Michelle Malkin blames [[surprise!) the left for police officers' slayings

[Diehard]

I wasn't around for the '60s rock scene, but from what I've read, there were: 1. a lot of drugs and sex. 2. people letting themselves "do what feels good, as long as nobody's getting hurt." 3. young people questioning authority, mainly because the authorities were sending them to fight a war they didn't understand or agree with. 4. a sense of a national loss of innocence after the assassinations of Kennedy and MLK. 5. a lot of pent-up anger over civil rights and Vietnam. 6. Woodstock [[more drugs and sex). ...among other deep political issues and cultural upheavals.
Does that sound right?
I could see where the anger over Vietnam and questioning authority probably led to a mistrust of police, but was there actually a "let's kill cops" movement? If so, why did it take 40+ years for all hell to break loose, as Malkin would have us believe?

[East Detroit]

Thanks Lorax...another ad hominem without a shred of supporting evidence or arguments. I must admit, you are good to have around as the easiest opponent to defeat in a debate.

What a ridiculous response.

Responds to ad hominem by pointing it out and then responding with his own ad hominem [[which he does daily).

Can someone really be that way or was that a purposeful act of ironic stupidity?

[ccbatson]

Lorax admits to flaunting the rules of the board in #15...does that mean that the rules are without meaning and all can ignore them?

Why do I ask? level playing field is all I ask.

[Lorax]

You could retire from posting here, and that would take the potholes out of the road.

[ccbatson]

Not at all...I am just interested in a fair fight.

Although, with competition as weak as it is, the handicap might balance things out anyway.

[Lorax]

Not at all...I am just interested in a fair fight.

Although, with competition as weak as it is, the handicap might balance things out anyway.

Who's fighting?

Weak competition?

LOL!!!

Unless you're describing yourself, you're stepping way up in class!

Which must be difficult for you since your foot is constantly in your mouth.

Not to mention you're just like school in the summertime- no class.

[d.mcc]

Not at all...I am just interested in a fair fight.

Although, with competition as weak as it is, the handicap might balance things out anyway.

Again, you can't go around bitching about people breaking the rules when you are in violation of the TOS for posts per day...

[Pam]

Was does the 60's rock n roll culture mean to you. What benefits did it bring to us?

A lot of good music that people still listen to.

[rb336]

Thanks Lorax...another ad hominem without a shred of supporting evidence or arguments. I must admit, you are good to have around as the easiest opponent to defeat in a debate.

no, the proof is in virtually everything she says

considering that Nation of Islam splinter group is about as far away from being liberal as Bats, well, that's proof enough

[ccbatson]

Who claimed radical islamists were liberal? They are totalitarian/authoritarian collectivists which is shared with liberals.

[Lorax]

Whrong again, Dwaktor Batts.

Islam authoritarian fundamentalists are not collective, they are fright wing fascists, no different than members of the murderous "Family" group in DC, or any number of Palin worshipping Christofascists who believe in socially retarded views like "creationism"

[littlebuddy]

Take God or religion out of creationism and just examine it like you would evolution. What would you expect to find in things if the earth was young or what would you find if the earth was old. Which makes more sense? I think most people don't understand creationism because they are not religious or don't believe in God or think there is no scientific basis for it. That creation scientists are less than evolutionist scientists somehow in understanding things scientific. Both sides have their extreamists who through out some of the most goofy sounding theories, so you cannot say that only creationists do that. Maybe it is just some people are afraid of dealing with God, that if neither creationism or evolution can be totally proven, but creationism overall makes more sense or fits the facts better without putting square pegs into round holes as much as evolution, than a person might have to take a different view of the bible and God, which looking around today most people are not interested in doing.

[littlebuddy]

A lot of good music that people still listen to.

I agree that alot of the music was and is good, but at what price to we pay to have it? A society that is drugged out, sexed out, listening to authority a thing of the past, a decline in work ethic, amoung many social ills. Was it worth it today? While life before the 60's was far from perfect, could we have changed the wrong without throwing out so much of the right to get where we are today. It might have seemed harmless[[hurts no one)yet the fruit that has come forth is destroying this country. Maybe not a good example, today after getting up early and shoveling snow in my long[[to long)driveway I had to drive my wife to work. She works in a mid-sized town. The kids had no school, but did I see one kid out shoveling? No. Saw lots of older people, but not one kid. The few I did see where not doing any shoveling. To me, while it is not a perfect example of bad work ethic, it makes me wonder what kind of work ethic young people have overall. Is it all iPods, vidieo games,etc. When I was young, growing up in the Detroit suburbs, on a snow day, espically a canceled school day, the neighborhoods were filled with us kids shoveling, and playing, skating, etc. It just seems totally different to me today.

[Pam]

I agree that alot of the music was and is good, but at what price to we pay to have it? A society that is drugged out, sexed out, listening to authority a thing of the past, a decline in work ethic, amoung many social ills. Was it worth it today? While life before the 60's was far from perfect, could we have changed the wrong without throwing out so much of the right to get where we are today. It might have seemed harmless[[hurts no one)yet the fruit that has come forth is destroying this country. Maybe not a good example, today after getting up early and shoveling snow in my long[[to long)driveway I had to drive my wife to work. She works in a mid-sized town. The kids had no school, but did I see one kid out shoveling? No. Saw lots of older people, but not one kid. The few I did see where not doing any shoveling. To me, while it is not a perfect example of bad work ethic, it makes me wonder what kind of work ethic young people have overall. Is it all iPods, vidieo games,etc. When I was young, growing up in the Detroit suburbs, on a snow day, espically a canceled school day, the neighborhoods were filled with us kids shoveling, and playing, skating, etc. It just seems totally different to me today.

You can't blame rock and roll for all of society's ills. It's just music. Plenty of people have listened to it and not taken drugs and grew up to be responsible adults. [[By the way, there were people living "drugged out" even before rock and roll.)

[elganned]

Take God or religion out of creationism and just examine it like you would evolution.

Not possible. "Creationism" requires a "creator".

...if neither creationism or evolution can be totally proven, but creationism overall makes more sense or fits the facts better

It doesn't. It satisfies the religious agenda of its promoters, and that's it.

[elganned]

It just seems totally different to me today.

*shrug* That's because it is totally different today. Get used to it. The Good Old Days aren't coming back.

And as I look around, I see most of my contemporaries who enjoyed rock-n-roll are upright, responsible, law-abiding citizens. Doesn't seem like listening to Satan's Music harmed us, or society, very much at all.

[Lorax]

Take God or religion out of creationism and just examine it like you would evolution. What would you expect to find in things if the earth was young or what would you find if the earth was old. Which makes more sense? I think most people don't understand creationism because they are not religious or don't believe in God or think there is no scientific basis for it. That creation scientists are less than evolutionist scientists somehow in understanding things scientific. Both sides have their extreamists who through out some of the most goofy sounding theories, so you cannot say that only creationists do that. Maybe it is just some people are afraid of dealing with God, that if neither creationism or evolution can be totally proven, but creationism overall makes more sense or fits the facts better without putting square pegs into round holes as much as evolution, than a person might have to take a different view of the bible and God, which looking around today most people are not interested in doing.

Sorry, but you can't take "god" out of creationism since that is the entire reasoning behind it, and would be the first thing the proponents of creationism would say regarding it.

Evolution is a fact, not a theory, since we have the fossil record to prove it. We see how plants, animals, and the planet as well have evolved and have explainations for natural phenomena which ancient peoples did not. Creationists believe the earth is only 6000 years old, and the fossil record shows dinosaurs existing millions of years ago, and going extinct in some great cataclysm millions of years ago, since all living dinosaurs died simultaneously due to this natural disaster, most likely an asteroid hitting the earth.

Creationists believe dinosarus and people roamed the earth together, which is nothing more than a fantasy based on belief and not the existing proof of the fossil record.

Apart from all of this is the assumption that Creationism should be given any credibility at all. It shouldn't. It's just another religous belief based in nothing more than a man-created assertion that it happend that way, nothing more, as much as the nonsense in Islamic culture about meeting 72 virgins on some plane of existence after death.

[Pam]

Maybe it is just some people are afraid of dealing with God, that if neither creationism or evolution can be totally proven, but creationism overall makes more sense or fits the facts better without putting square pegs into round holes as much as evolution, than a person might have to take a different view of the bible and God, which looking around today most people are not interested in doing.

You know, some people believe in both evolution and God. Darwin did.
You don't have to pick one or the other.

[ccbatson]

G-d is the word for the totality of reality. It is ascribed anthropomorphic characteristics to fit with the ancient mode of communication which was story telling. The stories being told are lessons on human interaction on a large scale to allow for civilization to exist from the perspective of the very brilliant people [[for their time) who wrote the stories.

Now, with that understanding, it all fits, religion, science, evolution, and creationism. Such a simple concept, yet even intelligent people don't seem to be able to grasp it....and that is the reason for the unintended negative consequences of religion.

[ccbatson]

Lorax...individuals sacrificing for the sake of another interest placed above their own [[when there is no such value)...in this case, G-d, or Allah...is collectivism.

d.mcc...regarding post numbers...check the math [[or the stats).

[Lorax]

And the point of that was?

You may as well have quoted a recipe from the Ayn Rand Kookbook.

If you have a point to make, and are referring to an earlier post, please reference it in your response, Damien, so we can easily understand what you are referencing.

Otherwise you just need to put the lotion in the basket and accept your fate.

[East Detroit]

G-d is the word for the totality of reality. It is ascribed anthropomorphic characteristics to fit with the ancient mode of communication which was story telling. The stories being told are lessons on human interaction on a large scale to allow for civilization to exist from the perspective of the very brilliant people [[for their time) who wrote the stories.

Now, with that understanding, it all fits, religion, science, evolution, and creationism. Such a simple concept, yet even intelligent people don't seem to be able to grasp it....and that is the reason for the unintended negative consequences of religion.

Luckily for us, you're here to explain it all.

[elganned]

Yeah, too bad he wasn't available to enlighten the preceding 200 generations or so.

[Lorax]

Actually he was.

Aren't vampire Batts members of the undead??

You'd think with centuries of opportunity to return to school and learn something useful he'd of done it. Guess you can't teach an old bat new tricks.

[rb336]

Sorry, but you can't take "god" out of creationism since that is the entire reasoning behind it, and would be the first thing the proponents of creationism would say regarding it.

Evolution is a fact, not a theory, since we have the fossil record to prove it.

it is a theory, as defined in science

From the American Museum of Natural History:

In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space. Similarly, the theory of evolution explains why so many plants and animals—some very similar and some very different—exist on Earth now and in the past, as revealed by the fossil record.

A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected. The longer the central elements of a theory hold—the more observations it predicts, the more tests it passes, the more facts it explains—the stronger the theory.
Many advances in science—the development of genetics after Darwin's death, for example—have greatly enhanced evolutionary thinking. Yet even with these new advances, the theory of evolution still persists today, much as Darwin first described it, and is universally accepted by scientists