The Candidates
Featured Archives
- Hillary Clinton 43%
- Rudy Giuliani 42%
- Hillary Clinton 48%
- Fred Thompson 37%
- Hillary Clinton 43%
- John McCain 43%
- Hillary Clinton 42%
- Mitt Romney 42%
Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)
- John McCain 54% / 44% (+10%)
- Hillary Clinton 44% / 54% (-10%)
- Rudy Giuliani 51% / ~47% (~ +4%)
- Mitt Romney 46% / ~52% (~ -6%)
- Fred Thompson 40% / ~54% (~ -14%)
Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted September 16. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:11 pm
This is similar to the last poll done in New Hampshire. All Republican candidates hold their own against Hillary except for Thompson.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:20 pm
It is wonderful news that all candidates (besides FDT) run equally strong in NH. I wonder if NH voters are having a bit of buyers remorse after the Democrats they elected ended up being far-left liberals. The tax issue on the ballot is going to help us significantly.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:23 pm
How many times have we been told in recent weeks that once people like Iowans and New Hampshires KNOW Mitt, they LOVE Mitt?
Well, now that they now Mitt, New Hampshirites have concluded that Mitt is a net negative.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:24 pm
That is a possibility econ grad stud. Republicans did very well in Manchester’s municipal primary Tuesday (even though it was an open, nonpartisan primary). As I mentioned, the Republican Mayor won all but one ward. Some of the aldermanic (city council) candidates did well too. They may be having buyer’s remorse. Unfortunately, the Mayor is a lot more like Awakened and ThatLibertarianGuy than like me, but I think Tuesday was still a repudiation of Democrats.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Metro,
Like all the Republican candidates, Mitt’s unfavorable ratings come largely from Democrats I’m sure.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:30 pm
llarsen, this reflects the general electorate in a swing state Bush won… a general election is won among… the general electorate.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:31 pm
llarsen, that is definitely true. Romney is the MOST popular among NH Republicans and has been for awhile now. Arguing not to vote for someone because they’re not popular among Democrats is not a very compelling argument among Republicans.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:34 pm
MetroRepublican, the numbers speak for themselves. Regardless of the favorability rating, Romney ties Hillary in NH. Giuliani loses to her by 1 point. Romney actually does better in this swing state that voted for Kerry in 2004. Giuliani may have better favorables because Democrats who are voting for Hillary may still give him a positive rating even though they’re not voting for him.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:38 pm
egs, what tax issue on the ballot are you talking about. I live in NH and I don’t recall hearing anything about that.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Oh my GOD, Clarence, these are polls of the general election taken fourteen months before it happens. Don’t read too much into this.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Why are you telling me not to read too much into it? It’s you moderates who are always stressing the importance of electability, I’ve consistently said to vote the issues and not on electability.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:55 pm
TLG and I agree. This crap is useless this far out. Campaigns are never won before the campaign starts.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Clarence —
1) I don’t believe that Rudy is electable in the general election due to some useless polls. I believe that he has the most electability because he is a national celebrity, has an amazing reputation, is articulate, authentic, and has shown that he can things done in an area that’s incredibly blue (and get re-elected without compromising his principles. Mitt couldn’t run again because he would have lost). I also happen to think that Huckabee and McCain are electable. I don’t think Romney or Fred could withstand the long campaign season.
2) I am not a moderate.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Aron, where’d you get the numbers with the tilde (”about”?) symbol in front of them?
September 21st, 2007 at 2:17 pm
TLG, so I’m assuming you Rudy supporters will lay off the Rudy-electibility argument.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:23 pm
TLG, if you think a Baptist preacher is an electable Republican for President…. I don’t know what to say.
That would be a charicature of the Republican Party. That’s what SNL would come for in a skit.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Clarence Claus: ‘Regardless of the favorability rating, Romney ties Hillary in NH. Giuliani loses to her by 1 point. Romney actually does better in this swing state that voted for Kerry in 2004.’
