, right.

And, David, you reject the last two, flaunt the second, have no respect for the first…

And, accept nothing from anyone who isn’t up to your extremely low standards….

In short, you lack the acceptance of diversity…you think because you are what you describe, that you respect diversity, when you completely reject anything that is not what you want….

reff (99666d) — 1/17/2008 @ 9:04 pm

JRM
“I’m convinced that the scammers are, indeed, religious, believing that they have been blessed by god to enrich themselves (thus increasing His glory.) It’s surely a wretched form of religious belief, but belief it is.

I hadn’t considered that possibility. An interesting way of looking at such frauds.

David E. is actually a very good person in person, but on the Internet, he’s horrid.

Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 1/17/2008 @ 9:32 pm

“And, David, you reject the last two, flaunt the second, have no respect for the first”…

Translation: “You’re not a good little House Nigger like Clarence Thomas.”

David Ehrenstein (3734da) — 1/17/2008 @ 9:34 pm

David E. is actually a very good person in person, but on the Internet, he’s horrid.

And, judging by #55, banned from Patterico’s again.

qdpsteve (cd214a) — 1/17/2008 @ 9:41 pm

Back into moderation for now, yes.

I’ll get to his comments when I get to them.

I think he’s been trying to get banned ever since I said I have a soft spot for him. Bradley said I might have cost him some street cred. I don’t know the reason, but this has been building for a while, and #55 is clearly over the top.

Patterico (4bda0b) — 1/17/2008 @ 9:47 pm

In short, you lack the acceptance of diversity…you think because you are what you describe, that you respect diversity, when you completely reject anything that is not what you want….Comment by reff

Excellent depiction of the conservative and liberal wings of their respective parties.

voiceofreason (2dad2e) — 1/17/2008 @ 9:54 pm

Thank you, Patterico. To be honest, that comment, coupled with the other objectionable one on this thread, was upsetting enough that I was really sitting here wondering whether to return to this site at all.

no one you know (1ebbb1) — 1/17/2008 @ 9:55 pm

Patterico, a good move IMHO.

David is frustrating. When he’s willing to be reasonable, friendly and even self-effacing, no one can touch his debate skills and expertise. Unfortunately he gets into these moods…

Apologies in advance for playing Dr. Freud, and I’ll likely get in trouble with him for saying so out loud here, but I truly believe that outside forces (which David of course won’t talk about online, for most likely understandable reasons) have a lot to do with whatever persona we get from him on a day-to-day basis.

qdpsteve (cd214a) — 1/17/2008 @ 9:55 pm

David E. must have received a warning letter from his local Anarcho-Syndicalist chapter that he was getting way too chummy with conservatives.

Sigh.

Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 1/17/2008 @ 9:57 pm

Hmm, end of comment didn’t make it. Meant to add: Relieved to know that kind of language isn’t going to be acceptable here.

no one you know (1ebbb1) — 1/17/2008 @ 9:58 pm

It’s good to see you know being forced to own his tantrums—many folks seem to enable behaviour from him they rightly would not tolerate from others.

But I’m sure he views it as censorship, despite his “…sit down and shut up…” / freedom of expression hypocrisy. At least he was held accountable in someone else’s “house.” But it’s still sad on all kinds of levels.

Patterico’s house, Patterico’s rules. David E. knew that, and made his own choice. Sad, again, but he can blame no one but himself.

Eric Blair (b3c22e) — 1/18/2008 @ 7:40 am

How can any conservative vote for Romney?

He was listed as one of the top ten Republicans in Name Only by Human Events Magazine.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=11129

What will he be after the primary?

And would he be another George Bush if he gets elected?

Steve (4af310) — 1/18/2008 @ 7:46 am

1/15/2008

Romney Wins Michigan

64 Responses to “Romney Wins Michigan”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out