ANN COULTER

[regfootball]

cnn

what a trip she is.......man she has no clue

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions," said Coulter, whose comment was followed by applause.

She added, "I don't know why all gays aren't Republican. I think we have the pro-gay positions, which is anti-crime and for tax cuts. Gays make a lot of money and they're victims of crime. No, they are! They should be with us."

Edited March 5, 2007 by regfootball

[Croc]

Some people wonder if Coulter is really a hardcore liberal who attacks rightism through preaching the most extreme right $h! she can dream up.

[ocnblu]

Look at her adam's apple and all will be revealed.

[ZL-1]

Look at her adam's apple and all will be revealed.

[lakefire]

I cannot stand that woman. I need to be a shock jock tv announcer.

[usonia]

On Sunday morning, I was watching abc's 'This Week' and during the roundtable discussion George Stephanopoulos asked George Will some question and mentioned Ann Coulter. I can't say for sure because I wasn't recording it so I couldn't go back and listen to it again, but I swear George Will said 'The less said about him, the better'. Now if he did say 'him', I'm sure it was a slip of the tongue, but it still made me laugh.

[K.C.]

I think he's hot (like the devil).

[Intrepidation]

God she/he/it's ugly.

[Cory Wolfe]

Ann Coulter's not worthy of being something I'd flush down my toilet, let alone being listening to.

[Z-06]

I think she is better than her.

Teddy Babe

And in some respect better than some of our C&G members' moms. (Celebrity you know)

[tmp]

Ann Coulter provides one service. Next to that Alexis Arquette looks radiantly feminine.

[trinacriabob]

OK, I'm gonna show my selective pop culture ignorance...head buried in books too much lately.

Who exactly is Ann Coulter and where did she come from? I mean, background or credentials that would give her some serious credibility? Seriously. I mean, I know Stern, Limbaugh, Tom Leykus, Savage, Allred, Nancy Grace and a few others, but who is this chick?

She is definitely hard on the eyes and seems to have a barbed tongue.

[Croc]

Bob, check wikipedia.

[daves87rs]

The woman is still alive??

Hmmm...

[SobeSVT]

The woman is still alive??

Hmmm...

What woman?

Seriously. Is hard to maintain civility and "Office talk" with such subject matter. Hate mongering should be a punishable crime.

[FAPTurbo]

The sad thing is, is when she said all that bull-ish, it was met with applause.

[NDL]

Some people wonder if Coulter is really a hardcore liberal who attacks rightism through preaching the most extreme right $h! she can dream up.

What makes her extreme right?

Not to pick your post apart Croc, I am a Christian conservative, whose views most would consider 'extreme right.' Yet, I find in Ann Coulter, little to like, and little to agree with.

Why do the majority of progressive thinkers, associate with Conservatism, shrill neoconservative GOP rabble-rouser talking heads, like Coulter, Limbaugh, and Hannity?

Why is not the standard of conservatism judged on intellectual conservatives, like Dr. Paul Craig Roberts? True conservatives find more in common with Ralph Nader, than they do in G.W. Bush.

[SobeSVT]

What makes her extreme right?

Not to pick your post apart Croc, I am a Christian conservative, whose views most would consider 'extreme right.' Yet, I find in Ann Coulter, little to like, and little to agree with.

Why do the majority of progressive thinkers, associate with Conservatism, shrill neoconservative GOP rabble-rouser talking heads, like Coulter, Limbaugh, and Hannity?

Why is not the standard of conservatism judged on intellectual conservatives, like Dr. Paul Craig Roberts? True conservatives find more in common with Ralph Nader, than they do in G.W. Bush.

Because Christian Conservatives voted in mass for GOP candidates. Beause they allowed the GOP to prioritize prejudice before common sense and common good, that's why. Don't ask us "progressive thinkers", ask yourself.

[trinacriabob]

Bob, check wikipedia.

Ok, I did. She may be caustic and, if that whole part in the middle about adhering to Christianity is true, then she certainly doesn't exemplify it through her venom.

In terms of ability, her credentials are faultless: Cornell undergrad, then Michigan Law and plus, she was on "law review." That means she was at the top of her class in a top 5 law school. Good Gawd. I guess a Connecticut upbringing didn't hurt, either.

Oh, in terms of how female she is, she probably is true-to-form. She was a "Delta Gamma" and DG supposedly stands for dick grabber...unless it was a vibrator or a dildo. Chuckle, chuckle.

