On 4th November, American voters will have a choice profoundly affecting the destiny of our nation. True, platforms and programs of either major party would, as seems obvious, achieve the same result: big government. Otherwise, there is definite difference.
One party wants that big government to be:
(1) bankrupt;
(2) feared by all persons, citizen or otherwise;
(3) hated;
(4) privatized, outsourced to the maximum to a free market, an institution dominated by a few large establishments ignoring all responsibilities except returning a profit to ownership (business has responsibility to customers, employees, and the society which hosts it); (5) veiled in secrecy;
(6) talking to no one;
(7) listening to no one;
(8) thus unable to resolve differences, except through military action; (9) treating the military, those in uniform, as robots;
(10) refusing care for veterans and minimizing that which those deserving better treatment manage to wrench from their privatized government(11 % of the population are homeless; 24 % of veterans are homeless, and the government owing them more than mere words of gratitude ignored a bipartisan recommendation to increase ben! efits);
(11) without due process or just cause, spying on innocent, law abiding citizens, daring any one or a group of them to claim violation of fourth amendment rights;
(12) eager to suspend habeas corpus;
(13) wasting time and tax revenue pursuing criminal proceedings against any woman seeking to end an unwanted pregnancy along with anyone who advises or helps her (she’s denying the fetus due process, but see # 11, above);
(14) through constitutional amendment, rendering as criminals two persons of the same gender wanting to share their lives, whether or not one or both might be homosexually inclined;
(15) destroying the very foundation of this country’s success, I refer to the public education system which produced virtually all the famous Americans one can name (but I am prejudiced, both parents were excellent public school educators);
(16) relying on a failed concept of trickle down economics as a snake-oil cure for any and all domestic problems (it failed Reagan, it f! ailed Bush #2);
(17) cutting taxes for the very, very wealthy (about 1% of the population enjoyed a $1.3 trillion tax cut while ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan waited months to receive body armor and vehicles equipped to survive IEDs, and veterans went begging);
(18) ignoring the plight of the other 99% of the population;
(19) embarrassing and insulting all humankind, especially the vast majority of US citizens, by torturing and otherwise treating inhumanly persons obviously innocent of any offense under US or International law; and (20) operating with more hidden agendas than there are stars in the heavens (the Bush #2 administration had an entire war in Iraq among its hidden agendas).
The other party wants change.
BS
OH MY GAWD.....this list is so ridiculous, I don't even know where to begin....
1. Bankrupt - McCain has pledged to "make famous" those members of congress who fatten up legislation with pork barrel spending. Coming from a guy who has NEVER asked for an earmark, this seems pretty credible. Obama on the other hand has averated $1 MILLION DOLLARS A DAY in earmark procurement for EVERY single day he has been in the Senate. Ponder that average for a moment, then get back to me on which candidate will bankrupt us.
2. Feared by all persons - No, just our enemies.
3. Hated - again, no, just our enemies. (Is it possible to debate without sweeping generalizations? I am seeing a pattern here already).
4. Privatized blah blah blah - Hey, great description of capitolism you just gave there buddy. What a great system. Show me ONE thing the gov't has EVER done that the market couldn't do better. If it had been up to the gov't to cure polio, we'd have had a world class iron lung, but no vaccine. Lets not forget that we are talking about the same gov't who spent MILLIONS trying to invent a pen that could write in outer space - while the Russians used pencils. Yeah, privatization ain't such a bad idea.
5. Veiled in secrecy - Four years ago, I remember a democratic party that was pissing down its leg in excitement at the idea that Kerry might ask "the maverick" to be his running mate. Spare me your ludicrous attempts at pretending McCain is the same as bush. Four years ago you loved Mac more than we Republicans did. It still shocks me that we turned around and nominated him, but for me it is a delight that we did. The secretiveness of BUsh's administration is something that I certainly don't deny, don't like, and I am confident that it will not be continued under a McCain administration. If you have anything to demonstrate that McCain's behavior (not Bush's) would be equally as guarded and secretive, lets hear it.
