Koch industries, the second largest privately-held company in the US, is an oil refining, chemical, paper products and financial services company with revenues of a $100bn a year. Virtually every American household has some Koch product - from paper towels and lumber, to Stainmaster carpet and Lycra in sports clothes, to gasoline for cars. The Koch’s political philosophy of rolling back environmental and financial regulations is also beneficial to their business interests.
They have acquired a very detailed and accurate understanding of how political parties are organized. Parties are very susceptible to being taken over by ideologues because lower party offices have no appeal to the vast majority of our citizenry. Many precincts are represented by no one. If you decide all of a sudden because it's your Christian duty to become a precinct representative, you only need a few votes to get elected.
Increasingly, they have the key say-so on who will be a delegate at the national convention, and who will write the party platform and nominate the presidential candidate. In a state like Oregon, with 600,000 registered Republicans, it is possible for 2000 or 3000 people to control the state party apparatus. If they are outvoted by one or two votes, parliamentary manipulations begin, and after two or three hours of discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the more reasonable people with other things to do leave, and in the wee hours of the morning, things are decided. That's how they achieve their objectives.
Data from the United States Department of Commerce, CBO, and Internal Revenue Service indicate that income inequality among households has been increasing significantly since the late 1970s, after several decades of stability.
2. Mad that people with morals have figured out what your progressive/communist buddies learned in the early 1900's?
3. Sure, that's why even the poorest among us has a big screen HD TV and the woman who bought her groceries in front of me yesterday with food stamps then whipped out a wad of 100's to pay for her cigarettes and liquor drives an Escalade with 24" rims.
4. All humans seek to surround themselves with other like-minded humans. Its part of how natural selection works. Surely you understand evolutionary theory, right?
I don't think you understand Reagan's principles if you really think that the things being advocated by the current GOP crop are far to the right of him.
Please show me separation of church and state in the constitution.
More importantly though, all laws are simply the codification of one groups morals over others.
It was actually not technically in the constitution but the Supreme Court did rule on it.
Quote:
In the United States, the term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text reads: "... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.[7] The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947.[8] The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states until 1947; when they did, in Everson v. Board of Education, all nine justices agreed that there was a wall of separation between church and state, but a majority held that the present case (a local authority paying to transport parochial students to school), the benefits to the children outweighed the Constitutional objection
It is clear to anyone who reads the entire text that Jefferson was speaking about keeping the government from interfering in your exercise of religion. It has been so skewed today as to suggest that no individual who happens to be in government can express their religious views or make a moral argument from a religious perspective without being accused of being ignorant or unlawful. It has been streched to the extreme to suggest that it is illegal to have a display of the 10 commandments displayed at a court house. Those 10 commandments are the well from which all our laws spring.
I'm not a religious person and I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs (unless their god says they have to kill me) but I can still rationally recognize what moral code was the basis for our legal foundation and not be offended because there is a copy of a religious text hanging on the wall at my local courthouse.
Furthermore, there is additional proof that the founders only intended for that clause of the constitution to apply to the federal government, and its interference at the state level (like most of the constitution is designed to do), since several of the original states had OFFICIAL STATE RELIGIONS until well into the 1800's.
Result - welcome to the GOP of 2012, where Reagan wouldn't get a nomination for not being conservative enough.
REALLY? So you don't think Ron Paul's domestic stance isn't a right leaning stance? Far less Government & Far less spending! Reagan didn't do anything like Ron paul is wanting to. So are you saying Romney and the other Candidates are extreme right even though their domestic propositions aren't even close to what Ron Paul wants to do? Really man, you need to stop watching Keith Olberman.
As far as church & State, where has the Government forced anyone to turn Christian? Are you guys saying a fucking picture,statue, or bible is going to all the sudden going to turn you christian if you look at it?
Come on man! I don't like it when someone comes up to be preaching like they are trying to push it on to me. If I want to listen I'll let them continue if not, i'll be on my way. We do live in a free country... right? I can always turn the channel on my TV if something is on I don't like. For fucks sake, how many time has king Obama referenced "GOD" in his speeches? Did you find an urge to grab a bible and start reading it and didn't want to?
It's getting sickening that if you don't like something you want it stricken away. This freedom thing is great, until your freedoms interfere with mine, Is that what all this is about?
Wolfgang, have you listened to any primary debates? This is exactly what is happening, especially with anti-gay and anti-abortion movements hijacking conservatism. What would you call when a republican candidate can come out on national debate and openly state that he will disband and prohibit gay unions because Bible says so? How is that not an interference from church in a matters of state?
Wolfgang, have you listened to any primary debates? This is exactly what is happening, especially with anti-gay and anti-abortion movements hijacking conservatism. What would you call when a republican candidate can come out on national debate and openly state that he will disband and prohibit gay unions because Bible says so? How is that not an interference from church in a matters of state?
I would say if that's something I didn't like, I wouldn't vote for that person. IF they did get elected because of that don't you think that means a large majority of the population is religious? I mean I look around and there's a lot of non religious people. They are playing that up to their hardcore supporters, just like Obama plays up to his. The only thing you can hope for is there are enough people out their they believe in the things you believe in or at least can compromise on the ones they don't.
Even though you try to label some of us right wing terrorists, we have more things in common than you want to acknowledge. I don't agree with most of the Gay & Abortion issues on the right. And I don't completely agree with them on the left either.
IF they did get elected because of that don't you think that means a large majority of the population is religious?
Even if every last man, woman and child was god-fearing christian, still that would not be appropriate. Separation of church and state is absolute doctrine, there isn't sorta or unless majority agrees otherwise clauses in it.
You know what happens otherwise? Sharia law, hijab and stoning for infidelity.
Wolfgang, have you listened to any primary debates? This is exactly what is happening, especially with anti-gay and anti-abortion movements hijacking conservatism. What would you call when a republican candidate can come out on national debate and openly state that he will disband and prohibit gay unions because Bible says so? How is that not an interference from church in a matters of state?
So you'd rather vote for a guy who believes that abortion is murder but doesn't say anything about it, than for a guy who believes the same way and stands for his principles? So, are you saying that you want your politicians to lie to you?
Likewise you'd rather vote for a guy who believes that marriage is a religious institution and should be between a man and a woman but keeps that to himself so he can get elected rather than vote for someone who lies to you about his beliefs?
For the record, its pretty clear you're talking about Santorum, and I didn't see anyone else get asked those questions, nor did he respond the way you're insinuating that he did. He was asked what he believed and he gave and honest answer. He was asked if he believed those laws should be changed and again gave an honest answer. He was never asked if he was going to devote his presidency, if elected, to changing those laws and hasn't made any indication that he plans to.
What does it say about our political system that we finally get a guy who seems to answer honestly when asked a question, rather than dodge or spin, and its so out of character for our politicians that we assume there must be something wrong with him or he has some agenda to change the country?
"Over the last four decades, the Republican Party has transformed from a loyal opposition into an insurrectionary party that flouts the law when it is in the majority and threatens disorder when it is the minority. It is the party of Watergate and Iran-Contra, but also of the government shutdown in 1995 and the impeachment trial of 1999. If there is an earlier American precedent for today's Republican Party, it is the antebellum Southern Democrats of John Calhoun who threatened to nullify, or disregard, federal legislation they objected to and who later led the fight to secede from the union over slavery."
Sure, because a guy writing for a rag that endorses the opposition should always be understood to be completely objective and never try to spin actual events into a political assault. Plus when one side accuses the other of espousing the same political leanings as those advocating slavery it must be true.
I wasnt referring to Church/State - just morals in general. Some peoples morals think that govt should intervene in other areas, unrelated to religion.
So in other words you are itching for another health care debate. Lets compartmentalize our discussions, so it is easier to revisit them in the future. Start new thread.
Its a general matter of principle. Why are some personal morals OK to impose by force, and others not?
I actually feel no need to revisit any debate, because you do not take part. To have a debate, you have to have at least two sides that acknowledge and respond to what people are actually saying.
Derid, are you are asking why can one mandate everyone purchasing health insurance but cannot mandate everyone having missionary sex with opposite sex partner within confinement of the institution of marriage.
I just want to make sure I understood question correctly.
You know thats not the case, in fact it would be clear if you ever bothered to pay attention to what people said that my position, and the position of rationality are quite different than what you are insinuating.
Please do elaborate what "some personal morals" you have in mind, and what is or is not or ought to be "impose[d] by force". I want to fully understand your question prior to answering it.
The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld a Texas law that requires women seeking an abortion to have a sonogram exam and to listen to a physician's detailed description of the fetus, including whether it has developed limbs or internal organs.
According to the New England Journal of Medicine sonogram prior to abortion is not a medically necessary procedure. Describing the fetus offers no benefit to the patient and has no effect on the outcome. The only purpose of this "procedure" is to be distressing, costly and inconvenient.