I'll have to listen to her live sometime to get the full effect of the delivery now that I know more about her. I am sure I won't like her, but it will be interesting.

[SobeSVT]

According to some estimates, 33% of Evangelicals sat the 2004 election out. And of the remaining 67% who voted, many did not vote the GOP ticket.

How many?

If Evangelicals so favored the Republican Party, then the Dems wouldn't have swept 2006.

The ones with some decency left (like you) realized what they had been doing.

Since I find little in common with the Grand Old Party, there's really nothing for me to discuss with 'myself.'

Ask in your church.

I am done with this line of discussion . . . remember rule #2 above. We have more than broken it. I was just honestly asking you question.

Edited March 5, 2007 by SobeSVT

[NDL]

Don't ask us "progressive thinkers", ask yourself.

According to some estimates, 33% of Evangelicals sat the 2004 election out. And of the remaining 67% who voted, a fair number did not vote the GOP ticket. On the other hand, I know a good deal of moderate New Yorkers who swung right in 2004, out of fear in a 'post 9/11 world.'

Since I find little in common with the Grand Old Party, there's really nothing for me to discuss with 'myself.'

[SobeSVT]

According to some estimates, 33% of Evangelicals sat the 2004 election out. And of the remaining 67% who voted, many did not vote the GOP ticket.

How many?

If Evangelicals so favored the Republican Party, then the Dems wouldn't have swept 2006.

The ones with some decency left (like you) realized what they had been doing.

Since I find little in common with the Grand Old Party, there's really nothing for me to discuss with 'myself.'

Ask in your church.

I am done with this line of discussion . . . remember rule #2 above. We have more than broken it. I was just honestly asking you question.

[CSpec]

Coulter is a repulsive pig of a person.

[FAPTurbo]

There's Conservative and then there 'wacko.'

There's Liberal and then there's 'nutjob.'

If Adolf Hitler heard Anne Coulter speak, he'd likely tell the dude next to him, 'She... needs... to... get laid... big time...

Mussolini would likely say, 'The B*tch is wack!'

Oliver Cromwell would have her tied to a stake and burnt, for her soul has been infested by the Devil.

Coulter is messed up, and I'm one of many Conservatives who would love nothing more than to see her hit by a bus.

[NDL]

How many?

I wish I could give you absolute numbers, but I can't. For the same reason, asking members in my church won't help - for there are those who agree with me, and those who do not.

Those who agree with me, often do so on a factual basis; there's no disagreement. Yet those who disagree with me, often do so by using emotional arguments. You can't argue someone (nor is it worthwhile), when they use emotion to defend their positions.

The ones with some decency left (like you) realized what they had been doing.

Whether it was intended or not, the compliment is appreciated . Even so, in the quest for honest debate, I have found that there's always a faction within *every* group, that uses emotion to support their opinions, be they Christian or otherwise.

Getting back to political philosophy, as true conservatives know, the 'far Right' is anything but Hannity, Coulter, and Limbaugh.

[SobeSVT]

I wish I could give you absolute numbers, but I can't. For the same reason, asking members in my church won't help - for there are those who agree with me, and those who do not.

Those who agree with me, often do so on a factual basis; there's no disagreement. Yet those who disagree with me, often do so by using emotional arguments. You can't argue someone (nor is it worthwhile), when they use emotion to defend their positions.

Whether it was intended or not, the compliment is appreciated . Even so, in the quest for honest debate, I have found that there's always a faction within *every* group, that uses emotion to support their opinions, be they Christian or otherwise.

Getting back to political philosophy, as true conservatives know, the 'far Right' is anything but Hannity, Coulter, and Limbaugh.

The compliment was totally intended. There are many aspects of the conservative doctrine that I support like fiscal disciplne and small goverment, I am not totally opposed to conservatism. I can appreciate that you are not radical. Being a radical for either side is not very wise but Mr. Coulter makes me feel very much left wing radical . . . or nut job.

Can you please include Bill O;Reilly in your list of wackos?

[FAPTurbo]

Can you please include Bill O;Reilly in your list of wackos?

I think there's hope for O'Reilly. He seems like he'd be fun to be with when he's drunk.

[Croc]

What makes her extreme right?

Not to pick your post apart Croc, I am a Christian conservative, whose views most would consider 'extreme right.' Yet, I find in Ann Coulter, little to like, and little to agree with.

Why do the majority of progressive thinkers, associate with Conservatism, shrill neoconservative GOP rabble-rouser talking heads, like Coulter, Limbaugh, and Hannity?