6. Talking to no one - again, no, just our enemies, unless they are willing to meet bench marks and/or pre-conditions to demonstrate that direct talks with them would be substantive and productive. Why on earth would you want our President cruising around the globe wasting precious time sipping tea and grab assing with people who would rather spit in our face?? Do you REALLY think that is a productive use of the President's time?? Do you REALLY think anything useful would result from a meeting that has no agenda, no conditions, indeed, no point to it at all??
7. Listening to no one - see above.
8. Huh? You tried to take single train of thought and break it up into 3 separate points. Good thing you didn't turn this in as an English 101 papter. Even a died in the wool union teacher would have a field day with this section.
9. Treating the military as robots? This is ironic coming from a guy who's candidate couldn't be bothered to visit wounded troops because he couldn't bring along cameras. Getting in a good work out turned out to be more important. McCain has demonstrated in a gajillion different ways his commitment to the military.
See next thread for remainder. Had to break this up into two parts. No one can say I can't bloviate with the best of them when I'm in the mood!
-- Modified on 9/6/2008 3:52:40 PM
...and I'll say it again:
if you're happy with the last 8 years, then vote for McSame.
Try comparing Senator Obama's earmarks (a total of $0 for FY2009) to the more than $3 billion that McCain cost taxpayers with his work for Lincoln Savings & Loan and see who comes out ahead.
This time you leave off the name because you know that old case has been discredited when it come to McCain.
Bob Bennet, the lead counsel for the Dems on the Keating investigation and Bill Clinton's Lawyer (remember him?) had this to say, THIS YEAR:
“You know, I’m in a pretty unique position to talk about John McCain. First, I should tell your listeners I’m a registered Democrat, so I’m not on his side of a lot of issues. But I investigated John McCain for a year and a half, at least, when I was special counsel to the Senate Ethics Committee in the Keating Five, which, by the way, this New York Times article goes back to and discusses, goes back years and years. And if there is one thing I am absolutely confident of, it is John McCain is an honest man. I recommended to the Senate Ethics Committee that he be cut out of the case, that there was no evidence against him, and I think for the “New York Times” to dig this up just shows that Senator McCain’s public statement about this is correct. It’s a smear job.”
McCain was only included in the Smear because he was the only Republican that could be linked to Keating. Otherwise the investigation would have only been about 4 Dems.
-- Modified on 9/7/2008 1:08:01 AM
10. Refusing care for veterans - not only is this WRONG, it is a LIE. McCain voted against a veteran spending bill recently, because the bill did not take into account length of service, not to mention the christmas list of earmarks. At the same time that bill was put up for a vote, McCain had introduced a nearly indentical bill, but one that also increased benefits basedon a veteran's years of service. You guys need to stop LYING. It makes you look really ugly and stupid when you do. And by the way, there is a VA in every major city in the United States. EVERY single veteran is eligible for care through the VA. Just ask me. Yes, there are alot of homeless vets. What should we do? Send out a task force to round up every single one and FORCE them to accept the help that is available to them through the VA??? Not a bad idea really, but you would run into some sticky issues with the Constitution regarding a patient's right to refuse care.
11. Spying on americans - Wiretaps involving foreign intelligence are carefully overseen by the FISA courts. ONLY by Presidential order can the requirement for a wiretap be waived. Don't like it? Tough. Read the post I wrote under the "9/11 could have been prevented" thread.
12. Suspend habeus corpus - The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution spells out very clearly who is, and who is not, a US Citizen. The Amendment then goes on to very clearly state the rights, protections, and privileges guarnteed to US Citizens. The fact that that the 14th Amendment first defined who IS and who is NOT a citizen, leaves no doubt, when interpreted literally, that the protections provided by the Constitution are entitled to US Citizens ONLY. Enemy combatants, ie foreign nationals, are NOT entitled to habeus corpus, which is guaranteed by the Constitution. Sorry, the Supreme Court got this one wrong in my (humble) opinion.