Romney has also spent more time and money than Giuliani. So it’s really no surprise. The big surprise is really that he has a negative favorability, despite his best efforts.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:29 pm
I am not romney fan, but thatlibertaringuy’s comment about romney not being able to withstand a long campaign season seems awfully outo f wack ot me. fred yes, but romney?
if there is one thing you can give the guy, it is that he is a horse. dude starts at 7 and ends at 10.
fred starts at 12 and quits and 1.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20868224/
September 21st, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Awakened…we meet again.
The negative rating does not come from Republicans, it comes from all likely voters, including Dems. I would prefer a candidate that the Dems do not like. This past week, there was a poll where Dems were asked you they preferred in the Rep. nomination and Rommney had the lowest favorability of the top tier candidates. Thats where he should be!!!
September 21st, 2007 at 2:36 pm
I knew NH was mad at Thompson.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:40 pm
ilfigo: ‘The negative rating does not come from Republicans, it comes from all likely voters, including Dems. I would prefer a candidate that the Dems do not like. ‘
You’d rather have a candidate who is disliked by 52% of the likely voters? Mmmkaay. That’s more than just the Democrats.
‘This past week, there was a poll where Dems were asked you they preferred in the Rep. nomination and Rommney had the lowest favorability of the top tier candidates. Thats where he should be!!!’
Have you heard of Reagan Democrats? Should we have disqualified Reagan because there were many Democrats who liked him?
September 21st, 2007 at 2:45 pm
dubious, I didn’t mean that Romney would get ‘worn out’ or something. I meant that he’d trip all over his own pretzeled “logic,” that he’d get dogged by the Mormon question, that he’d come across as phony to too many people, and that he’d be seen as too conservative by many people.
By the way, if anyone thinks there’s not just as much crap of Romney’s from when he was governor in comparison to Giuliani’s term as mayor, then they’re deluding themselves. “Mitt wishes you a Happy Pride Week!” Yeah, that’s great for the so-cons, you fanatics. NONE OF OUR TOP CANDIDATES CAN TRULY APPEAL TO THE SO-CONS THAT YOU OBSESS OVER ONCE THEY HAVE ALL OF THEIR PASTS AIRED.
Metro, I don’t think that the first thing Americans think of when they see Huckabee is ‘Baptist preacher.’ This atheist doesn’t. I think of him first and foremost as a strong orator with a mainstream message. He’s too weak on the war and economics for me, and too socially conservative — which to me, indicates that he’s a good general election candidate on the issues! Huckabee is not some caricature of a GOP religionist like Alan Keyes is, and I can’t believe that you’re insinuating that Huckabee is SNL material.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Awakened..clever attempt..but you fail. Again!
Is Romney disliked by 52% of all voters or only 500 likely voters in NH? What party do they align with, was the group proportional to Dems, Indies and Reps? My answer is yes, I would rather have Mitt disfavored by 52% of the people who fail to support our troops, favor the killing of fetuses, deny the 2nd Amendment, unwillling to accept responsibility for their own actions and feel that the federal gov’t can solve all of our problems! ANYTIME!!!!
Where do you get your source to claim that Reagan Democrats are the part of the ones who do not favor Romney? You don’t have one!
September 21st, 2007 at 3:05 pm
TLG,
I mean this in the most loving way, but your calling SoCons fanatics is an example of the psychological phenomenon of projection. Read your last comment objectively and tell me there wasn’t more than a whiff of fanaticism in it. William F. Buckley Jr. once observed that he was always for the rightwardmost viable candidate running. The MSM during Republican primary season is always for the leftwardmost viable candidate. That would be Rudy. When the primary switches over to the general, they go with the leftwardmost candidate and quickly learn to hate the guy who won on the Republican side. The importance of this is that they have thrown everything they have on Mitt, including the kitchen sink. They haven’t used anything against Rudy, because he is their dog in this hunt. If Rudy gets the nomination, look to see pictures of Rudy in drag on magazine covers and front pages. Look for long, prominently featured interviews with Rudy’s ex’s, kids, ex-political foes, and anybody else who has a bad word to say about him. This is one of tghe salient realities of the campaign, and it is one of the main reasons Mitt is more electable.
September 21st, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Dave, I think the fact that I was quite kind to Huckabee would dismiss any accusation of ‘fanaticism’ in my post.
