This is typical Joe K nonsense.

Not clear to me that this is accurate. Certainly those things creep us out now, but these laws have been around in Western society for awhile now. I don't see that as the only reason for those laws being enacted or existing. As noted above, there are practical reasons for drawing these bright lines, even if you don't agree with them. We do it in other areas (such a defining minors by age).

What "blunder" are you talking about?

Geez, you really love to double down on your mistakes instead of just owning them and moving on.

even when the going is good he can't resist embellishing...

Paul Ryan has done 179 interviews since August. Joe Biden has done 1. — http://politi.co/WMfdlQ

He rattles off 4 states in which republicans seem to be doing well in absentee and early balloting. Ohio was not one of the states he listed.

I didn't know my statement was meant to be taken as a refutation of prior claims that I've never attempted to refute. Silly me.

I simply noted that a RNC rah-rah piece couldn't really find much to rah-rah about in Ohio.

Joe, do you have a favorite baseball tea?

The twitter feeds of no name people should be given as much time and analysis as the comments on Fox Nation.

. If the crew at MSNBC doesn't like it, it was probably a bad idea.

Seriously, she's incredibly gorgeous.

Well, the players on the Astros made a lot of efforts to win, too. And?

You mean a former Republican congressman who once voted to eliminate funding for PSB? That guy thought it was a bad idea? Shocking.

And she's 46!

incest wasn't outlawed because of birth defects.

And she's 46!

His mood turned when I started asking him about Romney's shifts in argument. No, he didn't read Romney's site, he doesn't know Romney's budget proposals (other than to increase military spending), he didn't know that Romney had pledged to cut taxes instead of hold the line, etc. And then he made it clear: he doesn't care what Romney's position is on those things. He wanted to cut taxes? Good! Now he doesn't? Good! Not only that, but he defended Romney's position shifts (shifts that he didn't know existed): "A man is allowed to change his mind." Our wives made us stop talking politics.

Between my brother and my birther/truther father-in-law, election season has become hell.

Re: Ads and Obama:

Obama has put up quite a few ads that people didn't like. Obama does extensive focus-testing on ads before releasing them to determine how effective they'll be.

Aren't most voters like your brother, though? They're not following the issues and the position shifts as closely as people on BBTF are.

Charlie Fuqua, the Republican candidate for the Arkansas House of Representatives who called for expelling Muslims from the United States in his book, also wrote in support for instituting the death penalty for "rebellious children."

In "God's Law," Fuqua's 2012 book, the candidate wrote that while parents love their children, a process could be set up to allow for the institution of the death penalty for "rebellious children," according to the Arkansas Times. Fuqua, who is anti-abortion, points out that the course of action involved in sentencing a child to death is described in the Bible and would involve judicial approval. While it is unlikely that many parents would seek to have their children killed by the government, Fuqua wrote, such power would serve as a way to stop rebellious children.

According to the Arkansas Times, Fuqua wrote:

The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21:
This passage does not give parents blanket authority to kill their children. They must follow the proper procedure in order to have the death penalty executed against their children. I cannot think of one instance in the Scripture where parents had their child put to death. Why is this so? Other than the love Christ has for us, there is no greater love then [sic] that of a parent for their child. The last people who would want to see a child put to death would be the parents of the child. Even so, the Scrpture [sic] provides a safe guard to protect children from parents who would wrongly exercise the death penalty against them. Parents are required to bring their children to the gate of the city. The gate of the city was the place where the elders of the city met and made judicial pronouncements. In other words, the parents were required to take their children to a court of law and lay out their case before the proper judicial authority, and let the judicial authority determine if the child should be put to death. I know of many cases of rebellious children, however, I cannot think of one case where I believe that a parent had given up on their child to the point that they would have taken their child to a court of law and asked the court to rule that the child be put to death. Even though this procedure would rarely be used, if it were the law of land, it would give parents authority. Children would know that their parents had authority and it would be a tremendous incentive for children to give proper respect to their parents.

I had not heard of Stacey Dash before today.

He has an odd habit of objecting to accurate descriptions of his written positions.