(boy this is a long list)
13. ROFL....I am sorry, but this one really made me laugh. Please show me a case in which criminal proceedings have been pursued against a woman for having an abortion - within the last 30 years that is. Yes, opposing abortion is part of the Republican platform. But a Republican president is gonna have a mighty hard time prosecuting someone for it, inasmuch as abortion is deemed to be legal and any attempts to make it illegal are currenly unconstitutional. This is coming from a staunchly pro choice lady - but this arguemnt here is so laughable as to make me wonder if this entire post isn't some ironic poorly expressed joke. Give me a BREAK.
14. Same sex marriage - how is that Marriage Protection Amendment coming along? Answer: Its dead in the water. You DO realize that the President actually has NO role whatsoever in passing an amendment right?? Right?? Surely you are educated enough to actually know how an amendment is ratified? Maybe I'm giving you too much credit. By the way, the Marriage Protection Amendment wouldn't make it criminal for same sex couples to get married - it just prevents cities from issuing marriage licences to them. PS. Obama has said that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman too. So you lose the argument all the way around.
15. Yeahhhhh, our education system. You absolutely have to love a political party who looks at 40 years of a miserably failing system and says "lets try 40 more". We are currently 19th in the world in education. The system is BROKEN. It is time to fix it, and the system will NEVER be fixed as long as those tasked with fixing it bow and scrape before the all powerful teachers union. If you Democrats will ever crawl out of the pocket of the teachers union, then perhaps you will be able to actually FIX our education system. Me, I ain't holding my breath.
16. OH yes, lets talk about economics shall we? Ever see a poor man create a job? No. Ever see a minimum wage earner invest in a retirement fund, buy a stock, or otherwise contribute to growing the economy? No. The only thing lower wage earners do is spend their wages by purchasing goods. If your economy is built on low wage earners, then all you get is a service based economy that will eventually contract. Economies are GROWN by growing businesses who employ more people, and who raise wages and benefits to compete for a steady workforce. An economic plan that has at its centerpiece a low tax rate on corporations and particularly small business will grow because businesses are allowed to expand and reinvest their revenues. Now lets talk about what Obama wants to do - this is straight out of his acceptance speech - he wants to 1. raise payroll taxes 2. raise cap gains taxes 3. raise the minimum wage (an Obama aide even floated the truly frightening goal of raising min wage to $9.50 an hour). How many body blows do you think small businesses can take before the collapse like a hose of cards??? All three of these plans would obliterate small business owners across the country. Period. If for no other reason, THIS is why Obama can NEVER be allowed to be president.
17. See ok, this is another ridiculous claim. You are trying to take two very different things and somehow magically connect them. First off, taxes were cut for EVERYONE. Furthermore, the richest among us pay more than 50% of their income directly into taxes. Good GOD isn't that enough??? Secondly, what in the holy hell does a tax cut have to do with the lack of body armor??? It isn't as though body armor wasn't sent because we were broke. NO, we have you idiot Dems to thank for THAT. It was the DEMOCRATS who in 2003 blocked two different bills that would have provided body armor to troops. Go look it up. Remember good old Kerry who was for it before he was against it?? Despite you unpatriotic non-troop supporting pieces of ****, our troops did get their body armor, several months later than they should have had it.
18. Stupid comment that I'm not going to waste my time on. Matter of fact, I shouldn't have wasted my time on any of this. In for a penny in for a pound now though.
And last but not least....