The problem is that the legislature required extra steps from the patient with sole intent to discourage the procedure. While they can't outright ban it due to Roe vs Wade, they can make it more complicated, distressing and potentially expensive in hopes of turning more patients away.
This is prime example of evangelical influence is this is why separation of state and church must be enforced at all times.
In the November elections, the citizens of three states resoundingly defeated initiatives aimed at curtailing reproductive rights.
The South Dakota law should alarm physicians and the public. If states are permitted to mandate ideological speech about abortion, what is to stop them from doing the same for end-of-life decisions, contraception, stem-cell therapies, vaccination, or any procedure or treatment that does not conform to the political ideology of the statehouse? The doctor–patient relationship is predicated on a foundation of trust. Doctors have an ethical responsibility to provide their patients with accurate medical information. But can a patient trust any interaction with his or her physician knowing that the physician's very words have been mandated by the state?
So much for the small government, so much for respecting the rights of individuals.
I was simply pointing out the inconsistency. Lots of people talk about personal freedom, and rejecting other people forcing their own sense of personal morality on them. Then they turn around and try to do the same in regards to other issues.
The point is neither "side" here, if you could even quantify it as such - is consistent with the principle, rather the field is filled with "fair weather friends" of liberty.
" Liberty is good as long as I can do what I want, and as long as other people also do what I want. "
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "happiness". It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, and that one can only weigh the morality of an action after knowing all its consequences.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "happiness". It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, and that one can only weigh the morality of an action after knowing all its consequences.
I do not follow your logic, what homelessness has to do with Radicalization of GOP, other than where we all going to end up if they ever get back to power.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "happiness". It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, and that one can only weigh the morality of an action after knowing all its consequences.
All you had to say is that you're a moral relativist. Great. Now I know that you and I are going to disagree on almost everything. No point in talking about it further unless there is some chance you will change. I won't change because my morals are based in a fundamental understanding of right from wrong. For example, I believe that murder is wrong, therefore I cannot condone the taking of an innocent life. While you have no problem with abortion (to use an example you brought up in the last couple of posts) because you cannot measure the consequences to the child since it cannot speak for itself. (We'll just ignore the negative consequences physically and emotionally for the other parties involved)
Biology and history have no problem defining when life begins by the way. Life on earth began with single celled organisms that sprouted from an electrical charge shot through some gasses, or something similar to that, according to my biology book from last semester. Today we don't discount amoebas because they are only single celled organisms. So, given that I'll give you even one further, let's call a fetus "life" after it divides the first time into multiple cells. Then its twice as much life as a bacteria. The only people who have problems defining when life begins and what murder is are those pandering to people who don't want to be burdened with the consequences of their actions.
Listen to Gingrich's victory speech. It was completely, fundamentally, organizationally Manichean, if you'll pardon the expression. He limned a familiar battle between independence and dependence, pay-checks vs food stamps, America vs "Europe", the American people vs elites "forcing people" for 35 years not to be American, the traditional America vs the "secular, European style socialist bureaucratic system". There is no gray here. There is no nuance. And there is the imputation to the other side of malign motives, secret agendas and foreignness that has been Gingrich's hallmark since the very beginning, when he assaulted the traditions of the Congress until that institution eventually had to repel him.
...that rage cannot be downward. It has to be upward - at vague, treasonous elites. It has to have that Poujadist touch, that soupcon of contempt, that sends shivers up the legs of the Republican faithful, reared on Limbaugh, propagandized by Fox, and coated with a shallow knowledge of a largely fictionalized past.
Following quote is priceless. I don't think I have to name names, you know who you are.
“The collapse of the Soviet system was a pretty extraordinary event, and we are currently experiencing something similar in the developed world, without fully realizing what’s happening.” To Soros, the spectacular debunking of the credo of efficient markets—the notion that markets are rational and can regulate themselves to avert disaster—“is comparable to the collapse of Marxism as a political system. The prevailing interpretation has turned out to be very misleading. It assumes perfect knowledge, which is very far removed from reality. We need to move from the Age of Reason to the Age of Fallibility in order to have a proper understanding of the problems.”
...that rage cannot be downward. It has to be upward - at vague, treasonous elites. It has to have that Poujadist touch, that soupcon of contempt, that sends shivers up the legs of the Democratic faithful, reared on Keith Olbermann, propagandized by MSNBC, and coated with a shallow knowledge of a largely fictionalized past.
Following quote is priceless. I don't think I have to name names, you know who you are.
People on the Left often fail to realize this, but conservatism really does speak to and for people who have lost something. It may be a landed estate or the privileges of white skin, the unquestioned authority of a husband or the untrammeled rights of a factory owner. The loss may be as material as a portion of one’s income or as ethereal as a sense of standing. It may be of something that was never legitimately owned in the first place; it may, when compared with what the conservative retains, be small. Even so, it’s a loss, and nothing is ever so cherished as that which we no longer possess. It used to be one of the great virtues of the Left that it alone understood the often zero-sum nature of politics, where the gains of one class necessarily entail the losses of another.
But as that sense of conflict diminishes on the Left, it has fallen to the Right to remind voters that there really are losers in politics and that it is they — and only they — who speak for them. “All conservatism begins with loss,” Andrew Sullivan rightly notes, which makes conservatism not the Party of Order, as Mill and others have claimed, but the party of the loser.
The chief aim of the loser is not — and indeed cannot be — preservation or protection. It is recovery and restoration. And that, it seems to me, is the secret of conservatism’s success.
Ah yes, the great analytical mind of George Soros..... *cough* * chuckle* *cough*
Still playing disregard and discredit card? If it is written by Soros, it must be automatically wrong. So say we all.
So say we all.
Seriously though, if you post a link to someone who spouts 95% BS, expecting people to wade through it is unreasonable. If you think he made a good point somehow ( and yes, even broken clocks are right twice a day - so it does happen ) then make the point in your own words.
Using Soros as a political analyst, is like using Gingrich as a marriage counselor.
You should not be, you knew before you posted it - that it was a turd. I dont go digging through turds because someone says I might find a nickel.
Also, its pretty funny seeing you get all worked up over it - because the only reason you rely on such links in the first place to make your ( bad ) arguments, is because you do not understand the matter well enough to make the argument in your own words.
Instead you parade third class opinions found on the web as facts, then get angry when the conclusions found therein get either debunked or found to be of such limited context as to be of no practical use.
So you did not read the article, dismissed it out of hand based on authorship alone(and such dismissal would not be for the first time) and then proceed to vilify me in other thread for pointing out your dogmatism and echo chamber effect?
This kind of shameless hypocrisy boggles my mind. You must be simply trolling.
I don't understand the need to keep beating this horse. Derid told you he didn't read the article and why and you keep pointing out that you're upset that he didn't read it.
Fox "News" does course correction. I don't think pants on your head course corrected to just fucking nuts count, but when you are shit-eating connoisseur, nuances are important.
GOP fundraisers have created a monster. Or better yet, an army of monsters. The super PACs assembled to support the GOP presidential candidates have become more powerful and more self-sufficient than the candidates' own campaigns.
I think I need to edit #1 point, I wasn't aware of magnitude of this problem and it became evident that Koch aren't the only ones bankrolling various PACs.
We really need political contributions reform, it is very clear that existing system has failed.
GOP fundraisers have created a monster. Or better yet, an army of monsters. The super PACs assembled to support the GOP presidential candidates have become more powerful and more self-sufficient than the candidates' own campaigns.
I think I need to edit #1 point, I wasn't aware of magnitude of this problem and it became evident that Koch aren't the only ones bankrolling various PACs.
We really need political contributions reform, it is very clear that existing system has failed.
Republican candidate Rick Santorum raised a fuss this weekend -- one of several -- by saying on ABC News' This Week that he "almost threw up" after reading John F. Kennedy's 1960 speech on religion.
Originally Posted By: JFK
Because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured -- perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again -- not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me -- but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute - where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference -- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
This makes me sad, the fact that Rick Santorum viewed by some as a serious presidential candidate is a milestone on the road of the decline and fall of the American Era.
So you have nothing to say to someone who can read and understand what they've read?
Although I'd take that statement to mean that government should also not show preferential treatment of one religion over another one. So, them working together is a bit of a stretch for me.
If a church wants to influence the government then they can do that by what they teach and then expect their people (the power behind our government) to do what they teach is right.
Jeffersons letter to the Danbury Baptists. ------------------------------------------------
It is quite clear that Founding Generation intended to found a secular state, as only a secular state can grant equal liberty and freedom of conscience. The Constitution does not define the word religion, so we must, as the SCOTUS has, look to the public writings of the men of the age to ascertain precisely what was intended by Constitutional wording.
I will say as well however, that some legal advocacy groups such as the ACLU ( which I tend to agree with on most issues but not this one ) do go too far in their attempts to banish imagery or trappings of religion from public life.
It seems self evident that the Founders never intended to banish Christmas Trees from the public square; but rather that Wiccans and Jews and others have equal rights to display and practice the tenets of their own faith and place a menorah or shrine next to the Xmas Tree in that same public square.