The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21:

She was in Clueless back in the 90s with Alicia Silverstone, and I am sure that was and will be fodder for a lot of bad jokes. She also did a Playboy spread a few years back.

The number of Americans who say they have no religious affiliation has hit an all-time high — about one in five American adults — according to a new study released Tuesday (Oct. 9) by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

With some pretty significant implications, too. The study shows that “nones” lean heavily Democratic — 75 percent voted for Barack Obama in 2008, about the same percentage of evangelical Christians who voted for John McCain.

“The change is occurring among both men and women, those with college educations and those without, within several income levels and in all regions of the U.S.,” said Cary Funk, another of the study’s lead researchers. “The growth does tend to be concentrated among whites, with no significant change with blacks and Hispanics. “

I literally had no idea Clueless was an adaptation of Emma.

Joe, what's the point of citing a poll with a Dem+9 advantage? Do you really believe that the electorate is going to be more Dem than in 2008?

The number of Americans who say they have no religious affiliation has hit an all-time high — about one in five American adults — according to a new study released Tuesday (Oct. 9) by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

Yet another sign of how ###### this country is.

Dick Bennett, the pollster for ARG, responded by posting items on his Website such as “Nate Silver is Wrong Again,” and mocking FiveThirtyEight’s slogan (“Electoral Projections Done Right”) in a tone that echoed current political attack ads. (“So much for electoral projections done right.”) Then, in June, Silver posted an open letter to Bennett, which read, “It has been a long and hard-fought primary campaign. We’ve both had our share of successes, and made our share of mistakes. Granted, you made a few more than I did”—and in that last sentence, every word but “Granted” was a separate link to an ARG polling misfire. Then Silver challenged Bennett to a contest, in which each site would call the elections results, state-by-state, with a $1,000 bounty per state. Bennett never took him up on it, and this is what he has to say about Silver now: “What he does is different than what I do. There’s a market for that. There’s also a lady down the street who will read your palm.”

Yet another sign of how ###### this country is.

Our free society is a direct descendent of Christianity, whether you like it or not.

But, seriously, we should be very, very afraid of the disintegration of social institutions in this country.

A free society can't survive on wealth and individual autonomy alone. We'll either fall prey to a domestic demagogue, and lose our freedom, or we'll be conquered by another civilization.

This is where your logic breaks down. What do you do when the other side doesn't believe in letting you have your own opinions on faith? You either fight, or you succumb.

The family is not disintegrating, but it is definitely changing.

The idea that you would be free to have a different opinion on those issues from the societal tradition is most certainly a Christian idea. Freedom of conscience is a 100% Christian idea.

Mainline Protestantism abandoned basic Christian teaching, and followed the Liberal party line (pro-abortion, pro-divorce, pro-homosexuality); there's no mystery why it failed. We're still left with all those congregants who have lost their religious attachment.

Our free society is a direct descendent of Christianity, whether you like it or not.

Is there anything Caligula was accused of doing that's considered shocking and immoral in Liberal cosmopolitan circles today?

Your clear allocation of blame is awesome, as usual.

Anyone who is anti-liberty. It could end up being a fascist/nationalist movement, could be real socialists (e.g. Chavez types), could be militant Islam, could be the Chinese socialist/facist system.

Is there anything Caligula was accused of doing that's considered shocking and immoral in Liberal cosmopolitan circles today?

The idea that you would be free to have a different opinion on those issues from the societal tradition is most certainly a Christian idea. Freedom of conscience is a 100% Christian idea.

I agree, but there is more to social institutions than organized religion. In any event I don't think organized religion is going away any time soon

Are we going to pretend that women don't control access to sex now?

I just hope I'm dead, and doing my 300,000 years in purgatory

You really don't understand. Even if you hate religion personally, you are a huge beneficiary of the beneficial effects on society. Our free society is a direct descendant of Christianity, whether you like it or not.

Don't be foolish enough to think you can lose Western civilization, and keep Western liberty. Won't happen.

Are we going to pretend that women don't control access to sex now?

Not familiar with his position.

Charlie Fuqua, the Republican candidate for the Arkansas House of Representatives who called for expelling Muslims from the United States in his book, also wrote in support for instituting the death penalty for "rebellious children."