19. Torutre - first, let me give MY opinion here. Our enemies, those fine figures of men, torture by hoooking people up to car batteries and frying them. They torture by shoving live men into fire pits. They torture by tying men up and holding them down, while the terrorist holds the hand of a 10 year old boy so the boy can make his first kill. Don't believe me? I've got the video. Oh, lets not forget the fact that they behead people too. Then they sell bootleg DVD's of the beheadings on the streets of Baghdad. Then there is the minor issue of using jet airplanes as projectiles to knock our buildings down. So we use a little water to extract useful and vital intelligence. Perhaps you weren't aware that several attacks have been prevented since 9/11 based upon credible intelligence extracted under stress interrogations - that is what you lilly livers call torture. Maybe you weren't aware that several high ranking members of Al Qaeda have also been arrested based on credible intelligence extracted under duress. The point is, torture work, and given how our enemies treat us, I flat out just can't give even a whiff of a fart WHAT we do to them. I just don't care, and I sleep fine at night. Now, having said that, McCain has made it VERY clear in NO uncertain terms his stance on torture. I think it might have a little something to do with his experience as a POW and the fact that he can't raise his arms over his head. Not sure, but I suspect that might be why he opposes it. Here yet again though, you are trying to lump McCain in with Bush, and it just...doesn't.....work.
But nice try - on all of it. This has to be longest, most factually inaccurate/skewed list I've ever seen, not to mention containing more than a few, how shall I put this politely - flat out LIES. But it was a good try.
Some of the left would have us give up our sovereignty - just turn it all over to the UN - or worse - the You're a peeings.
What many seem to forget is that govenments - as we have defined them by our Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution - were formed to serve the citizenry. The citizenry "pay" the govenment for certain and specific services - and as defined in the constitution that includes keeping us safe - AS A PEOPLE. Further, who those people are, as you so eloquently point out, is defined in the constitution.
Those rights and services DO NOT nor have they ever been purported to be extended to a "citizen of the world"! Why? Cause first "a citizen of the world" didn't pay for those services and second cause "a citizen of the world" has no obligations to this country.... simple?
So, if you think that it is a "Bad thing" for some of the world to "fear us" I've news for ya... it is probably not a bad thing... I fear a lot of things.... and that is what keeps me from burning my mouth on hot food...
WRT education - lady, I could not agree with you more. But where to start is where I disagree with almost everyone. The higher academic institutions are the most corrupt vile and dishonest entities on the planet. They have gotten progressively worse over the past 150 years, but in the past 30 or so, calling them ethical or honest or even in most instances intellectual is a big joke. They need not just reform, but reformulation...
You did a great job 'splainin things.
His only statistic is TOTALLY wrong.
11% homeles in the general population? Hardly!!!
That would be 33 MILLION people! ! !
The actual number is closer to 0.2% to 0.3%.
I don't doubt that the veteran rate is much higher and that is indeed a tragedy.
24% of veterans are homeless? Give me a break, even Zinaval wouldn't pull statistic as absurd as thay out of his ass.
While we're just pulling numbers out of our ass, I would bet somewhere close to 50% of the posters here are veterans, myself included. I don't see any of us as being homeless.
I can understand people not wanting to support Obama and/or the Democrats. I can accept and debate economic issues and the issue of Government vs. private with a Republican/Conservative. These things are debatable. Where it stops becoming a debate for me and reason(s) why I will *never* support the Republican party are such:
1. Placing religion over science. Sorry, this is like placing History above Math. Totally apples and oranges.
2. Shoe-horning evangelical christianity into Government. Religion does not belong in government ANYWHERE.
3. Abstinence only sex education in schools. Get real, sex is here; people have sex, they will continue to have sex; START TEACHING ABOUT SAFE SEX.
4. Intelligent design in schools. See point #1 and #2.
5. Continually calling people who disagree with the Bush Administration / Right-wing as “unpatriotic.”
Until those 5 things are resolved with the Republicans & Conservatives. I will *NEVER* support them. I appreciate some areas in the economy/laws where government should be shrunk. I can debate with the right on taxation and privatization. I can even support the right on issues of the size of government. However those 5 things are DEAL breakers for me. This may be insulting to those on the right, but if you don’t see the logic in those 5 points, then you are an IDIOT.
I recognize that my opinions have no bearing to the right, but those 5 points are non-debatable topics for me. If I’m close minded, so be it, but imho, there is simply no way a truly intelligent or reasonable person could disagree with those 5 points.
