“Intelligent Design (ID) refers to a theory of origins or a scientific research program. In addition, the term is used to describe the community of philosophers, scholars, and scientists who are seeking evidence of design in nature. The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that;
“ certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”
“ID theorists draw exclusively upon empirical evidence to support the existence of a creative intelligence or designer. ID purports that design can be detected without any understanding of who the designer is or why the agent acted, or even how the phenomenon in question was actually produced. ID is a unique scientific position that stands in stark contrast to naturalistic, materialistic philosophy of science which puts forth abiogenesis rather then intelligent agents as the main mechanism that created biological systems for sustaining life. It can also clearly be distinguished from religious creationism in that it stakes no claim regarding the specific identity of the creator, nor does it use references from scripture when forming theories about the history of the world. In fact, many ID theorists support the idea of common descent and billions of years of time. ID simply postulates that certain features within the cosmos present clear evidence of being deliberately and intelligently designed.”
“By taking this position, intelligent design has been welcomed in some government schools and in industries that normally hold prejudices against religious creationism. For example, the ID documentary titled Unlocking the Mystery of Life has been shown on PBS television in several states in the USA”
Straight about what? I understand why the Bushes could not attend, but why could not Cantor find any Republican to attend? I’ve seen no explanation of that as yet.
Because they were treated like dirt and you always have to be wary of a setup. Democrats have shown that they are not above trying to embarrass Republicans even at solemn events. Standing next to Obama wasn’t the problem, it’s standing next to him while he takes partisan jabs and taking it with a smile that they didn’t want.
Well, Brain, it’s like this: When you invite the best-known and highest ranking members of a party to an event and they turn you down*, so you extend the invitation to lower ranking lesser-known members, and they turn you down. So you put out a blanket “anybody? anybody?” invite at the last minute (since steps 1 and 2 took time), that’s treating them like shit in GOP-speak.
Granted the Bushes had very good perfectly understandable reasons for turning them down and AFAIK, no one is pointing the finger at them.
Paul Wellstone memorial. Turned into a political pep rally and Trent Lott got booed. If Republicans had had reason to suspect that’s what would happen, they would have had every reason to shun the memorial.
Withdraw your accusation of lying.
A more recent example was the President giving a press conference on budget negotiations fairly early in his Presidency. He invited Paul Ryan and other Republicans to sit in the front row. Where he then proceeded to harangue them. Bigtime setup. No cite for that, since it’s from the Bob Woodward book, Price of Politics, and apparently on this board things that are written in books aren’t as real as internet links.
I don’t see any reason for him to withdraw anything. You offered no cites to back up your assertion, and when I did my own searching, I found mostly partisan reports from people who weren’t actually in attendance.
I did find this one partisan report, tho, from someone who was there:
So now you’re trying to claim that this was somehow a calculated move by Democrats but in fact it seems more like it was a small percentage of the crowd expressing displeasure. You failed to back up your assertion AGAIN.
ETA: haha GIGO and I must have googled almost exactly the same thing. Mine was just “Paul Wellstone memorial”.
In this case, it doesn’t matter what ACTUALLY happened. What matters is what Republicans think happened, which explains their behavior.
If you want to accuse them of being overly sensitive or detached from reality, fine. But their motivations were not racist, nor even that they didn’t care. They just know what happens to Republicans in a context where Democrats control the message.
Furthermore, even if you think I’m full of crap on this, I clearly did not lie, which is why we have rules against that sort of thing. If he was making a Joe Wilson reference, then I apologize for misunderstanding.
My own personal belief for why this is is because IMHO, a person’s cultural and religious upbringing, education, wealth and a whole number of other factors are more important in determining how a person votes than their gender.
The truth is that, when it comes to politics, men and women aren’t that different.
As we’ve shown tho, they don’t know what happens to Republicans in a context where Democrats control the message. They know what they are told by biased sources who are making shit up.