“They have thrown everything they have against Mitt” — so wait…have the media been all over him or have they not given people enough information to make an informed decision about him? If the media has “thrown everything they have” at Mitt, then surely those 7% numbers he’s registering nationally are a result of that, right? And not low name ID?
“Look for long, prominently featured interviews with Rudy’s ex’s, kids, ex-political foes, and anybody else who has a bad word to say about him. This is one of tghe salient realities of the campaign, and it is one of the main reasons Mitt is more electable.”
Yes, much better to have ex-Mormons like those at http://www.exmormon.org against him in full force, stories about Mitt’s polygamous ancestors, and his flip-flopping past exposed than Rudy’s exes, who probably will *not* sit down for interviews bashing him. That’s so classless.
Did you honestly suggest that we not nominate Rudy because his “ex-political foes” would come out against him? Surely I don’t have to explain how silly that is. Apparently Romney has had no ex-political foes?
It’s kind of cute to see that you think that Rudy is the MSM’s candidate, though. If there’s any sort of evidence for that, I’d like to see it.
September 21st, 2007 at 3:16 pm
By the way, anyone who believes in ‘projection’ needs to read a liiiiittle bit more about psychology before making comments about it.
September 21st, 2007 at 3:17 pm
“Where do you get your source to claim that Reagan Democrats are the part of the ones who do not favor Romney? You don’t have one!”
Uh…obviously, some large group of people do not favor Romney. If it’s over 50%, it’s more than Democrats. We can quite safely assume that Reagan Democrats aren’t going for Romney. If it isn’t them, then it’s independents or moderate Republicans — much better!
September 21st, 2007 at 3:36 pm
TLG,
It’s not that the MSM is for Rudy so much as it is that they find him less noxious. Look at the relative amounts of coverage that the 2 nominating processes have received and you will notice that the race among Democrats is relatively loving and kind compared to the race on our side. It’s also hugely disproportional. I know virtually everything that there is to know about Mitt and have read virtually every story the media has written about him, and there simply isn’t anything that can be spun negatively about him that they haven’t printed ad nauseum. My knowledge of Rudy is less encyclopaedic, but there is an arsenal of politically damning material that they could use to sink him with that they haven’t touched yet. They will.
As for using Mitt’s religion or flip (notice it’s singular, and there haven’t been any flops) against him, those are the only 2 things that most people already know about Mitt, courtesy of the drive byes.
September 21st, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Well then according to Awakended and TLG….McCain should be the next President because he has the highest favorability in this poll!! Woohoo
September 21st, 2007 at 3:43 pm
TLG,
On the fanaticism thing, I should apologize. Overall, you’re not really a fanatic. But you are fanatical concerning parts of the SoCon agenda. Fanaticism flows from emotional angst. You have some of that. Hopefully, you’ll grow out of it.
September 21st, 2007 at 3:44 pm
ilfigo: ‘Awakened..clever attempt..but you fail. Again!’
I don’t think I’ll let you be the judge of that.
‘Is Romney disliked by 52% of all voters or only 500 likely voters in NH? ‘
I don’t know where you’re coming from. Either you’re doubting the legitimacy of this poll, and as a consequence, that of all polls, or you are hailing the fact that your candidate is disliked by those pesky Democrats. So what is it? If you’re doubting that 500 randomly selected people can show the preferences of an entire state, you know nothing about statistics.
‘My answer is yes, I would rather have Mitt disfavored by 52% of the people who fail to support our troops, favor the killing of fetuses, deny the 2nd Amendment, unwillling to accept responsibility for their own actions and feel that the federal gov’t can solve all of our problems! ANYTIME!!!!’
So you’d rather have a candidate who would lose. Okay…
‘Where do you get your source to claim that Reagan Democrats are the part of the ones who do not favor Romney? You don’t have one!’
Actually, you’re my source for my claimj that Reagan Democrats are the ones who do not favor Romney. After all, it was you who claimed that self-identified Democrats are the ones who cause Romney to have such an abysmal favorability rating. Of course, Reagan Democrats self-identify as Democrats.
September 21st, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Dave: ‘I mean this in the most loving way, but your calling SoCons fanatics is an example of the psychological phenomenon of projection. ‘
Stop talking about things you know nothing about. You’re not a psychologist, you’re not even an armchair psychologist. I mean this in a most loving way, because a more hostile audience would merely laugh at you for some of the nonsense you put out.
‘The MSM during Republican primary season is always for the leftwardmost viable candidate.’
Not a chance, because the more moderate a candidate is, the more likely it is that he will be elected. Besides, that would mean that they would root for Ron Paul, which is not happening.
September 21st, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Ahhh Awakened…when will you do what your name states and AWAKE!
Where did I doubt the legitimacy of statistics. Hoppefully, the disparities between the polls in the past months does not convince you that a single poll, of one state, represents the entire country. For example, look at Iowa and I bet that Romney’s favorability is higher.
No, I would rather have a candidate who represents conservative principles after he wins. What were Bush’s approval ratings in 04 before he won re-election? Above 50%? I ask because I do not remember. So a simple poll does not guarantee results. Anyway, looking at the same poll, Romney does better against Clinton than Giuliani, who according to the poll is more favored.
How can a one be the source after the statement is made??? HMMMMMMM….? Nevertheless, I didn’t know that only Reagan Democrats were polled, and you have a source for that huh?
Polls are snapshots, not facts! If so, then maybe the Dems won’t maintain Congress BECAUSE their approval rating in the POLLS are extremely low! Right Awakened?
September 21st, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Awakened…Ron Paul is left of the Republicans…he is way too the right! Just wanted to inform you in the “most loving way.”
September 21st, 2007 at 4:12 pm
ilfigo: ‘Ahhh Awakened…when will you do what your name states and AWAKE!’
I am awake. However, that does not mean that I have to indulge in your foolishness.
‘Where did I doubt the legitimacy of statistics.’
When you said questioned how we know that this represents the views of the state of New Hampshire, and not just that of 500 likely voters.
‘Hoppefully, the disparities between the polls in the past months does not convince you that a single poll, of one state, represents the entire country. For example, look at Iowa and I bet that Romney’s favorability is higher. ‘
That may or may not be so, but we weren’t even talking about ‘the entire country’, because Rasmussen only polled New Hampshire. It would be ridiculous to assume that this represents the entire country. However, it does show what people in New Hampshire think.
‘No, I would rather have a candidate who represents conservative principles after he wins.’
I’m afraid you no longer have a choice. I don’t think that Romney has much chance of winning the general election. You can choose between having a martyr on your side, or a winner who doesn’t agree with you on everything.
‘ What were Bush’s approval ratings in 04 before he won re-election? Above 50%?’
Barely.
‘Nevertheless, I didn’t know that only Reagan Democrats were polled, and you have a source for that huh?’
You’re not exactly a logician, are you, Aristotle? Reagan Democrats were among those who were polled, are you denying that? Anyway, just to put your idiocy to rest, here are Romney’s favorables:
Republicans: 74/26
Democrats: 18/79
Independents: 45/47
As you can see, it’s not just the Democrats who don’t like him. It includes more than half of all independents and a quarter of the Republicans.
‘If so, then maybe the Dems won’t maintain Congress BECAUSE their approval rating in the POLLS are extremely low!’
As usual, you show little to no understanding of polls and politics. Low approval ratings for Congress have been commonplace, but they have rarely lead to the other party capturing Congress. However, presidential approval ratings have proven to be a reliable indicator of voting patterns.
September 21st, 2007 at 4:17 pm
‘Where did I doubt the legitimacy of statistics.’
LIES! These STATISTICS are an unholy inventions by SATANISTS. The BIBLE DOES NOT MENTION STATISTICS, that means we are not MEANT TO KNOW things like this. Polls. Why do you think the MEDIA is touting them??!?!? Because they use polls to push their ANTI-CHRISTIAN AGENDA on Bible-believing Christians like myself. These polls are FABRICATED!!! Do you REALLY THINK that 500 people can show what an entire state believes? THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!! The MEDIA just fills in what it wants to believe, that’s who pro-abortion, pro-Darwin, pro-homosexual, pro-poll divorced CROSSDRESSER Rudy Giuliani is leading the field. DO NOT FALL FOR IT!! THESE ARE ALL LIES!!!!!