If you (the reader of this post) is in fact a libertarian and actually *voting* for a libetarian, then ignore this post. If on the hand you are actually going to VOTE for McCain/Palin. Then, imho, you have a sh*t-ton explaining to do.
I have no problems with Republicans on their CORE issues (smaller government, lower taxes, etc.), however the Republicans/Conservatives have been overrun with Evangelical Christianity and a general disdain over the scientific community.
If you have no room for tolerance for all, then you are the Most unpatriotic..China has most of what you yearn for..I am sure they would like their token first American requesting political amnesty..
And by the way mush for brains the Christian right is a very small part of the Republican Party and I don't see no Hail Marys in President Bush's public schools..
I have no tolerance for people who support teaching Intelligent Design in science class. Sorry, but explain to me HOW Intelligent Design is science if the very PREMISE has no way of proof/non-proof.
I have no tolerance for people *because* of my disagreements with the so-called "anti-terrorism" programs/laws/etc. they think of me (which in some ways you are hinting at) as "unpatriotic."
You clearly did not read my post. You automatically assumed because I have a strong affinity to science that I am unpatriotic.
So please, respond to me on my five points how *any* of them are debatable. Please, go ahead.
Actually I think you are unpatriotic because you don't have any tolerance except for your own views.. Quite unpatriotic IMO since so many have died for our freedoms.I also think you are terrified of something you don't understand..Don't get me wrong I don't understand either, but no religions scare me and if some kids in school want to pray in the corner at lunchtime I sure don't want to tell them they can't..Lets not talk about distractions or you prove to be even be more of a hypocrite .
http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/prayer-in-public-school.htm
Prayer in Public School - Overview of Governing Constitutional Principles
The history of prayer in public school is a story of legal interpretation. The relationship between religion and government in the United States is governed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, which both prevents the government from establishing religion and protects privately initiated religious expression and activities from government interference and discrimination. The First Amendment thus establishes certain limits on the conduct of public school officials as it relates to religious activity, including prayer.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment requires public school officials to be neutral in their treatment of religion, showing neither favoritism toward nor hostility against religious expression such as prayer. Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001); Everson v. Board of Educ., 330 U.S. 1 (1947). Accordingly, the First Amendment forbids religious activity that is sponsored by the government but protects religious activity that is initiated by private individuals, and the line between government-sponsored and privately initiated religious expression is vital to a proper understanding of the First Amendment's scope. As the Court has explained in several cases, "there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect." Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 302 (2000).
Prayer in Public School - Drawing the Line of Permissible Expression
The Supreme Court's decisions over the past forty years set forth principles that distinguish impermissible governmental religious speech from the constitutionally protected private religious speech of students. For example, teachers and other public school officials may not lead their classes in prayer, devotional readings from the Bible, or other religious activities. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); School Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963). Nor may school officials attempt to persuade or compel students to participate in prayer or other religious activities. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 599 (1992). Such conduct is "attributable to the State" and thus violates the Establishment Clause. Weisman, 505 U.S. at 587.
Although the Constitution forbids public school officials from directing or favoring prayer, students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969). In addition, the Supreme Court has made clear that "private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression." Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 760 (1995). Moreover, not all religious speech that takes place in the public schools or at school-sponsored events is governmental speech. Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 302. For example, "nothing in the Constitution ... prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day," and students may pray with fellow students during the school day on the same terms and conditions that they may engage in other conversation or speech. Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 313.
Prayer in Public School - Our Country's Legacy
It wasn't until the early 1960's that prayer in public school was "outlawed" by a new interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the history of the U.S. includes prayer and Bible readings in all sorts of public places, including schools. In 1782, the United States Congress passed the following resolution: "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools."
William Holmes McGuffey is the author of the McGuffey Reader, which was used for over 100 years in U.S. public schools with over 125 million copies sold until it was stopped in 1963. President Lincoln called him the "Schoolmaster of the Nation." McGuffey declared: "The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our notions on the character of God, on the great moral Governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free institutions. From no source has the author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred Scriptures. From all these extracts from the Bible I make no apology."
Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian, including the first, Harvard University, chartered in 1636. In the original Harvard Student Handbook, rule number 1 was that students seeking entrance must know Latin and Greek so that they could study the Scriptures: "Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, (John 17:3); and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let every one seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of him (Proverbs 2:3)."
I guess to you I'm 100% Unpatriotic. Terrified? Yup, of people *exactly* like you. Prayer in school? Please. Come up with something new.
-- Modified on 9/6/2008 9:08:26 PM
dastranger, ...I guess to you I'm 100% Unpatriotic. Terrified? Yup, of people *exactly* like you. Prayer in school? Please. Come up with something new."
I am a threat to you since I am tolerant.. I don't condemn or mock people because they pray to someone that I do not believe in.I do not condemn someone because they think abortion is morally wrong and I do not condemn another because they think abortion is right for them..I believe in the freedom of personal choice .. I don't listen to country music or go to car races but I am tolerant of those that do..Are you ?? Just how far reaching are your prejudices??
Before you reach for the stars and go on a Roe versus Wade rant ..I already went through that when a stripper I know ,cried in 2000,when Bush got elected, because he was going to outlaw abortions..
"I do not condemn someone because they think abortion is morally wrong and I do not condemn another because they think abortion is right for them."
Never, in my post (and subsequent posts) did I ever bring up abortion, or "condemning" someone who believes that "abortion is morally wrong." Go ahead, reread my posts. I *agree* with you here, if you read my 5 points *carefully* you would see that this wasn't what I was talking about.
"I believe in the freedom of personal choice."
Yup, I agree with you 100%. Where do I claim otherwise?
"I don't listen to country music or go to car races but I am tolerant of those that do..Are you?"
Yes I am. Where do I say I am not? Seems to me, you are the one who is "assuming."
(ed. note, we all know what happens when someone "assumes.")
"Before you reach for the stars and go on a Roe versus Wade rant ..I already went through that when a stripper I know ,cried in 2000,when Bush got elected, because he was going to outlaw abortions."
Wow, lookie here. You bring up the "abortion" thing again. Look, I am pro-choice. However, I can *understand* why some are "pro-life," but again because you "assumed" when not reading my original posts again, you again make the incorrect "assumption."
I didn't assume about you as I was giving my views..I asked a question about you ..I didn't answer..Just as I as in... Me, Myself, and I am tolerant of "almost" everything except violence against women and child porn or abuse. The only thing I have assumed about you is the fact you are very intolerant of religion..Now if I am wrong on that let me know...in other words if a couple of kids at school want to pray in the cafeteria is that OK with you? if a couple of kids want to stay after school and talk about Jesus , Mohammed or Hari Krishna is that alright with you ?? If not I assumed correctly..If thats OK with you then there is hope after all even if you don't ever vote Republican.. The reason I called you unpatriotic is the fact you don't want religion anywhere near a school ..In other words you want to suppress someones belief even if they are muttering a prayer to themselves..true or false. I am for the anti terrorism techniques but I don't think thats anything more than logical.
-- Modified on 9/6/2008 9:45:05 PM
Again, you are assuming, and we've come to the heart of YOUR prejudices. NO WHERE in my 5 points did I ever state that religion should not be taught in schools. I stated the following (let me repeat):
1. Placing religion over science. Sorry, this is like placing History above Math. Totally apples and oranges.
2. Shoe-horning evangelical christianity into Government. Religion does not belong in government ANYWHERE.
4. Intelligent design in schools. See point #1 and #2.
Which of these three points do I state that religion should not be taught in schools? Which ones?
Intelligent design is *not* science. Why? Because an Intelligent Designer is not provable nor disprovable. Therefore because ID cannot satisfy the basic *requirements* for a scientific theory, Intelligent Design *cannot* be considered science.
Therefore, point #4 (which specifically talks about ID) was a *logic* argument, *not* a religious one.
