"First, a poll today, said 52% of Republicans believe in creationism and reject evolution. Anyone who cannot understand evolution is not intellectually competent to be in the congress, IMO."
Changing the subject, I see. Not surprising, of course.
BTW, I don't think Gallup polled members of Congress, but 34% of Democrats and 34% of independents said the same thing.
Not that this has anything to do with the price of tea in China.
"That is simply not what existential law means. Whomever, you got that from clearly does not understand existentialism."
Yeah, OK. I'll just take your word for it, then, 'cause this guy cleary doesn't know half what you know.
UFB. Do you not realize that 'no, it's not' isn't actually an argument?
"Third, the vote was in bush's favor by under 100 votes and headed toward Gore when the supreme court stepped in to stop it. I remember very clearly watching it."
Oh, well then. As long as you say you remember it that way, I suppose this matter is settled as well.
I don't suppose you'd have some links you'd like to share to news reports or anything, would ya'? You know, to substantiate these "facts"?
Anyway, back to my question, which you apparently want to evade. I'll repeat that part of my post here so you won't get lost looking for it.
Let's try this a different way. Perhaps you could try just coming right out and saying what you think to be dangerous to society about our legal system as it exists, how you would propose changing it, and to what ends.
And I don't mean rattling off examples of decisions you don't like. I mean the system. Whaddaya say? |