Why is not the standard of conservatism judged on intellectual conservatives, like Dr. Paul Craig Roberts? True conservatives find more in common with Ralph Nader, than they do in G.W. Bush.

I never mentioned Christianity, nor did I use the word "conservative." When talking about the linear political spectrum, extreme left is communism and extreme right is a totalitarian regime similar to fascism. The GOP is center and the Democratic party is also Center...with GOP slightly right of the Democrats.

I would say Coulter's politics (as she espouses them) are generally further right than most who associate with the GOP.

Now, unless your views are essentially Nazi-ism, your views are not anywhere near "extreme right." As for your other questions, the attention/association goes to the people who scream the loudest. Same reason many GOPs associate democrats/liberals with Michael Moore...when most do not.

[Chris_Doane]

Rarely there comes a person who should just be assassinated for the good of society. Ann Coulter is one of those people.

[SobeSVT]

Rarely there comes a person who should just be assassinated for the good of society. Ann Coulter is one of those people.

That's extreme!!! I'd rather have her/him living in a world of tolerance, understanding, multipartisanism and love. I want her to grow really old in such a world. She will squirm in pain in such a world. I'd love to see that.

[HarleyEarl]

Rarely there comes a person who should just be assassinated for the good of society. Ann Coulter is one of those people.

And your statement adds something to the debate?....and you are any better? This is a very serious threat in a public place. I kept re-reading your words over and over, thinking, I can't be actually seeing what I'm seeing. Simply stunned.

I come here as a fan of GM, cars and car culture. It would sure be nice not to have to see this type of vicious, hateful talk.

[Croc]

And your statement adds something to the debate?....and you are any better? This is a very serious threat in a public place. I kept re-reading your words over and over, thinking, I can't be actually seeing what I'm seeing. Simply stunned.

I come here as a fan of GM, cars and car culture. It would sure be nice not to have to see this type of vicious, hateful talk.

Agreed. That post was disturbing to me too...nutjobs like her actually promote the opposite cause...hence my first post in this thread. If anything, Chris, you should be wanting her to continue to espouse hate in an increasingly extreme and outlandish way. Wishing for her murder is both hypocritical and disappointing.

That's extreme!!! I'd rather have her/him living in a world of tolerance, understanding, multipartisanism and love. I want her to grow really old in such a world. She will squirm in pain in such a world. I'd love to see that.

HAHA That would be hilarious! Edited March 6, 2007 by Croc

[NDL]

The compliment was totally intended.

Again, I thank you.

There are many aspects of the conservative doctrine that I support like fiscal disciplne and small goverment, I am not totally opposed to conservatism. I can appreciate that you are not radical.

I can assure you, that by most standards, my views are considered radical. To answer both your post, and Croc's (in part), I believe:

- Not that I want to bring back The Articles Of Confederation, I believe in limiting tremendously, the size of federal government.

- The statement 'separation of Church and State' was not drawn up in any official document, but was contained in a letter Thomas Jefferson sent to a concerned Baptist Pastor, in CT. The emphasis of Church/State separation, was to protect people from worshiping however they liked (or not at all). I believe we have to get back to that, for there is a faction that wants to abolish religion from the public square. At the same time, I believe that there is a 'fascist' contingent, that is set on marrying religion and government, which is totally wrong. Jesus never forced anyone to worship Him; faith is entirely volitional; this fascist contingent must recognize this fact.

- Manufacturing jobs are the gateway for the poor, into the middle class. Repeal unfair trade laws; apply protectionary tariffs to imported goods.

- Repeal the Department Of Education; return control of the schools to locally elected officials.

- Pull in our military; stop American imperialism.

- Bring back pre-1965 immigration laws, which flood the market with cheap (slave) labor; give immigrants already here the chance to achieve the American Dream.

That's just off the top of my head...

Can you please include Bill O;Reilly in your list of wackos?

I really don't know enough about O'Reilly to comment.

[regfootball]

Ok, I did. She may be caustic and, if that whole part in the middle about adhering to Christianity is true, then she certainly doesn't exemplify it through her venom.

In terms of ability, her credentials are faultless: Cornell undergrad, then Michigan Law and plus, she was on "law review." That means she was at the top of her class in a top 5 law school. Good Gawd. I guess a Connecticut upbringing didn't hurt, either.

Oh, in terms of how female she is, she probably is true-to-form. She was a "Delta Gamma" and DG supposedly stands for dick grabber...unless it was a vibrator or a dildo. Chuckle, chuckle.