I promise you that when people go and VOTE, ALAN KEYES will be the nominee. And he WILL WIN in a landslide, because Reagan won.
September 21st, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Awakened…thanks for the step by step.
1. Who is the winner that I don’t agree everything with? Giuliani? If so, you didn’t look at the entire poll, considering Romney is doing better against Clinton that Rudy is.
2. Well if I was Aristotle, wouldn’t I be a logician?
3. What are the favorability ratings for the other GOPs? Who do Dems dislike more?
4. Polls and Politics….What was Kerry’s poll numbers in 04 about this time? What? What was that?
September 21st, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Awakened,
You don’t want me to play shrink because you don’t want anybody psychoanalyzing you. It’s understandable. If I were you I wouldn’t want that either, so from here on out, I will keep my copious knowledge of psychology in abeyance.
September 21st, 2007 at 4:44 pm
ilfigo: ‘1. Who is the winner that I don’t agree everything with? Giuliani? If so, you didn’t look at the entire poll, considering Romney is doing better against Clinton that Rudy is.’
I’m afraid that arguing with you is a futile exercise, since you have no purpose but to shill for your candidate. Nonetheless, polls have consistently shown that Giuliani is a stronger candidate than Romney. But you assume that the Republicans are going to win, and argue something like this: now that we’re going to win anyway, why not pick an anti-abortion person?
‘2. Well if I was Aristotle, wouldn’t I be a logician?’
Yes, you would be, Einstein.
‘3. What are the favorability ratings for the other GOPs? Who do Dems dislike more?’
Actually Fred Thompson (13/77 among Democrats). But as I said, that’s hardly an indicator that someone is a good candidate. And it makes it highly unlikely that he will be elected, because any Republican winner needs the votes of Reagan Democrats and Independents.
September 21st, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Dave: ‘You don’t want me to play shrink because you don’t want anybody psychoanalyzing you.’
Only someone who knows psychoanalysis can analyze another person. That would exclude you, I’m afraid. Anyone who is qualified is free to do anyhing he wants.
‘I will keep my copious knowledge of psychology in abeyance.’
You can do the same with your ‘copious knowledge’ of Ayn Rand and her philosophy. Her philosophy is a pro-life one, isn’t it?
A paper bag would be nice for you at this moment.
September 21st, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Awakened…
Aristotle = Einstein, the same person?? Man…now I realize that you have been correct about everything! If I was wrong about Aristotle and Einstein, you must be correct that arguing with me is futile. How could they be two separate people, stupid me!
When have I promoted one bit for the candidate of my choosing? Is abortion your only hold-up? Seriously…
September 21st, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Just wondering why the so-cons keep trying to diagnose me with this or that.
I was told by — Casey, is his name, I think? — a couple of weeks ago that my bisexuality stems from my strained relationship with my father. Now I get Dave telling me that I suffer from bouts of projection.
I would like to point out to ilfigo that I do not base my Rudy-is-electable argument on polls, which I explained in the — I believe — Michigan poll thread.
September 21st, 2007 at 5:07 pm
I think Rudy is electable….I just dont think we should prove a candidate’s electability by bashing the other candidates in the same party….at some point (possibly Feb. 6) we will need to unite around a single candidate!
September 21st, 2007 at 5:28 pm
ilfigo: ‘Aristotle = Einstein, the same person?? Man…now I realize that you have been correct about everything! If I was wrong about Aristotle and Einstein, you must be correct that arguing with me is futile. How could they be two separate people, stupid me!’
You’re stupid, yes, but for other reasons. You can’t take a simple hint for what it’s worth. My Aristotle comment was obviously sarcastic, you are no great logician (quite the opposite). You didn’t get it, so I commented on your stupidity by sarcastically calling you Einstein. And yet even so obvious a comment was too hard for you to understand. No wonder you have a hard time getting the other points I made.
‘When have I promoted one bit for the candidate of my choosing? ‘
Never. You have only shilled for your candidate.