In "God's Law," Fuqua's 2012 book, the candidate wrote that while parents love their children, a process could be set up to allow for the institution of the death penalty for "rebellious children," according to the Arkansas Times. Fuqua, who is anti-abortion, points out that the course of action involved in sentencing a child to death is described in the Bible and would involve judicial approval. While it is unlikely that many parents would seek to have their children killed by the government, Fuqua wrote, such power would serve as a way to stop rebellious children.

According to the Arkansas Times, Fuqua wrote:


The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21:
This passage does not give parents blanket authority to kill their children. They must follow the proper procedure in order to have the death penalty executed against their children. I cannot think of one instance in the Scripture where parents had their child put to death. Why is this so? Other than the love Christ has for us, there is no greater love then [sic] that of a parent for their child. The last people who would want to see a child put to death would be the parents of the child. Even so, the Scrpture [sic] provides a safe guard to protect children from parents who would wrongly exercise the death penalty against them. Parents are required to bring their children to the gate of the city. The gate of the city was the place where the elders of the city met and made judicial pronouncements. In other words, the parents were required to take their children to a court of law and lay out their case before the proper judicial authority, and let the judicial authority determine if the child should be put to death. I know of many cases of rebellious children, however, I cannot think of one case where I believe that a parent had given up on their child to the point that they would have taken their child to a court of law and asked the court to rule that the child be put to death. Even though this procedure would rarely be used, if it were the law of land, it would give parents authority. Children would know that their parents had authority and it would be a tremendous incentive for children to give proper respect to their parents.

Are we going to pretend that women don't control access to sex now?

What is this even supposed to mean?

What is this even supposed to mean?

In my rodent mind the single most important event (series of events) that led to Western Society being what it is (economically and socially) was the Black Death. I suspect it was necessary (but not sufficient) to end up where we are to have something like that happen.

I don't think so. Europe in the High Middle Ages (1000-1300) was doing exceedingly well. Rapid growth, rising power; hence they were able to launch the Crusades. And their wasn't a very harsh religious discipline. Everyone was Catholic, so being lax wasn't a huge threat. Most conflict were Church vs. State, not amongst Christian factions (with the exception of the wacko Albigensians). The main religious movements of this era was the Franciscans, and Dominicans, who focused on individual piety.

It really was only the rise of Protestantism that gave the militant edge to Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant). Now you had Church/State vs. other Church/State conflict, and deviation from the party line became much less tolerated.

Romney now leading by 0.4 points at RCP

Gallup has switched to likely voters, which was a big hit for Obama. He went from being up 5 a couple days ago to being down 2 today.

It means that single men are usually willing to have sex with a lot of women. At least, a woman can almost always find someone willing to have sex with them. Women are (or should be) much more choosy, since sex has potentially much higher cost to women than men. Especially men with no wages to garnishee for child supporttttt.

True. I think that griping about US/Rome not being a good match only works if you expect history to EXACTLY repeat itself. Big picture, I think it is pretty close but that we're well back in Republic days, lurching our way happily toward empire. We'll get there, to be sure. Another analogy might be that we're just about where the Brits were around 1760.

Assuming you mean "Liberal cosmpolitan circles" in the United States (and Europe), I'm pretty sure they're very strongly anti-killing people (anti-war, anti-capital punishment).

In my rodent mind the single most important event (series of events) that led to Western Society being what it is (economically and socially) was the Black Death. I suspect it was necessary (but not sufficient) to end up where we are to have something like that happen.

Tell it to the Spanish during the Inquisition. Or anyone of a number of papal states. Or a Brit during the reign of any of Henry V's kids.

Why do you exclude the Protestants? They were just as happy to kill heretics?

I'd be curious to hear more on this line of thought. Not that I disagree, just that I've always been fascinated by the economic and social legacies of the Black Death. Perhaps this isn't the forum for a lengthy digression into 14th century economic history...but I want one dammit!

I just hope I'm dead, and doing my 300,000 years in purgatory

Do you *literally* believe this, or was it just a turn of phrase?