Once again you go to the extreme. Nowhere did I say that the government should control or be controlled by any religion.
I said the government can work with any religion and still be to the letter of the law.
You say government can not help any religion no matter what or it will cause the world to collapse.
If government helps out any organization it is ok but if it is some religion it is bad. Those same organizations that the government supports can make the people who use the services adhere to what they deem good, the same thing a religion does so you should be up in arms about them also.
If a religion is helping storm victims that means to you that the government can not come help the same victims because it would mean that the government is supporting a religion.
If government used all the support programs out there then a lot more people could be helped. So by not wanting to help people every way possible you are a bad person.
I will say as well however, that some legal advocacy groups such as the ACLU ( which I tend to agree with on most issues but not this one ) do go too far in their attempts to banish imagery or trappings of religion from public life.
It seems to me that a great many of those groups and their supporters have misconstrued " freedom OF religion" to be "freedom FROM religion"
1. “The human being is in the most literal sense a political animal, not merely a gregarious animal, but an animal which can individuate itself only in the midst of society.” 2. “The history of all previous societies has been the history of class struggles.” 3. “In bourgeois (capitalist) society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.” 4. “From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need.” 5. “Democracy is the road to socialism.” 6. “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” 7. “WORKERS OF ALL LANDS UNITE.” 8. “THE PHILOSOPHERS HAVE ONLY INTERPRETED THE WORLD IN VARIOUS WAYS - THE POINT HOWEVER IS TO CHANGE IT.” 9. “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” 10. “The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.” 11. “Mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division ;and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from fundamental facts.” 12. “The great task before our founders was putting into practice the ideal that government could simultaneously serve liberty and advance the common good. and Government, he believed, had an important role to play in advancing our common prosperity.” 13. “I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.” 14. “Yes, our greatness as a nation has depended on individual initiative, on a belief in the free market. But it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, of mutual responsibility. The idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we’re all in it together and everybody’s got a shot at opportunity. Americans know this. We know that government can’t solve all our problems - and we don’t want it to. But we also know that there are some things we can’t do on our own. We know that there are some things we do better together.” 15. *** BONUS QUOTE- tricky one here: “We’ll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right. I’ll tell you one thing, that it is not something we should hope for, and that’s a democratic Iraq. When I hear the president talking about democracy, the last thing we should want is an election in Iraq. I mean, we’re not very popular. So I don’t think we’ll see any open elections in Iraq for a long time. And hopefully, over time they can be brought along like Japan and Germany - Japan and Germany were relatively easy, I think, and South Korea. Here were autocratic governments brought around to really nice democracies, successful democracies. Creating a successful democracy in Iraq is going to take longer, and we may be there longer as a consequence.”
Pop Quiz: Which of these quotes was said by Hitler and which was said by Obama?
A. “…our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. Because thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition.”
B. “Our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.”
"We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens." Fidel Castro John Edwards Barack Obama Hillary Clinton Adolf Hitler
"Our individual salvation depends on our collective salvation." Jesus Christ Ivan Pavlov Barack Obama Mao Zedong
"It's time to put the common good, the national interest, ahead of individuals." Adolf Hitler Hillary Clinton Benito Mussolini Mao Zedong
"Our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest." Joseph Stalin Adolf Hitler Hillary Clinton Barack Obama
It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few, and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." Vladimir Lenin Abraham Lincoln Barack Obama Hillary Clinton
"All individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived in their relation to the State." Karl Marx Joseph Stalin Benito Mussolini Hillary Clinton
"It's only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential." Jim Jones Kim Jong Il Barack Obama Adolf Hitler
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. " Hillary Clinton Vladimir Lenin Adolf Hitler Robin Hood
"The world needs a new moral architecture... I believe that this should be the first topic to debate in our world of today, ethics, moral." Barack Obama Hillary Clinton John Edwards Hugo Chavez
"I am a fan of the social policies that you find in Europe." Idi Amin Pol Pot Saddam Hussein Hillary Clinton
War
"Personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits." Diane Feinstein John Edwards Hillary Clinton Adolf Hitler
"The war in Iraq makes millions of dollars for big corporations, either weapons manufacturers or those working in the reconstruction, such as Halliburton and its sister companies. " John Edwards Hillary Clinton Osama bin Laden Noam Chomsky
"We hope that the great United States of America does not continue to use its enormous resources, especially its military might, to destroy human life on earth." Hillary Clinton Jimmy Carter Idi Amin Al Gore
"I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war." King Leonidas of Sparta George Washington Barack Obama Napoleon Bonaparte
"The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism." Karl Marx Barack Obama Noam Chomsky Ramsey Clark
"We must confront the privileged elite who have destroyed a large part of the world." Al Gore Hillary Clinton Hugo Chavez Karl Marx
"There had to be a hysteria and a fear sent through America in order to get increased war budgets." Al Gore The New York Times Daily Kos Julius Rosenberg
"It is crystal clear who benefits from igniting the fire of this war and this bloodshed. They are the merchants of war, the bloodsuckers who run the policy of the world from behind the scenes: President Bush and his ilk, (and) the media giants." Osama bin Laden Hugo Chavez Bill Maher Keith Olbermann
Life in a Democracy
"The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win." Al Gore George W. Bush Hillary Clinton Leonid Brezhnev
"Crime is a product of social excess." Barack Obama Hillary Clinton Vladimir Lenin John Edwards
"It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed." Saddam Hussein Adolf Hitler Benito Mussolini Vladimir Lenin
"Any kitchen maid should be able to run the country." Hillary Clinton Barack Obama Vladimir Lenin Adolf Hitler
"Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? It cannot." Osama bin Laden Barack Obama Luis Farrakhan Vladimir Lenin
"I hope we will come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who have no business with them." Vladimir Lenin Hillary Clinton Fidel Castro Mao Zedong
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?" Hillary Clinton Adolf Hitler Joseph Stalin Che Guevara
"The only way to settle questions of an ideological nature or controversial issues among the people is by the democratic method, the method of discussion, of criticism, of persuasion and education, and not by the method of coercion or repression." Hillary Clinton Idi Amin Barack Obama Mao Zedong
"We have to build a political consensus, and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground." Mao Zedong Joseph Stalin Idi Amin Hillary Clinton
Healthcare
"We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age." Hillary Clinton Joseph Stalin Barack Obama Adolf Hitler
"We need to be as well prepared to defend ourselves against public health dangers, as we should be to defend ourselves against any foreign danger." Adolf Hitler Joseph Stalin Fidel Castro Hillary Clinton
"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care." Che Guevara Vladimir Lenin Hillary Clinton John Edwards
"I had a few ideas about health care, and I've learned a few lessons since then, but I haven't given up the goal." Fidel Castro Pol Pot Adolf Hitler Hillary Clinton
Education
"The aim of the school must be to give the student, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the notion of the State." Joseph Stalin Hillary Clinton John Kennedy Adolf Hitler
"Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." Mao Zedong Joseph Stalin Barack Obama Hillary Clinton
"You young people, full of vigor and vitality, are in the bloom of life, like the sun at eight or nine in the morning. Our hope is placed on you." Adolf Hitler Mao Zedong Barack Obama Hillary Clinton
"Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted." Hillary Clinton Al Gore Barack Obama Vladimir Lenin
Capitalism and War of Classes
"Too many people have made too much money." Karl Marx Al Capone Hillary Clinton John Kerry
"Capitalism leads us straight to hell." Karl Marx Paul Krugman Hillary Clinton Hugo Chavez
"Mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from fundamental facts." John Edwards Hillary Clinton Joseph Stalin Barack Obama
"I certainly think the free-market has failed." Hugo Chavez Hillary Clinton Karl Marx Vladimir Lenin
"Capitalists are no more capable of self-sacrifice than a man is capable of lifting himself up by his own bootstraps." Vladimir Lenin Hillary Clinton Barack Obama John Edwards
"(We) can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." Don Carleone Hillary Clinton Vladimir Lenin Mao Zedong
"I am convinced that the path to a new, better and possible world is not capitalism, the path is socialism." Hugo Chavez Hillary Clinton Adolf Hitler Vladimir Lenin
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." Howard Zinn Noam Chomsky Nikita Khrushchev Denis Kucinich
"First ascertain exactly the position of the various capitalists, then control them, influence them by restricting or enlarging, facilitating or hindering their credits, and finally (it) can entirely determine their fate." Hillary Clinton Paul Krugman Vladimir Lenin Franklin Delano Roosevelt
"It's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in the entire economy, that they are being watched." Don Carleone Chuck Schumer Vladimir Lenin Hillary Clinton
"The unfettered free market has been the most radically destructive force in American life in the last generation." Ethel Rosenberg Noam Chomsky Hillary Clinton Hugo Chavez
"The untrammeled intensification of laissez-faire capitalism and the spread of market values into all areas of life, is endangering our open and democratic society." Hugo Chavez Benito Mussolini Kim Jong Il George Soros
"There is a serious tendency toward capitalism among the well-to-do peasants." Hillary Clinton Hugo Chavez Mao Zedong George Soros
"The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better than the private sector will spend it." Mao Zedong Vladimir Lenin Benito Mussolini Hillary Clinton
Life As Political Struggle
"Print is the sharpest and the strongest weapon of our party." James Carville Al Franken Arthur Schulzberger, Jr. Joseph Stalin
"Destroy the family, you destroy the country." Hillary Clinton Medea Benjamin Gloria Steinem Vladimir Lenin
"Passivity is fatal to us. Our goal is to make the enemy passive." Al Gore Mao Zedong Barack Obama Hillary Clinton
"I will fight against the division politics of revenge and retribution." Adolf Hitler Joseph Stalin Maria de' Medici Hillary Clinton
"Political work is the life-blood of all economic work." George Soros Barack Obama Mao Zedong Hillary Clinton
"I am particularly horrified by the use of propaganda and the manipulation of the truth and the revision of history." Michael Moore Hillary Clinton Joseph Stalin Joseph Goebbels
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." Michael Moore Barack Obama Vladimir Lenin Hillary Clinton
Personal
"I'm quite modest. I don't want to tell people I'm a leader." Pol Pot Al Gore Hillary Clinton Barack Obama
"Here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all. I am just like everybody else." Hillary Clinton Barack Obama John Edwards Vladimir Lenin
"I want to be a champion for the people I have fought for all my life - regular people." Robin Hood John Edwards Hillary Clinton Barack Obama
"My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism." Barack Obama Hillary Clinton Michael Moore Karl Marx
"Sometimes people mistake the way I talk for what I am thinking." Ted Kennedy Idi Amin Hillary Clinton Barack Obama
"Why do I have to keep proving to people that I am not a liar?" O. J. Simpson Dan Rather Barack Obama Hillary Clinton
"I never heard any such conversation." Bill Clinton Hillary Clinton Sandy Berger Ethel Rosenberg
Democrats have nothing on level of crazy GOP has, seeing how primaries went so far I don't think you have a toe (less a foot) to stand on.
