So those who adapt to self sufficiency in the midst of dwindling resources (the amount of money that can be redistributed from workers to no workers) will survive...my point.
You are correct, TejonTech. Thank you for pointing it out to me. I took your advice, googled, and discovered I must have misunderstood my anthropology professor many years ago. Nevertheless, Wikipedia confirms I am correct in pointing out that "fittest" does not mean physically or morally healthier, stronger, or superior.
"By the word 'fittest' Darwin meant 'better adapted for immediate, local environment', not the common modern meaning of 'in the best physical shape' (think of a puzzle piece, not an athlete)" [Stephen Jay Gould, Darwin's Untimely Burial", 1976; from Michael Ruse, ed., Philosophy of Biology, New York: Prometheus Books, 1998, pp. 93-98. as quoted in Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_t…]
I am also correct in pointing out Darwin was referring to the species as a whole, not any individual or group within a species.
Finally, I was wrong in writing of species fitting into a "biological niche." The correct term is ecological niche.
Google it genius, it is survival of the fittest
When Darwin proposed the theory of the survival of the fit (not fittest) he was speaking of entire species, not of any of the species' individual members, nor any group of individuals. By "fit" he meant they fit into a biological niche. According to Darwin, humans survive as a species because we fit into a biological niche.
TejonTech, your theory that strong humans will survive while so-called "parasites" perish, even if true, is not Darwinism. It does fall under the heading of so-called "Social Darwinism," but social Darwinism is not Darwinism. It is a distortion and misunderstanding of Darwin.
TejonTech, you need to learn to read more carefully. I did not claim there is no voter fraud. I claimed that the very same people who promoted the Voter ID laws, that is Republican states attorneys, conceded in court, when the laws were challenged, that no such voter fraud exists.
As for precincts that voted 100% for Obama, although that may be unusual, even suspicious, it is not evidence of fraud. Moreover, it has nothing to do with the Voter ID bills, unless you are maintaining that Republicans did not show up to vote because there was NO requirement for them to show ID.
K...the words mean exactly what I said...and this is always the case in your pseudo smart arguments.
So all these precincts in PA and OH come up 100% Obama votes and you claim no evidence of voter fraud...right.
It appears, TejonTech, that you know just as little about Darwinism as you do about physics, by which I mean practically nothing. Your mention of "survival of the fittest" is a dead giveaway. Although that is the popular notion, Darwin never said it. What Darwin proposed is that nature favors the survival of the fit, not the fittest. Your homework is to look up who survives, because Darwin does not mean the individual, and what he means by the word, "fit," because he does not mean healthy.
Obama won in spite of the best Republican Party efforts to wrongfully deprive American citizens of their right to vote with bogus Voter ID laws. When challenged in court, the laws' proponents themselves conceded there is no evidence of this kind of voter fraud occurring any time, anywhere. But never let be said that TejonTech let a little thing like a lack of evidence deter him from libeling the president.
Obama won by bringing to the polls all the illegals for whom he worked so hard not to have to present ID's to vote.
I thought you libs liked Darwinism...survival of the fittest. Eventually, because there is not enough to be taken from the rich to fund all the social programs you want, Darwinism is what it will boil down to. The parasites will all perish, and the strong will survive.
The dependent class will naturally select out of existence...as wells and the libs.
Perhaps McConnell does indeed represent some of the "self-sufficient" of his home state, but a majority of the nation's self-sufficient rejected his policy, his politics, and his party recently by electing Obama and sending more Democrats to the Senate.
McConnell represents fat cats who made their riches by exploiting the labor of others and now cannot sleep at night for fear those whom they exploited will rise up and take back what is rightfully theirs.
McConnell represents the self sufficient and people who haves dreams they don't stolen by illegals, lazies,mand dopers.
flizz, isn't it obvious? McConnell does not represent the poor dregs of humanity of his home state who vote for him. He represents the monied interests, both in-state and out-of-state, who contribute to his campaign. The poverty of his constituents ensure there will never be enough money to mount a popular challenge to his domination.
McConnell's stated goal for the last four years was to prevent President Obama from winning a second term. He failed. He should acknowledge his failure and resign.
@tejontech - I hope your intentionally distorting your facts. Kentucky, the state Senator McConnell represents - is one of the poorest states and per capita it's residents receive more money from the federal government then over 40 other states. Kentucky is being carried by the blue states.
Why should McConnell resign...he represents the half of the country making all the money, creating all the jobs, paying all the taxes that fund the slugs on the dole. The haves still have a voice and representation, much to the distaste of the have nots.
Mitch McConnell ought to acknowledge his failure as minority leader and resign the position.
"I guess we should've expected as much from a party so deeply mired in delusion that its chief political guru, Karl Rove, kept hotly insisting on election night that Mitt Romney had won, even though he'd clearly lost. Later, it was surreal to hear Republican House leader Boehner declare: "We'll have as much of a mandate as [Obama] will." Then, going from surreal to insane, the Republicans' Senate sourpuss, McConnnell, proclaimed, "Now it's time for the president to propose solutions that actually have a chance of passing the Republican-controlled House."
Jim: This is just GOP stonewalling ...."nothing has changed, we're still in charge" as well as the Big Lie that was perfected in Germany 75 years ago....
As has been said many many times, if there is evidence of voter fraud, lay it out. Let's see it. I'm all for keeping things honest, and if there are cheaters out there, let's deal with them.
On the other hand, let's take a close look at voting machines - although it should have been done months, if not years ago. It's way too easy to literally change voting results with those systems - so what's the easy solution? A paper trail! It's simple and removes the doubt. How much is being done about that?
Harrassing the everyday voters with restrictions and complications for getting valid IDs is simply voter supression. If there is evidence that this isn't true, let's see it! Otherwise, go vote and STFU about this.
Okay Bobby manboy that's all you got? Fear and smear, strong and wrong, a rush-boy repeat? So, sad. People like you haven't had a happy day in years. Feel for ya bud.
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation