You're a great American

[easycruise]

Lots of folks here are so far left that they've probably never heard of him or have only heard an occasional clip.

Isn't that amazing? Far left thinkers on a critical thinking forum! What a hypocrisy! I guess the lefties on here are trying to finally figure out why their failed policy agenda isn't working anymore and why they keep losing elections. Wait, I just answered the latter with the former!

 

[Ladyhawk]

Isn't it interesting that liberals are now agreeing with Laura Schlessinger! A few years ago, she got lambasted for suggesting that being gay is a "biological error". Now, John Kerry even agrees with her. He even mentions it in one of the debates that you're born with that trait. I've heard other liberals now say the same thing as well.

I think there's a difference, easycruise. Most folks I know, liberal and conservative both, agree that there is likely a genetic trait that predisposes a person to be gay. But, they don't refer to it as an "error". That's why Schlessinger got lambasted.

 

[Luke T.]

I really don't see how Hannity got a following or why Foxnews keeps him on. Frankly, hes embarassing next to Alan Colmes.

I think the same thing when I watch Hannity and Colmes. I am a conservative but it ended up that I like Colmes one hell of a lot more than I like Hannity.

My wife has found an out, though. She says Colmes is creeping looking and won't even listen to him because his looks creep her out so much. So I go with that.

 

[Ladewig]

Isn't that amazing? Far left thinkers on a critical thinking forum! What a hypocrisy! I guess the lefties on here are trying to finally figure out why their failed policy agenda isn't working anymore and why they keep losing elections. Wait, I just answered the latter with the former!

Wow. You are a great American.

The last elections were not landslides. The difference between the party results was only a small percentage of the entire voting populace. Therefore, it is somewhat inaccurate to assume that they lost the election due to failed policy agenda. Especially when one considers that many people who voted Republican had no frickin' idea what the Republican policy agenda entailed.

October 21 PIPA poll

Seventy-two percent of Bush supporters incorrectly believed that Bush favors an international land-mine treaty.

After Bush announced that he was against US participation in the International Criminal Court, fifty-three percent of Bush supporters still believed that Bush was in favor of having the US participate in the ICC.

Sixty-nine percent incorrectly believed that Bush was in favor of an International Test Ban Treaty.

 

[Bruce]

Wow. You are a great American.

The last elections were not landslides. The difference between the party results was only a small percentage of the entire voting populace. Therefore, it is somewhat inaccurate to assume that they lost the election due to failed policy agenda. Especially when one considers that many people who voted Republican had no frickin' idea what the Republican policy agenda entailed.

October 21 PIPA poll

Seventy-two percent of Bush supporters incorrectly believed that Bush favors an international land-mine treaty.

After Bush announced that he was against US participation in the International Criminal Court, fifty-three percent of Bush supporters still believed that Bush was in favor of having the US participate in the ICC.

Sixty-nine percent incorrectly believed that Bush was in favor of an International Test Ban Treaty.

Sounds like something you would see on Jay Leno's Jay-Walking skits. Out of curiosity, I wonder if a similar poll was given to Kerry's supporters about Kerry's policies?

 

[Ladewig]

Sounds like something you would see on Jay Leno's Jay-Walking skits. Out of curiosity, I wonder if a similar poll was given to Kerry's supporters about Kerry's policies?

Yes. From the same poll:

Kerry supporters were much more accurate in assessing their candidate's positions on all issues. Majorities knew that Kerry favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (81%); the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (77%); the International Criminal Court (65%); the land mines treaty (79%); the Kyoto Treaty on climate change (74%).

The reason the Bush numbers were so far off was not ignorance of the issues, but rather Bush supporters incorrectly assuming that Bush shared their personal positions on these issues. Of course, that means that the Democrats are more in touch with the population (on foreign policy issues) than the Republicans.

 

[Bruce]

Of course, that means that the Democrats are more in touch with the population (on foreign policy issues) than the Republicans.

I'm going to take a wild guess that you are not the most popular guy in Texas, are you?

I heard a good statistical analysis last night on the Daily Show. It went something like: "37% of teenagers in Amercia have already had sex. 37% of teenagers in Amercia will eventually have sex, and the rest grow up to become statisticians."

 

[Dr Adequate]

Ooh, a Schlessinger fan! Stand back, let me do this one...

Originally posted by easycruise but slightly ammended by me.
Isn't it interesting that liberals are now agreeing with the Klan! A few years ago, they got lambasted for suggesting that being black is a "biological error". Now, John Kerry even agrees with them. He even mentions it in one of the debates that you're born with that trait. I've heard other liberals now say the same thing as well.

A biological trait is not the same thing as a biological error. Okay?

