Teresa H. Kerry tells reporter to "shove it."

Ultimately, the theory of evolution is a political issue. Mainstream Americans simply do not want junk science being forced down their kids' throats courtesy of their own tax dollars and, ultimately, in a democracy, they do have some sort of a voice on the subject.

What?!?!?

Natural Selection is a natural process, It is just there, like gravity, and it makes no difference if you a Republican or Democrat, Christian of Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu, it works for all just the same no matter what you ideological position. You can deny its existence but you are still subject to its workings. Politics have nothing to do with it.

That's correct. Evolutionism is junk science and it's not harmless junk science; it's junk science with horrific consequences. Most Americans rightly do not want their tax dollars being used to promulgate it.

You might check with your president about wether religion is not politicle. He is the one who first brought it up. I think anyone should have the right to thier own beliefs but a president of all the people should keep his religious beliefs to himself.

Just like John Kerry did in his acceptance speech, right? (That is sarcasm if you didn't notice.)

Oh. Kerry claims that God talks directly to him like Bush did in some of his speaches. I dont think so.

Most Americans are not willing to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, despite the ruling by a federal appeals court that the God references means the Pledge cannot be recited in schools. Nearly half of Americans (45 percent) view the United States as a secular nation in which religious belief, or lack of it, isn't a defining characteristic, but an overwhelming majority (87 percent) believe "under God" should remain in the Pledge.

Fifty-four percent also think the government should not avoid promoting religion and that political leaders publicly expressing their faith in God is generally good for the country (60 percent). One-third of those polled say such expressions don't have much effect either way. Eighty-four percent also say that references to God should be allowed in public as long as they don't mention a specific religion.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3067188/

And I listen to a LOT of GWB speeches. I don't recall him saying even once that "God talks to him". That has been alluded to by one or two extremely questionable sources that were debunked months ago right here on A2K. But some like to keep illusions alive.

Foxfyre, this is false. That you have not been exposed to it is an indication that your information sources are lacking. There are numerous citations for this very statement, and they are widely cited throughout these fora.

Use the search feature at the top of this page if you don't believe me.

The most recent occurence was earlier this month when he spoke to an Amish group in Pennsylvania. Here is a link from the Lancaster Intelligencer-Journal. (You will have to register to view the article. You really should do so.)

He said:



Now to be clear, this a different level of dementia for our Wartime/Peacetime Prezdint.

God speaking through him is a bit more delusional than God speaking to him.

Now I must regretfully say that I am again embarrassed for you.

It is simply appalling to read your posts where you repeatedly make false claims and assert that various media are "questionable" for no better reason than that they challenge your assumptions.

Please try to do better.

Mr. Diddie: Delusional!!, Embarassed!!, Appalled!!--Yikes!
Is it possible that this may not be your Reward Life?

Care to explain? I'm not sure I am tuned in to your frequency...

I personally think what Edwards is on record as saying is a bit scarier than someone saying God speaks to them. Many people have said they've heard the voice of God. How many people do you know that have said the following?

"John Edwards in his previous life as a trial lawyer, once coaxed a $6.5 million verdict out of a jury by explaining how an unborn child communicated with him, and, in fact, was speaking through him in the courtroom:

"She said at 3, ?'I'm fine.' She said at 4, ?'I'm having a little trouble but I'm doing OK.' Five, she said ?'I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said ?'I need out.'" He climaxed his peroration with "She speaks to you through me, and I have to tell you right now?-I didn't plan to talk about this?-right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

The unfortunate child in question suffered brain injury before birth, and Mr. Edwards, describing the recording of the fetal heart monitor, convinced the jury that the brain injury occurred because the obstetrician waited too long before delivering the baby by caesarean section. Mr. Edwards and his fellow trial lawyers went on to rake in vast fortunes with that scam, even though it turns out that cerebral palsy occurs well before labor starts. Today, in places like West Virginia, you can't find an obstetrician to deliver your baby without going out-of-state. No word on whether Mr. Edwards hears those babies.

So, from Mr. Edwards, we have the other answer: a baby in the womb becomes a human being precisely at the moment it's worth $6.5 million to a trial lawyer. Until it achieves that net worth, apparently, John Edwards can't hear it, it can't speak through him to a jury, and you can go ahead and abort it.And of course, if you can't speak through John Edwards and become a baby, what does that make you?"

Did you write that opinion, Just, or did someone else?

Either way, that's about as nasty a smear as I have seen yet.

Congratulations. A new low.

Just! Here's a handy quote for occasions when selective perception rears it's lovely head: When a pickpocket sees a saint,all he sees is pockets.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Just imagine having Edwards but one heartbeat away from the President of the United States of America.

You'll only have to imagine that for about 90 more days.

Then it becomes reality to be realized in January.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200401\POL20040120a.html

Note that this source quotes Edwards directly which can be verified by reading the court transcript. The quote PDiddie ascribes to Bush is 1) at least 3rd party hearsay and can in no way be verified as a direct quote and/or 2) it is out of context and therefore even if he did say it, there is no way to put it into its proper context.

Come on Foxy. I admire your intellect and that's why I'm disappointed in the(sp) fact you don't admire Edward's efforts for his clients. Why, if it was a republican office seeker you'd be proud of their ability to win cases. Wouldn't you?

Clearly, this changes everything.

Panzade, in my line of work, very few personal injury attorneys are my favorite people. I hold special contempt for those who use junk science and play on the emotions of gullible juries to win bogus lawsuits. Edwards won some that were legit; but he made the bulk of his fortune sueing on bogus science. That I concede he is extremely talented does not extrapolate into my thinking he is an ethical person.

Oh, and I can't imagine a Republican being a personal injury lawyer.