Made It Happen On Purpose

The thing that springs to mind is, Comforting - lets all join hands now and sing...

What must it be like for an NDP politician to walk into an event and know, even before he or she walks in that door, that a significant percentage of the people there will be utterly insane?

I would suspect it would be similar to walking into a fairground fun house. A bit creepy with weird noises from the dark corners and visual effects that twist and bend your reality.

Like a returning patient to an asylum, feels good to be back home again

... or finding Sweeney Todd's wife, "Peace Mom", at the entrance, selling meat pies. BDS? Left liberalism is a mental disease/disorder? Moonbatism? ...-

Cindy Sheehan Writes of Wanting to Kill President Bush in New Book
Thursday, September 7, 2006 | Kristinn

In her new book due out Sept. 19, "Peace Mom," Cindy Sheehan writes of her fantasies of killing President Bush.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1697064/posts

Yikes!! Sheehan says she had fantasies about going back in time so she could kill him as an infant.

Wanting to kill an infant!!!??? What's up with that??!!!

Cindy Sheehan is a terrorist and terrorists have no problem killing infants. You all must know that by now!

You have just Entered the Twilight Zone
or as Greg Weston put it:
Life on Planet Dipper
"most people not currently in hallucinogen therapy may be exused for wondering if Jack Layton is really the Wizard of Oz".

If you're a pro-abortion Dem, killing a baby is no big deal. Cindy Sheehan really isn't a well person.

PS: they never found the Tylenol Poisoner. And look how many decades it took to nab the Unibomber. These people have watched way too many CSI episodes (or maybe that should be the X-Files) if they find it incredible that no one has been charged with this crime yet.

"Baby Killer!"

It is scary that so many Democrats buy into idiotic conspiracy theories. But to be fair, how many Republican party members don't "believe" in evolution, one of the most factually established theories in science?

Irrationality and ignorance are everywhere. I'm just thankful I'm okay.

What, I say something funny?

"Solution to the lefts problems; kill more babies."
Strangely familiar.

you guys are insane in the membrane

Ban, please.

"you guys are insane in the membrane!"

This makes no sense. You mean, insane in the brain. You can't even insult people with a simple colloquialism because you are dumb and your ideas are trite.

Bout' the same as a Republican, Conservative, Liberal, Green, or "place name of politician here" going to any party convention. There's no shortage of nuts in any of the parties, and they all love to show up to platform conventions.

how many Republican party members don't "believe" in evolution

I don't know, rabbit, how about you provide a verifiable factual link to that? Or, are you going to keep us all guessing?

It's one thing to challenge Darwin, it's far stupider, most likely insane, to think that 9/11 was an inside job, that the US government planned it, that all of the Jews stayed home from work that day, or whatever else these twisted moron's theorize. OK. There is no symmetry there.

What, I say something funny?

If you've got to ask....

Jacobin, my troll! I know the sign says "Don't Feed The Nutbars" but I can't resist.

When you light a briquette barbeque, the lighter fluid ignites the briquettes, which in turn cooks the food. The lighter fluid itself doesn't do the cooking!

So too with 9-11. The jet fuel ignited the materials in the building, many of which burn at a much higher temperature. Now this is obvious, well established, and well publicized, and only someone being willfully blind could possibly overlook the point.

He would have been in war anyway no matter who was in the White House. More Bush hate. Not that I particularly support most of his legislation, or lack of it. Vies a vie Immigration or his turn about on acknowledging terrorists are included in the Geneva convention.

Bad move. Looks like more Appeasement. Meat to this killer lion known as Islamofacism, with its human bomb minions.

As usual the left calls for more baby sacrifices to ward off the right wing conspiracy.

kate

why are you deleting my posts?

There was a documentary done by Discovery Channel where they explained point by point how the towers collapsed. They spoke to the designing archetect and to the Engineering firm that was contracted to investigate the incident. Basically they went straight to the horses mouth.

Without any fanfare and with clear precice language, they utterly destroyed the urban legends about 9/11.

'how many Republican party members don't "believe" in evolution'

First off, evolution is just a theory. Science is a method of gaining knowledge, not a means of conclusions. To speak of "belief" in evolution smacks of religion. Those who question the status quo and the conventional wisdom are more revolutionary than your average armchair guerilla Che-ass-sniffing Lefty.

Second, I'd reccomend Civilization and it's Enemies by Lee Harris for an indepth analysis of the link between Islam and the Left and an explanation of the "Fantasy Ideology." Fascinating book.

Personally, I'm all for Quantum Mechanics... I don't understand it, but it's chaos is appealing... sometimes, not ever, everywhere, but nowhere.

Insane in the Membrane...line from song twit.
Perfectly appropriate in this context.

I wonder how many who believe in "Homeopathy" make fun of "Intelligent Design"...

Hey Kate,

Jacobins over at Chuckers whining about you censoring him. Just tell him to take off his Tinfoil hat and wipe his feet before he comes in...

DirtCrashr:

I presume you are referring to my post. My point is that there are at least as many loony ideas held by conservatives as by people of other political persuasions, so one should be careful when making fun of Democrats for believing nonsense. Okay, except maybe socialists, who are really out there.

I notice, for example, that major newspapers (even the right-leaning National Post) still run astrology columns, and that our drug stores are overflowing with "new age" medicines, many of which have not been shown to be safe or effective.

The good news about homeopathic medicines: they tend to be safe since they're nothing but water. The bad news: they're nothing but water.

Science has very few absolutes. A scientific "fact" is nothing more than a statement of "what we know about it right now".

Evolution as a scientific "fact" is the statement that species change over the generations. That we know as evidenced by experimmentations in animal and plant husbandry.

The theory of evelution is what gets the Religions all in a tizzy. The theory of evolution extrapolates on the fact of evilution and says that people may have evolved from an ape-like species.

I can understand the religious feeling threatened by the theory, but the proof of species changing with the generations is everywhere. Your poodle dog and persian cat, the corn and angus beef on your plate. All of those species are evolved forms of natural species.

Doug:

The theory of evolution may be "only a theory" but the evidence for it is truly massive, so much so that to reject it becomes almost perverse.

Notice I put "believe" in quotes in my first post. That's because I fully acknowledge that scientific belief is not the same as religious belief. All scientific "beliefs" are subject to review.
That does not mean, however, that one should not hold strong opinions when the facts warrant it.
And it certainly doesn't mean that it's okay to believe anything at all for any reason at all.

Questioning the status quo is part and parcel of science, but it must be done intelligently. There is not much to admire in someone who claims the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.

Kate thank you for censoring jacobin! I have just been leaving when he starts his rants. They make no sense and are a waste of everyones time.

Cindy Sheethand wanting to kill President Bush when he was a baby? It proves beyond a reasonable doubt:she 5 cans short of a 6 pack.

I think the striking thing is that the moonbars discuss these crazed theories so frequently, for all manner of things, that they've created acronyms like MIHOP (Made it Happen on Purpose) and LIHOP (Let it Happen on Purpose) to save time!

Rabbit and Albertan Technophile: At the risk of being labelled an idiot, I would suggest that it should be easy to accept the theory of evolution as a fact in terms of the ongoing mutation / modification of living beings. I believe that this can easily be "proven".

I think that the more difficult part of the theory is that of "origin of the species"...that all life originated from goo and over billions of years, mutations of this original goo developed into the multitude of different species we see on the planet. The goo supposedly produced lichen and trees and insects and mammals...difficult to imagine. Notice that I'm not saying impossible...just difficult.

Just for a lark, try considering how eyeballs first developed (all the way up from little stalks on a critters head with a few receptive cells) and trace how this development helped the critters in surviving and thriving over that of others...its "difficult to imagine".

Furthermore, isn't there another theory that states that, left to their own devices, things are supposed to move from order to disorder? The only way order can be imposed is through "outside forces"...such as, I suppose, magnetism, gravity, etc. How is this explained away for biological entities? What "outside forces" caused the critters to create order from their original disorder? Again, I suggest that this is "difficult to imagine".