I'm actually in favor of having some sort of theology or religious history class. Nothing wrong with that, as long as all religions are equally presented. I have *absolutely* no problem with that at all. So again, where in my 5 points do I talk about not having religion in school? Seems to me, you're being a little prejudicial here. 
" Placing religion over science. Sorry, this is like placing History above Math. Totally apples and oranges.
"Religion does not belong in government ANYWHERE.
Shoe-horning evangelical christianity into Government. Religion does not belong in government ANYWHERE.
I'm actually in favor of having some sort of theology or religious history class. Nothing wrong with that, as long as all religions are equally presented. I have *absolutely* no problem with that at all.
The "anywhere" statement is what got my attention..Is it OK for the President to say Thank God? Should we print new money that says "leave nothing to trust" or maybe Trust No One cuz they might be a religious Government employee"
Are you sure "your" science is real science?? ..Just because I don't believe doesn't make it untrue no matter what the book says... lets not forget science said the earth was flat..There are lots of holes and dead ends in Darwins theories .. History is more important than Math for "many" since we have calculators that do it all now and so many can't read much less do math..
It seems they waste a lot of time in the classroom now so I don't think a 200 religion lecture will help catch our schools up with the rest of the world..
I will give you my first big assumption ...You have a dislike for the Christian church..If not so, then please proclaim your love for Christians as I proclaim my lust for pretty Jewish women..
I'm still all for terrorist screening..
"The 'anywhere' statement is what got my attention..Is it OK for the President to say Thank God? Should we print new money that says 'leave nothing to trust' or maybe Trust No One cuz they might be a religious Government employee'"
Yup, it's ok for the "President to say Thank God." (Thank God!) I don't really care that they keep "In God We Trust" or "whatever..."
I have a problem of putting in a religious interpretation of the creation of the universe and trying to place it a science class. That's what I'm talking about.
"Are you sure "your" science is real science??"
Yup, evolution's heart can be proven or disproven. Again, can you prove or disprove the existence of an Intelligent Designer? No, you can't because that is FAITH that isn't science.
I'm 100% certain that evolution is science. 99.99999999% of the world scientists believe it as well. I'm also 100% certain that Intelligent Design is *NOT* science.
"lets not forget science said the earth was flat."
Yup, that was disproven by an Egyptian. That's what science is a series of proofs and if necessary proofs of its incorrectness. Again, you can't do that with Intelligent Design. Because, again at it's heart, it's really creationism which is FAITH.
"There are lots of holes and dead ends in Darwins theories"
Yup, there are which is why the theory of evolution has evolved. (Look, I did a pun.)
Also, I believe you do not understand the difference between a theory (layman's term) vs. a scientific theory. You do know that there is a significant difference. Do you?
I'll give you a hint: the Theory of Gravity.
Or, are you going to go with "Intelligent Falling" because the Theory of Gravity has evolved as time went on?
(inside joke, see: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512)
"History is more important than Math for "many" since we have calculators that do it all now and so many can't read much less do math."
Not sure where you're going here...
"It seems they waste a lot of time in the classroom now so I don't think a 200 religion lecture will help catch our schools up with the rest of the world."
So then, which religions should we only pay attention to? Hmmmm?
"I will give you my first big assumption ...You have a dislike for the Christian church..If not so, then please proclaim your love for Christians as I proclaim my lust for pretty Jewish women.."
Whoa there Nellie! Guess what, you're flat out wrong! Guess what, I'm Roman Catholic. Guess what? I don't think all Priests are pedophiles.
Guess what? Another one of your ASSUMPTIONS incorrect!
"my lust for pretty Jewish women."
Were you assuming I was Jewish?
I'm 100% certain that evolution is science. 99.99999999% of the world scientists believe it as well. I'm also 100% certain that Intelligent Design is *NOT* science
"Guess what, I'm Roman Catholic. Guess what? I don't think all Priests are pedophiles."
"Also, I believe you do not understand the difference between a theory (layman's term) vs. a scientific theory."
A scientific theory is still just a theory until proven beyond a shadow of any doubt ..