September 21st, 2007 at 5:31 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘Just wondering why the so-cons keep trying to diagnose me with this or that.
I was told by — Casey, is his name, I think? — a couple of weeks ago that my bisexuality stems from my strained relationship with my father. Now I get Dave telling me that I suffer from bouts of projection.’
I would love to have their crystal ball. Then I’ll be able to comment on everything without knowing anything.
September 21st, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Re: #42 — Er, I actually explained it in this thread. Did you read all of my comments ?_?
September 21st, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Awakened, are you as jealous as I am of their omniscience?
September 21st, 2007 at 5:40 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘Awakened, are you as jealous as I am of their omniscience?’
Absolutely. Maybe it’s the one omniscient God who is feeding them this information. Is that the case, Dave?
September 21st, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Awakened, TLG,
I don’t claim to be omniscient, although I’m appreciative of your acquiescence on the subject. I certainly haven’t received any revelations concerning you guys. But, even without a crystal ball, certain things are clear to me, and when I see a friend in need, I try to be a friend indeed and show them the error of their ways. On this one point though, think of me as Higher ILntelligence: if Mitt wins in Michigan, following victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, he will be the Republican nominee. Bet the ranch.
September 21st, 2007 at 6:23 pm
I guess the news there is that those voters are there to get back for McCain (I still think he should get out of Iowa to avoid the loser label that Obama will get for coming in thrid there).
September 21st, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Dave: ‘But, even without a crystal ball, certain things are clear to me,’
Like the fact that evolution is a godless heresy. And that Ayn Rand is pro-choice. Such statements make me doubt the clarity of your thought.
‘and when I see a friend in need, I try to be a friend indeed and show them the error of their ways.’
Yeah, right. Even if we assume that TLG is engaging in projection, that doesn’t mean that he is ‘in need’, nor that he needs your ‘help’. Be a man and admit that you were offended by the fact that he called social conservatives fanatical, and looked for a way to get back at him.
‘On this one point though, think of me as Higher ILntelligence’
Think of *YOU* as higher intelligence personified? That’s a good one.
‘if Mitt wins in Michigan, following victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, he will be the Republican nominee. ‘
Probably.
September 21st, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Awakened,
I don’t think of evolution as a “godless heresy”. It’s a paradigm in desperate need of a paradigm shift. The fact is that hundreds of millions of fossils, literally, have been dug up without a single transitional fossil in the entire fossil record. When Darwin wrote the Origin of Species, his biggest critics were the paleontologists. Darwin was aware that the fossil record did not support his theory but urged patience on the grounds that it would. More than 99% of the fossils that have been excavated have been excavated since then, and we still don’t have a single transitional fossil in the entire record. The case for microevolution is obvious, but that is not what Darwin was talking about. Macroevolution is a travesty of a mockery of a sham. It has been conclusively debunked by by molecular biology and currently has a sum total of ZERO evidence to support it that hasn’t proved to have been a hoax or a figment of some craven evolutionist’s fevered imagination. Once again, I would be happy to supply you with a reading list. Once again, dedicated truth seeker that you are, you will undoubtedly pass.
September 21st, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Awakened,
BTW, my religion takes no stand on evolution. The Mormon position on it is that God did it the way that he did it, and it doesn’t really matter how he did it. Three different nationwide studies, one done in the 1930’s, one in the 50’s, and one in the 70’s, have shown that there are more Mormon scientists per capita than there are in any other religion. Even The Kingdom of the Cults, the leading source for Evangelicals on cults in America (guess which church is considered the leading cult in the country) concedes that there are more Mormon scientists in the National Academy of Science than there are scientists from any other church, period. Alot of these Mormon scientists are evolutionists, and I’ve read articles by several of them. They are as wrong about Biology as Harry Reid and other Mormon Democrats in congress are wrong about politics. So, I’m not opposed to evolution on religious grounds, I’m opposed to it on evidential grounds.
September 21st, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Um, Awakened…
Ayn Rand was pro-choice and hated Ronald Reagan because he wasn’t. If you were trying to be sarcastic, it didn’t work, because the first statement (evolution) wasn’t in the same tone as the second (Ayn Rand).