How's the whole stupid bigot thing working out for you? Having fun?

 

[CapelDodger]

Thank you, Bruce, for the best giggles I've had since Thursday. (That was when I watched Not Only But Always, a bio-drama about Peter Cook, so you're in good company.)

I don't suppose Derek and Clive are the most popular act in Texas, but Ladewig is the most popular Texan in this household.

 

[hammegk]

they don't refer to it as an "error".

I thought we had nothing but natural selection types here. How does that mutation pass on its genes?

 

[NarrMaster]

I thought we had nothing but natural selection types here. How does that mutation pass on its genes?

Well, I can see two possible answers, neither of which exclude the other (but neither is this list all inclusive either).

1) It is a recessive gene.
2) Some homosexuals supress their homosexual nature and lead heterosexual lives, producing children.

Of course, if you were really trying as opposed to trolling, you could have thought of these two.

 

[hammegk]

(.... neither is this list all inclusive either).

1) It is a recessive gene.

For an individual's gene line, full stop.

2) Some homosexuals supress their homosexual nature and lead heterosexual lives, producing children.

Ah, it "builds character" fighting the urges your heredity provided.


Here are some words on the overcrowding/homosex correlations, probably outdated.

http://www.scientists4pr.org/chemistry_of_collapse.htm

Anyone have any recent citations debunking these old studies?


From a species survival view, it could be a valid mechanism. Seems more likely to me it's just biochem responding to, shall we say, stress.

 

[a_unique_person]

I thought we had nothing but natural selection types here. How does that mutation pass on its genes?

It may not be. It could also be a hormonal reaction from the mother. The answer is not known yet. That it happens, however, is undeniable, as is the fact that while still young, gay people slowly realise they are interested in the same sex more than the opposite sex, in contrast to the majority of their peers.

 

[Ed]

I listen to Hannity on the radio on occasion but I can'y stand him on TV.

I have noted that the people who call him (and Bob Grant and Rush) all sound like the dolts that call sports programs: inarticulate and herd-like. I wonder if this is really just a "type" and is unrelated to political beliefs. Perhaps unemployed illiterates constitute the population of radio call in callers.

 

[hammegk]

..... the fact that while still young, gay people slowly realise they are interested in the same sex more than the opposite sex, in contrast to the majority of their peers.

I hope you read that somewhere. If not, such is life, and there-but-for-the-grace .....

In every case, celibacy is an option, and deeds, not thoughts are the real crux of the matter.

 

[Ed]

I would just like to say that you are all Great Americans.

 

[lylfyl]

(.... neither is this list all inclusive either).

1) It is a recessive gene.

Originally posted by hammegk
For an individual's gene line, full stop.

hammegk, you fail to comprehend the meaning of 'recessive gene'. Yes, for an individual that has two recessive genes, maybe "full stop" , but for all heterozygous family members, no.


It's interesting to see how many people arguing over evolution seem to grasp only the natural selection aspect. The complexity of genetics always seems to be overlooked. Genetic mutations can be pretty complex and are fascinating stuff.

Within a single generation, major changes can take place.
-large sections of DNA can be deleted or duplicated, or cut out and replaced reversed.
- a single base deleted causes the reading frame to shift. the resulting proteins may have a completely different sequence after this point.
-whole sections of DNA can be swapped between chromosones, sometimes the wrong ones

A mutation might change the expression of the gene:
-what triggers expression, how much of it is expressed.

Genetics affecting behavior are rarely ever straightforward either/or, instead more of a gradient. There's no reason to assume that is connected to a single gene. There may be a dozen different genes that contribute to a behavior. Bisexuality kinda knocks the wind out of the "Homosexuality could not have evolved" argument.

Even a harmful gene can be selected for if it is physically close to a separate unrelated beneficial gene on a chromosone. Think of it as picking teams as a kid, and you can only get the super-athlete if you also take his asthmatic, nearsighted little brother...

Sorry for contributing to the threadjacking. Guess I'm not a great American.

 

[Bruce]

Originally posted by hammegk
For an individual's gene line, full stop.

Sorry for contributing to the threadjacking. Guess I'm not a great American. [/QUOTE]

Anyone that is willing to take the time to educate someone else for free and without making them feel stupid is a Great American in my book.

 

[CapelDodger]

I bet you he gets really peed off at anyone who doesn't call him a great american.

Someone could try "You're a great heterosexual" and see if that fazes him.

 

[hammegk]

Anyone that is willing to take the time to educate someone else for free and without making them feel stupid is a Great American in my book.

What did you learn you didn't already know?


lylfyl: It was well written. Thanks. And BTW, you're a Great American.

As a behavior, it is full-stop recessive for a specific individual's gene line.