Ugly truth is that given chance GOP would turn US into evangelical version of Sharia law. Much uglier truth is that a lot of you don't seem to have a problem with it.
Unsurprisingly, you seem to have no understanding of the Constitution.
I havent read or seen anything by any of the repub candidates that leads me to think a theocracy is coming. I havent even seen any of them pledge to try to roll back the assaults on religion and public standards of decency that have taken place over the last 30 years. Lets see, who wants to:
bring back or even allow school prayer? allow states to have an official church? ban birth control? ban or limit pornography? put nativity or other scenes on public land? re-criminalize homosexuality? conduct witch hunts to drum them out of the military?
hint: none.
once again, your use of hyperbole renders any point you are trying to make utterly worthless.
i wonder if you even know what sharia is based on your comments
Sinij definitely has a habit of grouping anyone who thinks differently than he does together in strange ways though. Based on past experience, he lumps Ron Paul and Mitt Romney supporters in with Santorum supporters.. even though Ron Paul and Santorum agree on less than Santorum and Obama.
Pretty typical nowadays though, lots of people seem to think in terms of tags and labels... with little care or understanding for the underlying principles.
Its pretty endemic on the right and left.. and why the country is so messed up.
dude no one wants to ban birth control. even catholics dont want it banned. the whole birth control thing is about forcing private insurance providers to pay for things that they find repugnant. the issue at hand involves religion this time.
there is precedent for the govt forcing people to pay thru taxation for things they dont like, ie welfare, nukes. there is no precedent for forcing private people or groups into paying for something they dont want to. this is a slippery slope. if the evil repubs ever take over they could force everyone to buy a gun under the same dumb logic used to justify this birth control debate.
what im concerned most about is the lack of concern over the govt ordering people around in increasingly petty ways.
people should pay for their own damn birth control and biagra, why should the taxpayer have to do it?
That was the latest flap about birth control, yes.
I hate govt intervention in the economy, as much as anyone for a variety of reasons.
Was just commenting that Santorum is very hard line on religions social issues. He is pretty far out there and he certainly would use govt as a tool to force his view of morality on people. However Romney and Paul for example aren't social extremists like Santorum so I dont really think their supporters should be viewed in the same light, for example. That was the point I was trying to make.
Santorum is someone I consider a nutter, but that does not make all people who lean right on many issues or support GOP candidates in general nutters, or in the same bed with someone like Santorum.
Santorum is someone I consider a nutter, but that does not make all people who lean right on many issues or support GOP candidates in general nutters, or in the same bed with someone like Santorum.
You are right, not all but enough to make justifiable generalization.
how are santorums religious beliefs nuttier that obamas? do you guys know what liberation theology is? why are all the presidents spiritual advisors anti american, racist haters?
how are santorums religious beliefs nuttier that obamas? do you guys know what liberation theology is? why are all the presidents spiritual advisors anti american, racist haters?
Santorum is someone I consider a nutter, but that does not make all people who lean right on many issues or support GOP candidates in general nutters, or in the same bed with someone like Santorum.
You are right, not all but enough to make justifiable generalization.
You think 33%, or one third of primary voters in the deep south makes for a justifiable generalization?
You think 33%, or one third of primary voters makes for a justifiable generalization?
It does. 33% for a clear nutter is HUGE number.
Even on this forum we have people jumping in and supporting him. This is the guy who doesn't believe in separation of church and state, who wants to use his power to roll back women's rights to middle-ages levels, who wants to take away all homosexual rights... This is insanity!
Obama is about as religious as Ronald Reagan was. Most importantly, go to church for religious law, but don't infect my government with it.
How people put faith in a book that supports slavery SHOCKS and DISGUSTS me.
Lets not even start with the book of Morman.
Originally Posted By: (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.
Originally Posted By: (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
Originally Posted By: (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.
You think 33%, or one third of primary voters makes for a justifiable generalization?
It does. 33% for a clear nutter is HUGE number.
Even on this forum we have people jumping in and supporting him. This is the guy who doesn't believe in separation of church and state, who wants to use his power to roll back women's rights to middle-ages levels, who wants to take away all homosexual rights... This is insanity!
examples please. that is hyperbole of the lowest order, completely expected from you.
Obama is about as religious as Ronald Reagan was. Most importantly, go to church for religious law, but don't infect my government with it.
How people put faith in a book that supports slavery SHOCKS and DISGUSTS me.
Lets not even start with the book of Morman.
Originally Posted By: (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.
Originally Posted By: (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
Originally Posted By: (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.
slavery was universal. there are serious problems with putting 21st century morality onto 15th century bc texts. what you are engaging in is "critical theory". this is an academic discipline dedicated to the destruction of western civilization by tearing down its art, literature, history, and works. you can only truly judge history in the context of its time. the ancient greeks had slaves, abused and degraded their women, and loved warfare and violence. they also gave us mathematics, an alphabet, art, literature, and philosophy. shall we throw their wisdom away because they fall short of our 21st century morays?
also, why are you guys so hard on christians? our advanced civilization only happened naturally in christian countries. as policy, no christian nation has slaves (sudan, saudi arabia), degrades women ( iran sudan saudi arabia morroco tunisia kuwait etc) or glorifies war. ok maybe there is too much glory in war.
christian countries ended the slave trade, islamic ones invented it.
The Christian god is neither benevolent or omnipotent. The Bible is the "Word of God" and that kind of verbiage is not benevolent or omnipotent. If God loved us so, would he allow us to be slaves? Would he allow us to die horrible drowning deaths by the hundreds of thousands in a tsunami the day after his birthday?
In your argument, would not an omnipotent being update his word every thousand years or so? Would a benevolent being sentence people that were skeptical of his message to burn in hell for eternity? What about people that are raised in other religions that never get exposed to his word. Oh well, better paint on some BBQ sauce for the eternal smoking you are going to get.
It just doesn't add up for me, and I should not have this supposed morality shoved down my throat. Religion does not belong in government if your are supposed to have freedom of it, and from it.
And as for Christian people ending slavery? Anyone remember the crusades? Or how about if you were a native american?
freedom of religion means that you cant be forced to attend or belong to a church. it doesnt mean that people cant put a cross up. "of" is not "from"
as to your personal beliefs, i frankly dont care either way. if you study history, you will see that i am right. i am not alone in this opinion. you have your college professors and their anti-western bias, or "critical theory" and its offshoots, to blame for your ignorance of history.
the fact that you bring up indians and the crusades reveals your bias. what started the crusades? what about the jihad? the crusades lasted less than 200 years. spain was occupied for 700. eastern europe for 500 by islam.
regarding the indians. they were on the losing side, so what? why dont you cry for the caananites or midianites who were booted from their lands; or the greeks who were deported from asia minor (in the 1920s) by the turks after 2500 years?
see you cant just pick ONE event without historical context. the fact that you picked the crusades and the indians is so cliche its actually quite boring. what next the constitution is worthless because jefferson owned slaves??