I'll have to listen to her live sometime to get the full effect of the delivery now that I know more about her. I am sure I won't like her, but it will be interesting.

LMAO.

i think coulter realized the $$$$ value of being a 'shock' lector, and now probably is just cashing in on her own self phenomenon. She doesn't care who she pisses off in the process.

Edited March 6, 2007 by regfootball

[NDL]

I never mentioned Christianity, nor did I use the word "conservative."

You're right; you didn't. In mentioning Christianity, I was addressing a pet peeve of mine: the emotionally thinking, 'self proclaimed' neoconservative contingent, whose sometimes illogical actions, act to bastardize legitimate conservatism.

When talking about the linear political spectrum, extreme left is communism and extreme right is a totalitarian regime similar to fascism.

I disagree that the extreme right is fascism. The extreme right label is usually, but not always, reserved for puleoconservatives. The largely religious people comprising the 'Old Right,' correctly acknowledge that our rights do not come from man, but from God. And if our freedoms come from God, how can man/woman usurp the rights that God has given us?

I would say Coulter's politics (as she espouses them) are generally further right than most who associate with the GOP.

Don't know much about Coulter's politics. I know she sometimes champions values that are popular with traditionalists, but from what little I know, she herself, doesn't appear to live the life of what she espouses.

[usonia]

If you must resort to name calling and/or inflammatory comments to make a point, you have nothing to say to me. Ann Coulter, among many other political talking heads, fit in this category in my opinion. However, to me, the far more disturbing thing about this whole situation, is the fact that she continues to get attention from the media. Is it that there are so many media outlets now that they grasp on to anything to fill up the time? What happened to actual news? I swear, day by day, I find it more and more difficult to care what is happening around me. The institutions that are supposed to maintain a level of intelligence and civility in society are no where to be found.

Edited March 6, 2007 by usonia

[Croc]

I disagree that the extreme right is fascism. The extreme right label is usually, but not always, reserved for puleoconservatives. The largely religious people comprising the 'Old Right,' correctly acknowledge that our rights do not come from man, but from God. And if our freedoms come from God, how can man/woman usurp the rights that God has given us?

I didn't invent the political spectrum. Fascism is represented as extreme right. As for "correctly" acknowledging where rights come from...the biggest problem is that no sect can agree on exactly which rights we have...otherwise if everyone agreed then we wouldn't have differing sects/religions. Since you seem to be a man (or woman) of strong faith, if that works for you, great. Conviction is good. But remember that this nation does not endorse any particular religion or sect so it is difficult to definitively speak of "correctly" attributing rights to an entity in the legal sense. Which brings me to...

- The statement 'separation of Church and State' was not drawn up in any official document, but was contained in a letter Thomas Jefferson sent to a concerned Baptist Pastor, in CT. The emphasis of Church/State separation, was to protect people from worshiping however they liked (or not at all). I believe we have to get back to that, for there is a faction that wants to abolish religion from the public square. At the same time, I believe that there is a 'fascist' contingent, that is set on marrying religion and government, which is totally wrong. Jesus never forced anyone to worship Him; faith is entirely volitional; this fascist contingent must recognize this fact.

While technically correct, it was an elaboration of the Establishment Clause, which reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

As has been interpreted by the courts throughout the years, this simply means a government entity cannot show any favoritism. There are two ways of respecting this: being 100% inclusive of everything in government, or being 100% exclusive (as you said, "abolish" religion). Personally, I think the reason it has moved more toward the "exclusive" path is that legally and logistically...it's easier. It's easier for the government to stay out of something 100% than be into everything 100%. One recent issue (from the 90s) I remember studying was holiday decorations; the city had, on government property, erected a holiday display that was Christian-themed. The courts ruled that to keep the Christian-themed holiday display, the city had to allow all groups to erect displays--essentially maintain an "open forum." Well, this worked well when the Channukah display went up, and the Kwanzaa display...but then the Wiccans erected a display, and people complained. As a result, the city decided the Wiccan display was against public values and took it down...the Wiccans complained and of course the court ruled in their favor: maintain an open forum for all, or do not for anyone. No more religious-themed holiday displays.

I know a lot of people disagree with the "persecution" of Christianity...but all the Establishment Clause (of the Constitution, by the way) means is essentially no favoritism. The only thing stopping Christian-themed holiday displays is (usually public) prejudice against non-Christian religions.

