Hm, my choice of the word "dangerous" may have been a poor one; I agree that Ron Paul is not a "threat" to the Democratic party in that he could dismantle or polarize it, I meant more in the sense that he presents a much more palatable and reasonable alternative to the stances that Democrats take - more so than any other Republican I can think of.

Also of note is his ability to actually AGREE with Democrats on certain points as opposed to being a contrarian Republican ("I must take the opposite position no matter what") that so many conservatives have become. As a whole, Ron Paul is a very appealing candidate even to me, a very progressive liberal (I'm so far left I'm not registered Democrat), because although he takes a more traditional stance on economic and foreign policy issues, he is extremely rational in his opinions and beliefs. Someone who can present an alternative point of view to many of the controversial positions Democrats take is exactly what is needed to help Republicans. I really want to see open and even-handed debate, not this lopsided mess that Republicans keep digging themselves deeper into.

I also really like his belief in the power of States' rights to ultimately make their own local decisions on whether to allow the most controversial issues like gay marriage and marijuana legalization. Even though I wish there would be constitutional amendments for those sorts of major issues, he might be right that just letting the States themselves decide what they actually want to do would be the only way of actually getting those debates settled and the necessary legislation passed.

TL;DR version: Ron Paul is articulate and not a spluttering blowhard, and is not immune to the forces of social and generational change.

>> ^NetRunner:
Actually, I don't find Ron Paul or libertarians dangerous as a Democrat at all
...
The implications of Rand Paul running for Senate in KY works out the same way from my point of view; it's only good news.
However, the DSCC is still hoping Bunning decides to run, because then it becomes a possible Democratic pickup.

I posted & discarded this a few weeks ago..... I guess springtime & shedding the winter clothes makes the fatties more visible, thus making a story like this more palatable?

Freaking disgusting, regardless.

**bites into pancake wrapped in sausage on a stick**

Neat!, but since when are algae plants? (as in "hybrid plant/animal!"). I thought the whole point of New Scientist was to make science palatable for the masses Without resorting to lazy inaccuracies.

^imstellar, I don't think that it even gets to a question of whether humans with chloroplasts would be a 'good design'. The historical constraints on this sort of thing evolving through natural selection are huge. Horizontal gene transfer enabling algal chloroplasts and a vertebrate host to live together as a chimeric organism ain't going to happen... probably more because of the immune response to the chloroplasts than because of barriers to introgression of the genes.

..besides, isn't it cool enough that this happened in a mollusk?

>> ^peggedbea:
>> ^White:
my (lesbian) friend dated a vegetarian once. she said they taste better. i've never had the chance to date a vegetarian, so i'm taking her word for it.

its true, they do taste better.
things that make your semen taste..well... more palatable:
tomatoes
stinky cheeses
olives
pineapple
mango
papaya
honeydew melon


Ew...ew...ew....ew...

That's like all my dad and step mom keep in their fridge

ew...ew...ew....ew...ew..

>> ^gwiz665:
Bookmarked for future reference.
The more you know.
>> ^peggedbea:
>> ^White:
my (lesbian) friend dated a vegetarian once. she said they taste better. i've never had the chance to date a vegetarian, so i'm taking her word for it.

its true, they do taste better.
things that make your semen taste..well... more palatable:
tomatoes
stinky cheeses
olives
pineapple
mango
papaya
honeydew melon
things that make your semen gag a girl and force her to hate you:
coffee
little debbies brownies
horseradish
arbys roast beef sandwiches
mexican food





It's sad but true.. Beer is also bad for taste..

Bookmarked for future reference.

The more you know.

>> ^peggedbea:
>> ^White:
my (lesbian) friend dated a vegetarian once. she said they taste better. i've never had the chance to date a vegetarian, so i'm taking her word for it.

its true, they do taste better.
things that make your semen taste..well... more palatable:
tomatoes
stinky cheeses
olives
pineapple
mango
papaya
honeydew melon
things that make your semen gag a girl and force her to hate you:
coffee
little debbies brownies
horseradish
arbys roast beef sandwiches
mexican food

>> ^White:
my (lesbian) friend dated a vegetarian once. she said they taste better. i've never had the chance to date a vegetarian, so i'm taking her word for it.


its true, they do taste better.
things that make your semen taste..well... more palatable:
tomatoes
stinky cheeses
olives
pineapple
mango
papaya
honeydew melon

things that make your semen gag a girl and force her to hate you:
coffee
little debbies brownies
horseradish
arbys roast beef sandwiches
mexican food

>> ^obscenesimian:
Overcooked eggs, overcooked chicken breasts, well done steaks, all signs of an underdeveloped palate. Cooking food that is done just right is hard, overcooking is easy.