Cross this, nativity scene that.. who really cares? What we care about is when you start trying to write your religious morals into law. Like legislating against abortions, gay marriage and so on. Thing is - both are attacks on separation of church and state, and we have to religiously (heh) enforce it or one will be used as a backdoor for another.
Now imagine if instead of Christianity, dominant religion in US was Islam. Imagine if a bunch of southern social conservatives were pushing Sharia law and mandatory hijab instead of anti-abortion and anti-gay agenda. All of these are morals based on religion being pushed via legislation. Would you be as relaxed about this?
freedom of religion means that you cant be forced to attend or belong to a church. it doesnt mean that people cant put a cross up. "of" is not "from"
as to your personal beliefs, i frankly dont care either way. if you study history, you will see that i am right. i am not alone in this opinion. you have your college professors and their anti-western bias, or "critical theory" and its offshoots, to blame for your ignorance of history.
the fact that you bring up indians and the crusades reveals your bias. what started the crusades? what about the jihad? the crusades lasted less than 200 years. spain was occupied for 700. eastern europe for 500 by islam.
regarding the indians. they were on the losing side, so what? why dont you cry for the caananites or midianites who were booted from their lands; or the greeks who were deported from asia minor (in the 1920s) by the turks after 2500 years?
see you cant just pick ONE event without historical context. the fact that you picked the crusades and the indians is so cliche its actually quite boring. what next the constitution is worthless because jefferson owned slaves??
I am not religious. Not at all. I think religion is full of hypocrites, but that is my opinion. Cheerio, as someone who sounds like you have religious leanings. I am not hating on you personally, just sharing my view of organized religion.
I am curious what your take is on my Omnipotence vs Benevolence concept. What is your take on my statement:
Quote:
The Christian god is neither benevolent or omnipotent. The Bible is the "Word of God" and that kind of verbiage is not benevolent or omnipotent. If God loved us so, would he allow us to be slaves? Would he allow us to die horrible drowning deaths by the hundreds of thousands in a tsunami the day after his birthday?
Would a benevolent being sentence people that were skeptical of his message to burn in hell for eternity? What about people that are raised in other religions that never get exposed to his word. Oh well, better paint on some BBQ sauce for the eternal smoking you are going to get.
I have always said that if someone could argue against this concept intelligently, that I would consider changing my view. I am curious as to your take.
First we must assume that any God should be both omnipotent and benevolent. You take it from there. I await your reply.
I am not religious at all. But a lot of people are, including people i know and respect. I cant sit by and allow them to be attacked without saying anything. Also, i despise bullies. it is the easiest thing in the world to pick on christians. there is nothing controversial about it. people who have balls try to pick on muslims. i respect people who do that. plus they deserve it.
despite my irreligion, i still judge some religions better than others. of them, christianity is the best by any measure.
so i really dont care if people believe. its their right to or not to. they shouldnt be ridiculed or attacked for it, at least not without some counter.
its like the safest thing you can do is mock christians. try this: when you write something about a religious person or ideal, substitute in "black" or "asian" for "christian" and read what you wrote again. might give some perspective on tolerance at least. have your own opinion by all means but dont be a dick about it.
Jet, no one can answer those questions, yet they are so simple that every kid who has something terrible happen asks the same question. thats probably why i have no faith tho religion is interesting.
as far as the bible, we all know it was written (and more importantly, edited) by men and thus subject to all the human failings. its interesting that at the council of nicea there was a vote taken, and as a result about a third of all chrishians were instantly made into heretics.
the reason you find slavery references in the bible, and can even quote jesus defending it, is that no one who wrote the bible could conceive of a world without slavery because it had never existed before anywhere on earth. it was even beyond jesus' imagination
oh one other thing regarding omnipotence. in genesis adam and eve are able to hide from god in the garden of eden. he also changes his mind a few times, like at sodom.
so yeah, i cant explain it. ask the next missionary who shows up, or go to some christian message boards. i suspect that they wont have the answers either. thats why they call it "faith" i gues
Cross this, nativity scene that.. who really cares? What we care about is when you start trying to write your religious morals into law. Like legislating against abortions, gay marriage and so on. Thing is - both are attacks on separation of church and state, and we have to religiously (heh) enforce it or one will be used as a backdoor for another.
Now imagine if instead of Christianity, dominant religion in US was Islam. Imagine if a bunch of southern social conservatives were pushing Sharia law and mandatory hijab instead of anti-abortion and anti-gay agenda. All of these are morals based on religion being pushed via legislation. Would you be as relaxed about this?
lets see, where to start. ok first i dont care about gay marriage, and my only concern with abortion is that it is a "right". its not a right, at least not under the constitution because the constitution doesnt mention abortion. btw it doesnt mention marriage either. what that means is that states may legalize it. so i reject the whole premise of found rights. on the other hand, the constitution (or declaration rather) says we have the right to life, liberty etc. does the baby have constitutional rights or not? if so, when? if not, when does it aquire them? on the other hand people who have abortions would probably be shitty parents so maybe society is better off. who knows
regarding islam. first, we wouldnt be having this conversation since islam is backward, and i cant think of a single worthy contribution an islamic nation has made to the world since the middle ages. by the way, that worthy thing i mean is the fact that they preserved the knowledge of ancient greece. so it was pretty passive. the whole reason western civilzation is ahead of the world is due to our heritage of reason and our laws, and religion is a major part of that. so your fantasy of the taliban in the south is just a fantasy.
finally, you seem to imply that i and my imaginary coreligionists want to take something away. only liberals want to take things away, havent you noticed? who was behind all these bans: huck finn guns religious displays school prayer happy meals (in san fran) smoking anywhere trans fats drilling for oil fireworks (in CA) free speech (ie political correctness)
and im sure theres more. think about it. are you on the side of freedom or the side of control? also notice that every lost freedom was decided by scumbag judges or bureacrats. not one was put to the will of the people. that, my friend, is tyranny. and it is much more worrysome than rednecks
Not all religions believe life begins at conception, banning abortion on religious grounds is actually nothing more than religious favoritism though. The whole life beginning at conception dealio is Catholic in origin, and the result of some pretty abstract spiritual thought..
Regarding Islam.. I think it is important to note, that the early Ottomans were a bit more secular, and very tolerant. They ended up keeping a high level of sophistication and wiped the floor with the West. It wasnt until the West started secularizing via the Renaissance and enlightenment that the West started to rise.
Even then, it was the Juxtaposition where the West became more secular and the Caliphate became more conservative that they fell behind. Religious social conservatism being the downfall of Islam, and secularism and especially later the rise of Deism in Protostant lands however coincided with the rise of the West.
Many if not most of the Founders were strong Deists. However on the religious right we are seeing a rise of the type of social religious conservatism that is doctrinally based that started rotting away the social and economic fabric of the Ottomans. We really should be aware and beware.
I have the Quran site linked right now, but they have the Bible, Quran, and Book of Morman! Talk about some crazy stuff. I actually wonder if religious folks actually read this stuff!
Religious social conservatism being the downfall of Islam, and secularism and especially later the rise of Deism in Protostant lands however coincided with the rise of the West.
US is all too eager to do exactly the same, with us already falling behind on genetic and stem research.
Religious conservatism, regardless of religion that it parasitize, with its anti science, anti evidence-based social policies is problematic part. For now GOP is kowtowing to religious conservatism, and unless stopped will forcibly eject US from Western Civilization.
Well, I more or less agree with that. The problem is overall the Dem platform isnt any better. So the question in my mind, which would be the easier party to reform?
Generally I have held the view that the easier party to work with is the GOP, as it has large segments that would actually like to break away from the religious dogmatists.
Generally I have held the view that the easier party to work with is the GOP, as it has large segments that would actually like to break away from the religious dogmatists.
I totally disagree. The GOP is 47% White and Highly religious according to the Gallup poll below. Other races are not really represented. I think you are holding on to the fiscal conservative ideas of the past, which I feel that Ron Paul represented. When you see the trouncing he got and is getting in the nomination process, those days are over, and in my opinion, the GOP has become the Christian / Morman Theocracy Party.
I don't think that Derid's "break away from the religious dogmatists" for GOP is possible, but in a hypothetical situation where that would happen it would be indeed the easier party to work with.
Jet, there are plenty of highly religious people who have no desire to use force to inflict their faith/feelings on the rest of society. The problematic people are not the ones who simply hold to a religion, but rather the ones who think their interpretation of personal faith should be forcibly applied to everyone. You really should take a more granular approach to examining the GOP.
Another thing to remember, is the GOP becomes more secular - by virtue of having more secularists be members.
Also, while I disagree with Mitt Romney on a ton of things I actually have not seen evidence of some kind of Mormon Theocracy or his intent or desire to create one. He was a fairly liberal Gov of Mass. for cryin out loud.
I certainly think it is possible and even common to be a bit too paranoid about religion.
The Church Obama went to was quite an extremist church, I think if you want to hold Romney to some kind of standard based simply on things that may be said at his church - you are being very hypocritical if you do not hold Obama to the same standard.
The racial issue is another matter. Too many blacks are caught in a system that does in fact try to teach them to be Dems. When it comes to Hispanics, the GOP can only blame itself for holding to an idiotic "progressive" platform in regards to immigration and work visas.
( Yes its "progressive" , the conservative/reactionary approach is actually one of relatively easy immigration or at least work visas... which is how it was for the vast bulk of our history. )
Hispanic immigrants are actually typically pretty religious and pretty conservative and the GOP has shot itself in the foot with them because it doesnt have the moral courage to stand up to the ignorant " thearyre takin' urr jobbsss" crowd.
I actually wrote a position paper/ essay that I bought up a ton of research for ( polling data, like Rasmussen platinum etc) to make the case that with shifting demographics and attitudes the GOP needs to change on some issues to reflect the changing reality or there will not be an effective GOP in about 8 years.
GOP is, without changes, in dire straits without reform once the Silent Generation finishes dying off. I consider this potential outcome catastrophic for the nation, regardless of the fact that the GOP as a whole does in fact hold many idiotic positions.
Derid, you go ahead turn your party around back to fiscal conservative party from a religious lunatics party, and you just might meet me at a convention.
I personally think you are better off starting new party, say Libertarians, GOP brand is damaged beyond repair and if you toss out everything that is wrong with it you will be left with less than a half.
You are not the first to say that Sinij, however there are a couple things to consider.
1) Though a powerful minority, the religious extremists are still a minority in the GOP.
2) The system has been gamed, gerrymandered and rigged to such a degree that 3rd parties face institutional resistance from govt itself. Not to mention the momentum of the existing party apparatus.
I think its more achievable to enact change by co-opting the system, as opposed to trying to build something new from the ground up.
Unfortunately our system is now a two party system for all practical purposes.
Jet, there are plenty of highly religious people who have no desire to use force to inflict their faith/feelings on the rest of society. The problematic people are not the ones who simply hold to a religion, but rather the ones who think their interpretation of personal faith should be forcibly applied to everyone. You really should take a more granular approach to examining the GOP.
Another thing to remember, is the GOP becomes more secular - by virtue of having more secularists be members.
Also, while I disagree with Mitt Romney on a ton of things I actually have not seen evidence of some kind of Mormon Theocracy or his intent or desire to create one. He was a fairly liberal Gov of Mass. for cryin out loud.
I certainly think it is possible and even common to be a bit too paranoid about religion.
The Church Obama went to was quite an extremist church, I think if you want to hold Romney to some kind of standard based simply on things that may be said at his church - you are being very hypocritical if you do not hold Obama to the same standard.
The racial issue is another matter. Too many blacks are caught in a system that does in fact try to teach them to be Dems. When it comes to Hispanics, the GOP can only blame itself for holding to an idiotic "progressive" platform in regards to immigration and work visas.
( Yes its "progressive" , the conservative/reactionary approach is actually one of relatively easy immigration or at least work visas... which is how it was for the vast bulk of our history. )
Hispanic immigrants are actually typically pretty religious and pretty conservative and the GOP has shot itself in the foot with them because it doesnt have the moral courage to stand up to the ignorant " thearyre takin' urr jobbsss" crowd.
I actually wrote a position paper/ essay that I bought up a ton of research for ( polling data, like Rasmussen platinum etc) to make the case that with shifting demographics and attitudes the GOP needs to change on some issues to reflect the changing reality or there will not be an effective GOP in about 8 years.
GOP is, without changes, in dire straits without reform once the Silent Generation finishes dying off. I consider this potential outcome catastrophic for the nation, regardless of the fact that the GOP as a whole does in fact hold many idiotic positions.
Consequences of insufficient separation of church and state. Using taxpayer money to fund teaching of religion.
Meanwhile in China, students are learning to be globally competitive.
i hate to break it to you, but schools are already teaching religion. example: global warming, radical environmentalism, worship of the state, dialectic materialism. schools should stick to scientific facts and teach theories as theories and debate them. example: in my us govt class i spend as much time talking about communism, socialism, and fascism as i do about representative democracy. my students need to have some basis of comparison before they can decide for themselves.
my own opinion is that neither creationism or spontaneous dvolution can be proven, so schools should teach both and admit nobody knows or ever will know. it makes little difference in most peoples lives, and we are wasting time arguing over it. focus on things that do exist and matter, like non spacial, non temporal mathematical objects.
china's only advantage now is that they dont have to contend with things like labor unions, environmentalist, a middle class, voters, litigation, copyright laws, trade and patent laws, or a population that expects a first-world infrastructure.
their days of reckoning with these issues is coming, and when it does, they will end up back in the shit. plus they have a demographic time bomb ticking in the imbalance of men and women in their society.
remember a few things about comparing us education to that of other countries:
many of the countries do not have compulsory education many track their students by aptitude many are heterogeneous racially and liguistically
when you factor these in the us is doing pretty well. if you examine the results by race you see that the different ethnic groups in the us score better than their home countries do. ie asians in the us have higher scores than asians is asia, mex-americans better than mexicans and so on. so dont be too hard on the education in the us; it just cant be compared against someplace like finland or japan.
GOP is, without changes, in dire straits without reform once the Silent Generation finishes dying off. I consider this potential outcome catastrophic for the nation, regardless of the fact that the GOP as a whole does in fact hold many idiotic positions.
I think your final point is very correct.
We have a maxim here in Brazil that translate would be: people have short memory.
Just get another catastrophe, terrorism that the party is losing the fight in the government will use that as fuel to the campaign. The GOP party didnt like that Obama got Osama. >)
good point mithus, but have you noticed that despite obamas promises to close guantanamo, end bushes evil war etc he has instead expanded it? i believe that drone assassinations are up eightfold since 2008. he also gets props for ordering the attack on osama by assault rather than by bomb.
i think that once he got into office he got access to certain reports that made him change his tune re: the war on terror. also, democrats realized they were viewed as weak on nat sec, so any more attacks while they were in charge would doom their party.
lastly, love or hate em, the wars in afghanistan and iraq, as well as the secret wars in yemen, pakistan, etc have critically weakened al queda and its sympathizers. you could say that the wars worked a bush was right.
if you study ww2 in the pacific, the last battle the japanese won was when bataan fell in april 1942. after that, they lost every one. 9-11 was kinda like pearl harbor and bataan rolled into one.
my own opinion is that neither creationism or spontaneous dvolution can be proven, so schools should teach both and admit nobody knows or ever will know. it makes little difference in most peoples lives, and we are wasting time arguing over it. focus on things that do exist and matter, like non spacial, non temporal mathematical objects.
Well you cant say "both". Because others have just as much right to have their beliefs taught as Christians. Hence my religion:
my own opinion is that neither creationism or spontaneous evolution can be proven, so schools should teach both and admit nobody knows or ever will know.
I don't think you understand how science and scientific theory works. I can't prove that garden gnomes on your front lawn don't sing and dance while nobody is watching.
Creationism is through-and-through religion, there is no supporting evidence, scientific consensus or even any evidence that it could work. Creationisms literally says that some bearded fuck in the sky created universe and humans as we are today in 7 days. This is demonstrably wrong.
Evolution on other hand has been shown in so many situations that it is as much "theory" as "theory of gravity". I dare bunch of you ignorant hicks to question theory of gravity by jumping out of windows of tall buildings.
Quote:
it makes little difference in most peoples lives, and we are wasting time arguing over it.
It makes _HUGE_ difference. If we compromise our intellectual purity with your religious garbage we can no longer guarantee that any of our knowedge is not corrupted. Would you want our medicine to work on "theory of divine intervention" or our agriculture work with "blessing of the crops" ?
Don't you fucking see how dangerous this ignorance is?!
In this case I dont think Sinij is being stupid, he has a valid point that as far as science goes there is no alternate theories to evolution regarding human development. The forces injecting creationism into science classes are entirely cultural.
If we want to talk about creationism, intelligent design, how it might have happened, or all sorts of related things - it should be done in either sociology or philosophy classes.
But it should not be taught as science, and I do think that treating cultural opinion the same as we treat science is a very very bad precedent. A precedent that was set throughout the Middle Ages in fact.
As an aside, I have said for years that philosophy education should be taught from an early age. I also think there can be some logic to some of the intelligent design theories, and have no problem with those ideas being taught and debated in school... along with Hume, Kant, Plato, Hegel, Rand, Mises, Descartes & etc.
It just needs to be compartmentalized and treated for what it is. And what it is, is not science, its either philosophy or culture, sometimes a bit of both.
No he is showing his stupidity because he is not educated on how at least the Roman Catholic Church views any thing in the modern era.
You know what else I am not educated on? Exact number of virgins you get if you blow yourself up in the name of Allah. Why should I care what a bunch of ignorant cargo cultists believe in? I do care that you are trying to turn back clock to middle ages and push cargo cult science and magical thinking into mainstream.
If you are going to make an argument at least know what the other side is saying or you look stupid. And your total lack of letting people do and think what they want shows how you are a bad person that can't let people live their lives how they want to live them. You are no better then the crazies that bomb abortion clinics or protest gays.
And your total lack of letting people do and think what they want shows how you are a bad person that can't let people live their lives how they want to live them.
You can do and think any way you want, you can worship any number of bearded fucks in the sky in any number of ways. It is when you try to take what should be private matter of religion and use government public education funds to push it down my throat is when I start objecting. Not only that, but you making it mandatory - there is no way I can opt out of this nonsense being taught to my kids.
Want to teach creationism? Use Sunday school for it. You will not hear a single objection from me of what you choose to teach in Sunday school. If I don't like what I hear there, I will simply not attend. Actually, I'd even support you right to exclude homosexuals or whoever else you want out of your private religious life, but I will not let you taint public office/government law with your religious superstitions and magical thinking.
Creationism law is simply unconstitutional. It is not only enables, it also mandates "learning" what is clearly religious matter all on my tax dime. Next, we will have to know all saints by name as part of history curriculum.
It is an excerpt from Chris Mooney’s new book "The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science and Reality."
If you only consider mainstream U.S. television news outlets with major audiences (e.g., numbering in the millions), it really is true that Fox viewers are the most misled based on all the available evidence—especially in areas of political controversy. This will come as little surprise to liberals, perhaps, but the evidence for it—evidence in Stewart’s favor—is pretty overwhelming.
Festinger suggested that once we’ve settled on a core belief, this ought to shape how we gather information. More specifically, we are likely to try to avoid encountering claims and information that challenge that belief, because these will create cognitive dissonance. Instead, we should go looking for information that affirms the belief. The technical (and less than ideal) term for this phenomenon is “selective exposure”: what it means is that we selectively choose to be exposed to information that is congenial to our beliefs, and to avoid “inconvenient truths” that are uncongenial to them.
Keith Poole of the University of Georgia, with his collaborator Howard Rosenthal of New York University, has spent decades charting the ideological shifts and polarization of the political parties in Congress from the 18th century until now to get the view of how the political landscape has changed from 30,000 feet up. What they have found is that the Republican Party is the most conservative it has been a century.
The Salon article is certainly true and spot on. I would contend that Fox is not much if any worse than the other major networks though, I consider them all equally skewed. The other networks just skew in a different direction.
Note that I am not saying that Fox is OK. I just contend that the others are equally as bad. Though on all networks, the quality can vary widely... depending on the anchors, hosts, editors and managing editors on duty.
Helemoto, you are first person I gave up on. It isn't that we agree to disagree, it is that I have to concede that you have no capacity to understand what this argument is even about.
It's fun to talk to people that can't control their feeling.
And thanks for letting me know that only Republicans believe in God and Democrats do not.
When you only go after one party all the time you make yourself look stupid.
I should correct myself, when I have been saying stupid I really was saying ignorant.
Actually, Moto, you are right. Stupidity means you always think you are right, like out pal S here. He KNOWS how everything happened. He has faith!
My policy has been to question everything. If Einstein and Newton were not atheists, maybe it bears examining.
To Derid's point- wholeheartedly agree. This actually IS a philosophical discussion and we really shouldn't be politicizing science. The problem is that we have a knee jerk culture, pretty much split and each side is trying to gain an advantage. Science gets dragged into the culture war where it really doesn't belong.
School districts are local; curriculum is provided by the state. It is ultimately up to the voters to decide what will be taught, and yes, THEY are paying for it too! Liberals despise one-man one-vote so they run to the nearest commie judge they can find to impose their will on the voters. Very sad they we have allowed this to happen
I hope you can stop humping your bible long enough to consider that science, and not divine intervention is responsible for your quality of life and all progress in the last 300+ years.
If not for science and scientific methods you'd still be dying by a dozen to diseases, starving while burning witches you think responsible for droughts and praying for divine cures for various maladies as you neared your average life expectancy age of early to mid 30s.
I hope you can stop humping your bible long enough to consider that science, and not divine intervention is responsible for your quality of life and all progress in the last 300+ years.
If not for science and scientific methods you'd still be dying by a dozen to diseases, starving while burning witches you think responsible for droughts and praying for divine cures for various maladies as you neared your average life expectancy age of early to mid 30s.
Sinij, are you saying that someone that reads the bible, and has faith in something greater then themselves cannot also believe in the actions and products of science? Or that someone that believes in science cannot also accept that something’s have yet to be answered by said science?
Or how about some one that views science as a way of explaining how or why god does things?
Sinij, your stance, from my perception, is that if you have any faith then you cannot accept science, nor if you can accept science for what it is not be able to have a thought to something else. Your expressed views are black and white, right and wrong, all done with an absolution that in facts bears to mind the destructive dogma of the Spanish Inquisition, where if you do not believe as I do then you must be burned. You have substituted stake and fire, for contempt and insulting others.
I hope you can stop humping your bible long enough to consider that science, and not divine intervention is responsible for your quality of life and all progress in the last 300+ years.
If not for science and scientific methods you'd still be dying by a dozen to diseases, starving while burning witches you think responsible for droughts and praying for divine cures for various maladies as you neared your average life expectancy age of early to mid 30s.
Originally Posted By: sinij
I hope you can stop humping your bible long enough to consider that science, and not divine intervention is responsible for your quality of life and all progress in the last 300+ years.
If not for science and scientific methods you'd still be dying by a dozen to diseases, starving while burning witches you think responsible for droughts and praying for divine cures for various maladies as you neared your average life expectancy age of early to mid 30s.
I love science you moron, and if you read anything i ever read you would know that im not religious. as a matter of fact i would say that your hatred of christians is a religion to you. you certainly are zealous enough
all i am saying is that i dont know. oh, and that you dont either. the empty bucket makes the most noise, ill leave it at that you smug, self righteous, overbearing conformist!
Sinij, are you saying that someone that reads the bible, and has faith in something greater then themselves cannot also believe in the actions and products of science?
There is no way to reconcile these two concepts, if you believe then it is faith, and if you know then it is science. Many scientists live with cognitive dissonance of having to reconcile these two concepts.
Still, this nothing to do with our latest disagreement. For the record - I fully support right to religion. Freedom to worship is a fundamental human right. Forcing your faith on others is not.
When you create a law that forces teaching of what is a religious belief as science, you not only corrupt science but you also cross the line from freedom to worship into forcing your faith on others.
A set of questions to demonstrate my point:
1. Would you support twice-a-day mandatory prayers to Allah in schools? 2. Would you support mandatory study of kosher laws as written in Torah as part of science education in public schools? 3. Would you support study of nirvana and reincarnation as an alternative to theory of evolution?
1. Would you support twice-a-day mandatory prayers to Allah in schools? 2. Would you support mandatory study of kosher laws as written in Torah as part of science education in public schools? 3. Would you support study of nirvana and reincarnation as an alternative to theory of evolution?
Then why do you support teaching of creationism?
1. I have no problem with it, what matters is what is a persons heart, not to what diety is praied to. Also it allows other concepts to be used that allows more tolerance. 2. Like I said before, I have no problem with that being added to the criculium. 3. Yes, add it also, knowledge is neither good nor evil, and the more ways of thought are tought we, as a species, can only grow.
PS. I would like to add that faith is based on the unkown. I do not follow the bible, to me it was based on the need of a few men to use it as a tool to control others. That creatism as describe int he bible was the only way for a simple speacis to understand something, ie I could explain in detail how a combustion engine works to a 2 year old, but in the end all he will understand is, turn the key, and it goes voom voom. However I do belive in God, I belive he does not give a damn about us. To me he is like Crom, a mean vindictive sob that gets pissy when he is not worpshiped enough.
Now that being said, I have faith he set in motion the very elements that brought us forth. He likes to mix and match things, to set things in motion and see where it goes. Science is a way of explaining in more advanace terms how things happen. So yes I can recouncile faith in god, and science at the same time.
Well I have to agree to disagree with you here, RedKGB. I agree that if you include creationism then you have to include all other religions, but how could you possibly leave with a working science when things like Jet's flying spaghetti monster end up also included?
Science is science, religion is religion and they should not mix. Adding religion to science has very real danger of breaking science, it is like adding sand to your engine oil - this is not how science works and if you keep doing these things it can stop working.
Scientology is very good example of how science can get corrupted to produce pseudo-scientific results, if something like that becomes the norm we will go back to dark ages.