September 21st, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Dave: ‘I don’t think of evolution as a “godless heresyâ€. It’s a paradigm in desperate need of a paradigm shift.’
Yes, you are desperate for a paradigm shift, so that you no longer have to defend your indefensible religious views that God created humans as they are today, that the earth is only 500 years old (maybe you don’t believe that). It’s really a distinction without a difference. I know what you’re up to.
‘The case for microevolution is obvious, but that is not what Darwin was talking about. Macroevolution is a travesty of a mockery of a sham. ‘
Then write a book about it, proving your point. Since scientists, unlike religious fanatics/fundamentalists like yourself, base their theories and beleifs on evidence, instead of fixing the evidence around their beliefs, if you are able to make a compelling case (unlikely), your view will be accepted. I know why you won’t do that. You know nothing of the matter, with the exception of what you have read in your ID/creationism-books.
‘[Evolution] has been conclusively debunked by by molecular biology ‘
Excuse me for laughing at you, but you’re not a biologist, you’re not a scientist, you’re a religious fanatic who happens to be brainwashed into believing that creationism is correct. Or maybe he has deceived himself into believing that.
Tell me, and you can be honest with me, I won’t hold it against you. Do you actually believe the trash you put out? Or are you merely using it to advance your fundamentalist agenda?
‘Once again, I would be happy to supply you with a reading list. Once again, dedicated truth seeker that you are, you will undoubtedly pass.’
I know what’s coming. A whole host of creationist/ID books that set out to disprove evolution, regardless of the evidence. Forgive me for not reading such political books, berk. The problem with the likes of you is that you start with the conclusion and then grasp at every straw you can find. Scientists, whom you undoubtedly despite (though you won’t admit it), are actually in pursuit of the truth. I know this bothers you, because they’re not in the business of fixing the evidence so that they are compatible with your religious beliefs.
I still don’t know whether that was serious, or just part of your stand-up act. Care to tell me?
September 21st, 2007 at 7:30 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘Ayn Rand was pro-choice and hated Ronald Reagan because he wasn’t. If you were trying to be sarcastic, it didn’t work, because the first statement (evolution) wasn’t in the same tone as the second (Ayn Rand).’
You’re right, I botched the writing. I did know that Rand is pro-choice. I wanted to cite two non-facts that Dave views as facts (evolution is untrue, Ayn Rand is pro-life).
September 21st, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Awakened,
Did you actually read both of my posts? There’s no way to tell from #55. I didn’t start with a conclusion that I now hold and seek to justify it. I started as an evolutionist. I remember that Carl Sagan, e.g., in The Dragons of Eden baldly stated that evolution had been proven by the fossil record and by molecular biology. At the time, I couldn’t figure out why he was even bothering to mention something so obvious. It wasn’t until years later by studying both subjects that I figured out that they both disproved rather than proved evolution. I was astounded. BTW, did you catch the part where I explained that far from denigrating evolution, my church has pointedly been neutral about it? Any idiot knows that the earth is somewhere between 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 billion years old. And each of those idiots also know that virtually all life came about during the Cambrian explosion, at virtually the same time. Did you catch the part about ZERO transitional fossils? How dispositive can you get! You don’t have a clue. If you want a clue, I’m still willing to magnanimously provide you with that reading list. p.s., the right books have already been written, so I don’t have to.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Dave: ‘Did you actually read both of my posts? There’s no way to tell from #55.’
I read your first post, later on, I read your second post, but it didn’t really change anything, so I didn’t respond to it.
‘I didn’t start with a conclusion that I now hold and seek to justify it. I started as an evolutionist.’
That’s what they all say. But anyway, if true: since your conversion to madness and lunacy, you are starting out with a conclusion and look for anything that will stick.
‘At the time, I couldn’t figure out why he was even bothering to mention something so obvious. It wasn’t until years later by studying both subjects that I figured out that they both disproved rather than proved evolution. ‘
And how exactly did you ’study’ those subjects? By reading books by Michael Behe? I don’t think that molecular biologists read politicized books that written by creationists.