Enjoy your salmonella.

cullenary distopia >> ^jwray:
All this puffery about who has a "sophisticated palate" is absurd.
Put it in scientific terms (i.e., the ability to sense this or that chemical) or drop it.


I have a SCIENTIFICALLY better palate.

All this puffery about who has a "sophisticated palate" is absurd.

Put it in scientific terms (i.e., the ability to sense this or that chemical) or drop it.

>> ^obscenesimian:
Overcooked eggs, overcooked chicken breasts, well done steaks, all signs of an underdeveloped palate. Cooking food that is done just right is hard, overcooking is easy.

Yes and no.

Taste is so subjective that it's hard to argue. I'm no gourmand, but I think my palate is more sophisticated than most. You either like something or you don't.

The Chinese will cook and eat things that most Americans wouldn't step on, but I wouldn't say one is right and the other is wrong.

Overcooked eggs, overcooked chicken breasts, well done steaks, all signs of an underdeveloped palate. Cooking food that is done just right is hard, overcooking is easy.

I just can't stand watching Olbermann, even when I agree with him. It's like he just keeps yelling louder and trying to be more obnoxious so he can match O'Reilly. O'Reilly's filth isn't made any more palatable from a democrat, it just gives the loons who listen to them from both sides a means to focus their bias.

I've watched this whole thing unfolding, and I'm actually in the middle of reading "Audacity of Hope"...Obama's no liberal/progressive ideologue, and certainly not a party partisan.

He's not kidding about wanting a "new kind of politics" and it's driving the Democratic partisans nuts (or it was, when Obama was down in the polls). In Democratic circles, there's been constant calls for Obama to go on massive offense against McCain, but what little he's done has been very restrained, and has actually stuck to relevant policy differences.

I know VS is awash in anti-McCain video, but have you noticed how little of it is from the Obama campaign? Even the clips of TV interviews of Obama surrogates are just surrogates giving a good response to a McCain attack -- not going on the attack themselves. The McCain being one of the Keating Five is not being mentioned, even though it's directly relevant to the events of the day, and the only reason for that is that Obama's told his people to keep clear of it.

He's not like John McCain, who's just flat out betrayed his party when he disagreed, had a whim, or saw political advantage in doing so. Obama has been trying to get Democrats to learn to pick their battles more carefully, and make sure that they only really get into fights when they have to. In his book, he says that he thinks that the greatest failings of the Democratic party over the last few decades has been a lack of appreciation and respect for the conservative viewpoint, and thinks Democrats could get more of their agenda passed if they just learned the right buttons to push to make it more palatable to conservatives.

In the primaries, Obama got beaten up for the left about his healthcare plan, because it didn't include a mandate. At the time, I didn't understand why he omitted it, but now that I've gotten a better understanding of conservative ideology, I get it -- mandates are a poison pill to conservatives. His healthcare plan is something Friedman would've appreciated; it makes government put up or shut up by directly competing with market alternatives.

You should read Audacity of Hope...or at least the prologue. It filled in a lot of blanks for me about how he approaches politics, and governance.

That's probably more than you were looking for, but I get that way with politics.

In reply to this comment by swampgirl:
Of course if I break everything thing down idea at a time...I do disagree with some of his ideology. BUT One can't have a shopping list when voting for president. We have two guys to choose from.

I don't want McSame.

My concerns about Obama is not about what he personally believes in but how reasonable a president he is. Can he see the big picture and make decisions that are right for the country and not just towing the party lines.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I don't know your politics, but I'd recommend voting third party, rather than not voting.

If your objections to Obama are truly about his competency, and not his ideology, watch the debates and some of his policy speeches. He's no dummy, and he'll be surrounded by the best and the brightest in every topic.

Things like this make the Central Hatcheries and Conditioning Centers of Huxley's Brave New World almost palatable.