Its goal is a more secure internet, but privacy groups fear the measure breaches Americans’ privacy along the way. The White House had weighed in on Wednesday, threatening a veto unless there were significant changes to increase consumer privacy. The bill was amended to provide more privacy protections, but it was not immediately known whether the Senate or the White House would give its blessing.
The measure, which some are decrying as the Son of SOPA, allows internet service providers to share information with the government, including the Department of Homeland Security and the National Security Agency, about cybersecurity threats it detects on the internet.
Thankfully Obama threatened to veto unless consumer privacy issues addressed.
Actually most Dems in the Senate I think will be for it - or at least a good portion.
With Mitt, its hard to say.... which is one of the problems with Mitt... or Obama for that matter. Obama is not exactly predictable, who would have thought from his 08' campaign that he would have signed the NDAA? Unless you simply mistrusted him... which... has turned out in retrospect to have been reasonable to do.
Anyhow, I think we will see some Senate Dems and GOPers oppose this... Wyden and Paul will probably both try to rally opposition from within their respective parties.... hard to say if they will be successful.
Derid, if you look at the voting so far - clear majority of Cons voted for it but only minority of Dems voted.
I'd say any Dem vote for this is inexcusable, but I have to work with realization that Democratic party is no longer Left, it now includes anything from Far Left to Centrist Right. So it isn't surprising that Centrist Right portion would vote for something like that.
I think it is a mistake to try and pidgeonhole these types of issues into a left/right framework.
Probably my biggest criticism actually, of your overall politics is what I observe as a tendency on your part to seemingly fit everything into left/right. Perhaps it doesnt work that way in your head, but for those of us who dont get to listen to what actually goes on in your head it certainly appears that way.
I think the left/right is in many ways a false dichotomy. After all, what got the far left and far right to agree? SOPA. And occasionally some other issues...
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
I think it is a mistake to try and pidgeonhole these types of issues into a left/right framework.
Actually I am pigeonholing issues into "conservatives circling the radicalization drain while nation burns" and "other issues" framework.
I am actually not that liberal and would vote for fiscal-conservative socially liberal party over Democrats, but I am very much anti-GOP in its current state and would vote for Bush Third Term if he chose to run as a Democrat.
its called libertarianism. i dont see how fiscal conservatism jives with your position on socialized medicine and class warfare that you advocate in your other posts, and your "bush third term" statement is likely a straw man you are using to bash the current candidates. Seeing how you have attacked the anti-romneys in turn, i highly doubt you would give anyone but the unelectable Ron Pail a second look.
Also the fact that you view yourself as mainstream is a comic statement of how far off balance YOU are. I view Romney as weak, and not a conservative. Im not voting for him. Compared to Nixon and Reagan, Romney is a moderate. Reagan and Nixon won 49 state landslides. Romney will be lucky to win the popular vote at all. So I view republicans as democrats-lite.
Meanwhile the democrats have almost radicalized themselves right out of office at the federal level. their historic losses in 2010 are completely due to their passing of obamacare, lack of budgets (three years as of today), and blatant disregard of their constituents. Now they are lining up to support commie/aocialist revolutions (and islamist) including the pathetic OWS protests. This will not play well in november.
The radicalization of the democrats, despite their control of the media and popular culture, is not reflective of the us electorate. The democrats are going to lose more seats this election and have only themselves to blame.
its called libertarianism. i dont see how fiscal conservatism jives with your position on socialized medicine and class warfare that you advocate in your other posts, and your "bush third term" statement is likely a straw man you are using to bash the current candidates. Seeing how you have attacked the anti-romneys in turn, i highly doubt you would give anyone but the unelectable Ron Pail a second look.
Also the fact that you view yourself as mainstream is a comic statement of how far off balance YOU are. I view Romney as weak, and not a conservative. Im not voting for him. Compared to Nixon and Reagan, Romney is a moderate. Reagan and Nixon won 49 state landslides. Romney will be lucky to win the popular vote at all. So I view republicans as democrats-lite.
Meanwhile the democrats have almost radicalized themselves right out of office at the federal level. their historic losses in 2010 are completely due to their passing of obamacare, lack of budgets (three years as of today), and blatant disregard of their constituents. Now they are lining up to support commie/aocialist revolutions (and islamist) including the pathetic OWS protests. This will not play well in november.
The radicalization of the democrats, despite their control of the media and popular culture, is not reflective of the us electorate. The democrats are going to lose more seats this election and have only themselves to blame.
i dont see how fiscal conservatism jives with your position on socialized medicine and class warfare that you advocate in your other posts
I don't think you could deny that single payer is by far the most cost-effective and inclusive approach to health care. What do you think 15%+ GDP we all spend on healthcare if not a tax? You pay that out of your every pay check, while rest of the civilized and socialized world pays at most 10%.
i highly doubt you would give anyone but the unelectable Ron Pail a second look.
This is 100% correct. Republican primary line up, save for Ron Paul, are a bunch of flip-flopping or radical misfits that don't deserve a second look. Ron Paul, while I object to number of his positions, is at least a valid candidate that I won't simply point and laugh at you for suggesting.
Quote:
Also the fact that you view yourself as mainstream is a comic statement of how far off balance YOU are.
Fortunately, radicalization for now is only GOP, and not general American problem. So yes, I am fairly centrist and you have to deal with ramifications of that idea.
Quote:
Im not voting for him. Compared to Nixon and Reagan, Romney is a moderate. Reagan and Nixon won 49 state landslides. Romney will be lucky to win the popular vote at all. So I view republicans as democrats-lite.
Nether Nixon nor Reagan would win a GOP 2012 primary if they were to run their old positions due to not being nearly conservative enough. What you think their positions were, and what they actually were are two different things.
Quote:
their historic losses in 2010 are completely due to...
Anti-establishment Tea Party movement getting skillfully astroturfed. Clever political move, but not likely to happen ever again. GOP broke about every promise they made to Tea Party in turn making movement irrelevant.
Quote:
The radicalization of the democrats, despite their control of the media and popular culture, is not reflective of the us electorate.
You can keep your head in the sand all you want, but if honestly believe above - you are poster child of what is wrong with GOP. You are welcome to continue your empty evidence-free rhetoric, but it won't make it any more true.
Quote:
The democrats are going to lose more seats this election and have only themselves to blame.
I offered this bet to Kaotic, and I will offer it to you: If Dems lose this election (Pres, Senate Majority or Seats in The House) I will come out and agree with every post you make in politics for entire months. Otherwise you will have to do the same. Are you on?
i will respond to your replies in turn. as to the bet; no deal. i dont want a sycophant. i would rather bet money. $10 donation to kgb paypal. bet is: if democrats have fewer net seats in congress (house+senate) than they do now, i iwn. democrats have the same or more, you win.
This is 100% correct. Republican primary line up, save for Ron Paul, are a bunch of flip-flopping or radical misfits that don't deserve a second look. Ron Paul, while I object to number of his positions, is at least a valid candidate that I won't simply point and laugh at you for suggesting.
ron paul sucks. he pretends to be a libertarian while bringing home massive amounts of pork to his district. his foreign policy is a suicide pact. heres a link to a commie rag you are probably famiar with
Radicalization is for only the GOP? Show me a similar photo from a tea party and ill stop posting forever. i double dog dare you. and dont try to tell me these arent democrats
i will respond to your replies in turn. as to the bet; no deal. i dont want a sycophant. i would rather bet money. $10 donation to kgb paypal. bet is: if democrats have fewer net seats in congress (house+senate) than they do now, i iwn. democrats have the same or more, you win.
deal?
10$ paypal donation to KGB. Deal. Throw in Pres into seat count. Indies count as -1 to both sides regardless who they sit with.
Nether Nixon nor Reagan would win a GOP 2012 primary if they were to run their old positions due to not being nearly conservative enough. What you think their positions were, and what they actually were are two different things.
i would like to see some evidence for this line of bullshit. cause i cant find any.
Radicalization is for only the GOP? Show me a similar photo from a tea party and ill stop posting forever. i double dog dare you. and dont try to tell me these arent democrats
Nether Nixon nor Reagan would win a GOP 2012 primary if they were to run their old positions due to not being nearly conservative enough. What you think their positions were, and what they actually were are two different things.
i would like to see some evidence for this line of bullshit. cause i cant find any.
Look into what Nixon views were on medicare in JFK vs Nixon race were and late views on health care in general. Or read up on EPA and Clean Air Act...
"The time is at hand this year to bring comprehensive, high quality health care within the reach of every American.”
Did you know that at a time of Watergate Nixon was pushing through his national health care plan?
I'm not rationalizing anything. I'm simply asking you to recognize the difference there. I should have known that it would be too much to ask for you to see that you're comparing apples to oranges.
You always respond that rich would just leave if we raise taxes on them. Well, here are kind of things happen when you go to third-world tax heavens.
Sometimes. There are varying qualities. Plus lots of the popular destinations like Dubai and Qatar and India arent really third world. Well, parts of India are..