[Croc]

If you must resort to name calling and/or inflammatory comments to make a point, you have nothing to say to me. Ann Coulter, among many other political talking heads, fit in this category in my opinion. However, to me, the far more disturbing thing about this whole situation, is the fact that she continues to get attention from the media. Is it that there are so many media outlets now that they grasp on to anything to fill up the time? What happened to actual news? I swear, day by day, I find it more and more difficult to care what is happening around me. The institutions that are supposed to maintain a level of intelligence and civility in society are no where to be found.

Agreed. I actively go on news sites to try to find out what is going on around the world, and I find I have to go to BBC.com because CNN and all the others have "Bald Britney: Spears Shaves Head" as the big featured story. WTF IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE!!

[FAPTurbo]

Agreed. I actively go on news sites to try to find out what is going on around the world, and I find I have to go to BBC.com because CNN and all the others have "Bald Britney: Spears Shaves Head" as the big featured story. WTF IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE!!

Use Canadian news, like CBC.ca and CTV.ca for sources of news.

We have some great news! Like, the environmentalist grandmother getting 10 months in prison! Or how daylight savings time could cause some problems for some people!

[NDL]

I didn't invent the political spectrum. Fascism is represented as extreme right.

How?

As for "correctly" acknowledging where rights come from...the biggest problem is that no sect can agree on exactly which rights we have...otherwise if everyone agreed then we wouldn't have differing sects/religions.

That's why I hold strong unto the foundational Protestant biblical mandate, which says that our rights come from our Creator.

Obviously I believe that a God exists. Yet, I also acknowledge that some people don't believe in the concept of God, or His deity. Yet, people who are atheists exist; they live. God allows people to live; even those who don't believe in Him. Therefore, it must be acknowledged that faith is entirely volitional; it cannot be forced. For if God doesn't force worship, who can man force it? Everything about God is volitional.

If the people acknowledge that our rights come from our Creator, then Government cannot interfere with the reasonable personal liberties of another, for positionally, God is above Government.

But if our rights come from Government, then people are not inherently free; for it's up to Government to grant freedoms, and up to Government to take them away.

But remember that this nation does not endorse any particular religion or sect so it is difficult to definitively speak of "correctly" attributing rights to an entity in the legal sense.

Precisely. That's why the framers of our Government, made the distinction between 'our Creator,' and 'religion,' for the two are entirely different.

'our Creator,' as it's worded in many foundational documents, refers to God.

Yet, 'religion,' as it's worded in many foundational documents, refers to the way in which people worship God.

For while our forefathers believed in God, they liked not, the fact that they were told *how* to worship God. To ensure that no one church would impose it's will on the people, they came up with the establishment clause.

In the end, reasonable people seem to come up with reasonable solutions, with which most can agree. Unfortunately, it would seem that the moderates aren't in control of things, with fringe groups controlling most, if not all.

[Cory Wolfe]

That's why I hold strong unto the foundational Protestant biblical mandate, which says that our rights come from our Creator.

Obviously I believe that a God exists. Yet, I also acknowledge that some people don't believe in the concept of God, or His deity. Yet, people who are atheists exist; they live. God allows people to live; even those who don't believe in Him. Therefore, it must be acknowledged that faith is entirely volitional; it cannot be forced. For if God doesn't force worship, who can man force it? Everything about God is volitional.

If the people acknowledge that our rights come from our Creator, then Government cannot interfere with the reasonable personal liberties of another, for positionally, God is above Government.

But if our rights come from Government, then people are not inherently free; for it's up to Government to grant freedoms, and up to Government to take them away.

Precisely. That's why the framers of our Government, made the distinction between 'our Creator,' and 'religion,' for the two are entirely different.

'our Creator,' as it's worded in many foundational documents, refers to God.

Yet, 'religion,' as it's worded in many foundational documents, refers to the way in which people worship God.

For while our forefathers believed in God, they liked not, the fact that they were told *how* to worship God. To ensure that no one church would impose it's will on the people, they came up with the establishment clause.

In the end, reasonable people seem to come up with reasonable solutions, with which most can agree. Unfortunately, it would seem that the moderates aren't in control of things, with fringe groups controlling most, if not all.

Not to turn this into a religious argument, but I just have to say something about that comment as it really rubs me the wrong way.