‘BTW, did you catch the part where I explained that far from denigrating evolution, my church has pointedly been neutral about it? ‘
Irrelevant. The Catholic Church accepts evolution, but that doesn’t stop mentally challenged Catholics from deriding it, yes, based on their religious beliefs.
‘Any idiot knows that the earth is somewhere between 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 billion years old. ‘
Yeah, any idiot, but not your fellow creationists. Like the man who created the Creation Museum. Ken Ham, I believe his name is. His exhibit includes people riding dinosaurs like horses. I think even you aren’t crazy enough to believe that.
‘Did you catch the part about ZERO transitional fossils? How dispositive can you get! You don’t have a clue.’
Excuse me, but I just don’t believe you. Mainly because I have seen graphics detailing the exact transition from ape to human, with the photographs of actual skulls. Don’t blame me for disbeleiving a creationist nutcase, like the Muslims, they are prone to lying when it suits their purposes.
‘I’m still willing to magnanimously provide you with that reading list’
You’re full of yourself. Which also means that you’re full of something else, but I won’t identify the substance. In any case, do provide me with your ‘reading list’ of creationist propaganda, so that I may mock you. Anyone who thinks that this book ‘The Probability of God’ is compelling, is bound to be an exceedingly gullible creature.
‘the right books have already been written, so I don’t have to.’
You can’t, because you don’t have the expertise. But you pretend to be an expert anyway, you pretend to be a philosopher, a psychologist, a biologist, just about everything. You don’t realize that your delusions don’t match the reality of your condition. Many people in this world think that they are Napoleon, but in reality, they’re just yet another pitiful creature. Learn from these people’s mistakes, you hilarious manling. Don’t make the same ones.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Yep, creationists don’t know what Google is:
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#Causes_of_the_Cambrian_explosion
I’ve read about it from the Creationist perspective, alright? I know about Behe and his ’science,’ most through Ann Coulter’s “Godless.” (Can’t wait for her next book — only 11 days left!)
September 21st, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Apparently Awakened doesn’t know what Google is, either.
Dave is right about the Cambrian Explosion. He’s just too damn lazy to research the causes, because he knows that if he finds a scientific explanation for it, his creation myths won’t work.
The Cambrian Explosion, it should be noted, says nothing about the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Awakened — Find out more about Ken Ham. There are a couple books I’d recommend about the Christian Right:
Kingdom Coming by Michelle Goldberg
Righteous by Lauren Sandler
Loved ‘em both, even if there’s a bit of flaunting of their lefty credentials in their conclusions.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:23 pm
I didn’t mean “Find out more about Ken Ham” in a derogatory way. I meant it because it’s a horror story…haha.
September 24th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Dave: ‘I mean this in the most loving way, but your calling SoCons fanatics is an example of the psychological phenomenon of projection. ‘
if this is true then pizza hut isnt my middlename
September 24th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Um. John is some hyperactive kid from my Web Design class. This thread is dead, but feel free to block the IP address is that keeps up…>_
September 24th, 2007 at 8:49 am
I didn’t mean “Find out more about Ken Ham†in a derogatory way. I meant it because it’s a horror story…haha. v
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA THATS FUNNY STUFF
September 24th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Awakened VS. ThatLibertarianGuy THIS TWO GUY ARE LOSERS THEY ARE GOING DOWN
THE WRONG PATH . JOHN I SMART YOU DUMB.Awakened ARE YOU A GIRL.. IF YOUR A BOY THEN YOU ACT LIKE A GIRL
September 24th, 2007 at 8:54 am
John, get the f#$k off the site and let me read my f$(ing book.
September 24th, 2007 at 8:55 am
WHATS UP
September 24th, 2007 at 8:55 am
GTFO AND LEAVE THIS SITE ALONE KTHXBI
September 24th, 2007 at 8:58 am
DONT BLOCK ME
September 24th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Awakened LET ME TELL YOU I CARE ABOUT THE PRESIDENT AND THE COUNTRY SO IF YOU BLOCK ME THEN YOU ARE VIOLATING MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH.!
September 28th, 2007 at 8:47 am
[...] back up Davis, take a look at Rasmussen’s New Hampshire data on positive v. negative [...]