Accepting the theory of evolution as it applies to the origin of species requires a significant amount of "faith". The interesting part is that those who have "faith" in a Supreme Being are being ridiculed by those who have "faith" in some unknown "outside force" creating order out of disorder.

I'm not saying any group is right or wrong...I'm just that they are both using and expressing "faith" in something they can't prove. The upshot of this is...perhaps you could be a bit more understanding of the viewpoint of others in terms of their beliefs.

After a hundred and fifty years of looking, the 'massive' evidence of evolution can easily fit in the back of a pickup truck. And even at that there are 'massive' holes in linking any of it.

Check Zipf's language law as it applies to so-called 'junk' DNA.

Hassle:

You seem to be confusing the origin of species with the origin of life itself. Darwin had nothing to say about the origins of life, and even today scientific knowledge about the origins of life is completely speculative.

You're attempt at thermodynamics is completely debauched. The 2nd law says (loosly) that entropy increases with time in an isolated system. But neither the earth as a whole nor any living being is an isolated system - not even close. Creating order from disorder in an non-isolated system happens all the time - you can demonstrate it on your stove.

The fact that you have difficulty imagining these things has little bearing on anything. It simply points to your lack of education in science.

And you can't "prove" a scientific proposal. Proofs are limited to mathematics. You can, however, study the evidence and see where it leads you, and the evidence for evolution is huge. It doesn't take faith to buy into evolution - it takes knowledge and rationality.

Rabbit: When I was in public school, the smallest particles of matter were electrons, protons and neutrons and this was being taught as "fact". Now, there is a multitude of particles "known" to exist. So, what was fact yesterday, is not necessarily fact tomorrow.

I am always hesitant to speak with such certainty about scientific "facts" and "theories" as you seemed to be doing...I was simply asking that you take pity on those who are not so sure of themselves and their knowledge of the universe, such as you seem to be.

I like what AT said regarding scientific "fact", that it is "...a statement of "what we know about it right now"...". Besides, as the saying goes "the beginning of wisdom is the ability to say "I don't know""...your tone didn't seem to reflect this.

And another saying I like goes something like "the trouble with fools is that they are so sure of themselves, while the wise are so full of doubts".

So, I'll say again:

I'm not saying any group is right or wrong...I'm just that they are both using and expressing "faith" in something they can't prove. The upshot of this is...perhaps you could be a bit more understanding of the viewpoint of others in terms of their beliefs.

Or not...its your call. Maybe you're just like my wife...she's knows everything about everything, too.

I've always wondered why these MIHOP theories are so much more popular than the LIHOP theories. LIHOP conspiracies seem a lot more believable to me. A long time ago I heard of a theory that the government had planes shoot rockets into the Murra (sp?) building in order to get a wacky, Clinton supported bill through congress. I think the attack actually did have that effect (I don't think the bill would have passed otherwise), but even if we assume that the FBI and the Air Force or whatever were in on a conspiracy to make something blow up for the sake of that bill, wouldn't it have been easier just to set up someone like what's-his-name, the guy who really did it? They infiltrate these neo-Nazi groups all of the time, how easy would it be to get them to do what they did, and then just not stop them? Not that LIHOP conspiracy theories are THAT plausible, just compared to MIHOP ones.

Hassle:

Here's another saying: "You should be open mined, but not so open minded that your brains fall out".

Some scientific results are very strongly established (e.g., the earth is roughly round), and there are some that are somewhat tentative (native Indians came to North America across a land bridge from Asia). Evolution belongs in the first camp. The evidence is massive and highly pursuasive to those that study it in detail.

It's as if you are trying arbitrate between someone arguing that the earth is round and someone arguing the earth is flat, and saying "well who really knows?". Is this position really something to be proud of?

I have no hesitation about arguing a case strongly when the case is indeed strong. Doing otherwise just leaves the door wide open to those who have
no particular use for rationality or for evidence, and who would fill people's minds with nonsense for their own purposes.