Nothing is keeping my alive except for myself, my body, and people who choose not to kill me. Obviously, I'm an Atheist. I think the whole aspect of religion is hilarious. We weren't created. We aren't being watched over. It's called evolution. Science and common sense has proved it. It's not a belief, it's reality. Religion, in my opinion, is fiction that's stuck with us from the past. People thought the world was flat and that we we created by some upholding god. It's as stupid as it sounds.

Sorry, had to vent. Back to Ann Coulter's idiocy.

[Croc]

How?

?? Google "political spectrum" and you'll see how...left is communism and right is fascism...by looking at the linear spectrum this makes sense, since fascism (and any totalitarian regime) is the opposite of true communism.

[SobeSVT]

I LOVE C&G. I have been waiting for some reprimend for this line of discussion or even for a closing of the thread just to realize that is not going to happen.

Feel good to exchange with adults.

[NDL]

Not to turn this into a religious argument, but I just have to say something about that comment as it really rubs me the wrong way.

I'm sorry it rubs you the wrong way, but you're free to vent all you like ...

It's called evolution. Science and common sense has proved it.

I can respect a person's inclination to disbelieve Creationism for another explanation, but Evolution has *never* been proved. I almost wish there were a third alternative...

People thought the world was flat and that we we created by some upholding god. It's as stupid as it sounds.

I am sorry that you find the concept stupid. Even so, that's the prevailing wisdom and intent behind the foundation of our Government; that man's rights come from something greater than himself.

Would you rather your rights come from Government, who can add, or take away, at will?

[NDL]

I LOVE C&G. I have been waiting for some reprimend for this line of discussion or even for a closing of the thread just to realize that is not going to happen.

Feel good to exchange with adults.

I agree entirely, for I always learn something though the exchange of ideas.

Now, if only the reasonable people on this board affected public policy ...

[NDL]

?? Google "political spectrum" and you'll see how...left is communism and right is fascism...by looking at the linear spectrum this makes sense, since fascism (and any totalitarian regime) is the opposite of true communism.

Croc, I say this with all sincerity: Obviously, I have heard it said that, on the political scale, to the extreme right comes fascism. But that idea hasn't been sufficiently proven to me, and I can't dialogue with a Google search.

[z28luvr01]

It seems that throughout history, governments have tried to reflect Biblical principles. From the Middle Ages, when the Catholic Church was the government, to today's democracies, they all have incorporated laws and/or concepts that are ultimately derived from the Bible. Why? Because the Bible cover to cover describes a God who loves his people and will do whatever it takes for His people, including sacrificing His only son. Any government that adopts that same mentality to perfection will be successful until the end of time.

However, to date every attempt to create a government that reflects the relationship between God and His people has failed, miserably. Why? Because, like in the Bible when God allowed the Israelites to be ruled by a king rather than himself, people, being sinful in nature, have an uncanny ability to screw things up. Governments slowly drift away from the Biblical ideals and become more self serving, and the people suffer one way or another.

[FAPTurbo]

I almost wish there were a third alternative...

That's where my theory comes in. I happen to be a believer in God, but evolution also makes a firm case. But there are a few gaps in both theories, and I actually think my idea could catch on.

Big Bang: God Created the earth.

God made us in his image, as the Bible says. However, humans are not too great at micromanaging a certain thing, let alone doing it for thousands of years. God, while not 'lazy' was smart enough to give his creation an 'automated' policy, one that would continue to naturally manage his creation, so he has time to do other things.

That automated policy, would be 'evolution' and would include DNA, and Charles Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' theme. Every once in a while, God can check up and see how we're doing, and unleash a biblical disaster from time to time if we're getting a little too feisty.

[z28luvr01]

You guys should really take a look at "The Science of God", by...I Forgot. It does an excellent job of explaining how science and faith are not as diametrically opposed as many seem to think. It explains how evolution, the dinosaurs, the big bang theory, and various other "ammunitions against God" are in fact described in the Bible.

I think it's probably time to bring this out

[Flybrian]

I LOVE C&G. I have been waiting for some reprimend for this line of discussion or even for a closing of the thread just to realize that is not going to happen.

Feel good to exchange with adults.

I think our level of membership is able to communicate...'above' many other groups and keep things civil.

JUST A GENERAL NOTE

I've noticed its gotten a little less heated than it was a few posts ago. I'm happy that those who are participating in this discussion have managed to keep things level-headed and calm. As a moderator, discussions on politics, religion, and sexual orientation are things you almost never want to see. Here, however, its something one can browse through and enjoy reading. I'm very proud to be part of a community that has so many mature members, regardless of their physical age.

That's all.