I was force fed the Roman Catholc mantra and although I don't believe their reasoning, I think many priests enter the seminary to stifle their lust for young boys. I am not saying they are using intelligient design logic but flawed logic.
as for 99% of scientists united would you provide a link on that please..
One more question ..In your mind is it remotely possible that a alien life form visited earth thousands of years ago and tinkered with our evolution?? That would also be intelligent design?? True or False
"A scientific theory is still just a theory until proven beyond a shadow of any doubt .."
Sorry, but this is *INCORRECT*, you've just shown to everyone that you do not know the difference between a "Scientific theory" and a "theory" (layman's).
"A scientific theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence."
A "scientific theory" is more analogous to the layman's term of "fact" than theory. HUGE difference here. To the scientific community, just like the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Evolution is a FACT.
"as for 99% of scientists united would you provide a link on that please.."
Sure, just do a Google search.
"In your mind is it remotely possible that a alien life form visited earth thousands of years ago and tinkered with our evolution?? That would also be intelligent design?? True or False"
Lord, are you a creationist? Seriously. Let me spell it out for you:
I believe in a god. However, I do not think that the "creation story" should be taught in a science class, because it ain't science. Just like I do not think that Einstein's theory of relativity should be taught in Sunday School. E=mc2 doesn't belong there.
To directly address your question:
"Intelligent-design creationists fail to mention that the main reason scientists think that their might be intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is the plausibility of cosmic evolution—that is, it is reasonable to think that evolution, as a natural process, occurs regularly throughout the cosmos where conditions are favorable." -Pennock
So, in you're example, it does not ultimately address the core question of evolution (hence this would become a circular argument) because how did the aliens evolve then?
"So, in you're example, it does not ultimately address the core question of evolution (hence this would become a circular argument) because how did the aliens evolve then?"
It takes a certain arrogance for many Humans to believe they are the the top of the brain chain and the only ones that go to happyland after death..Note {not saying that is your view}Why are they so special?? Because God made them so??..Is it not possible that our God is from a Galaxy so far away 99% of scientists can not comprehend, or even imagine it was possible they made a journey here...
The aliens might have gone through the big bang evolution or not..I don't know and neither do the scientists..Its all speculation
"Is it not possible that our God is from a Galaxy so far away 99% of scientists can not comprehend, or even imagine it was possible they made a journey here."
Sure. Totally possible, but it still doesn't address: How did the aliens evolve?
"The aliens might have gone through the big bang evolution or not..I don't know and neither do the scientists..Its all speculation"
You still don't get it. You have just proved that evolution is science and ID is not. Do you not see it?
Why do you not have a disdain for the theory of gravity, yet you do for evolution? Do you have something against science? Without evolutionary theory, *many* of our necessary medicines would simply *not exist.* The understanding of how viruses mutate would not be understood *without evolution.* Again, in the science community, Evolution *is a FACT*.
Despite all of the evidence provided for evolution, people *still* do not "believe" in it. At this point, it's like proving that the earth is round to "flat earthers."
Actually I have EQUAL disdain for both Gravity AND Evolution. Well OK, disdain is not the most appropriate word. Skepticism is more appropriate.
To which Theory of Gravity do you refer? The latest one that has not yet been proven?
Why be a skeptic? After all, Newton figured out that whole gravity thing right? Glad Einstein thought ‘what if’? Where does gravity come from? Simple MASS? Turns out Newton didn’t have it quite right after all. In walks the general theory of relativity. What is gravity? Maybe really a curvature of space? Oops, here comes quantum mechanics. The latest rage in physics says Einstein was incomplete. There must be a gauge boson called a graviton. Trouble is, we can’t prove or disprove their existence (yet). Maybe they're intelligent and are hiding. (just kidding ).
The point is that we got it wrong three times now. Do you REALLY think that the latest, unproven theory will end up being the LAST word on gravity?
Just because something is not observable nor measurable does NOT indicate that it does not exist and we don’t quit looking for ALL possibilities that might lead us in a different direction. . . ANY direction. If we block off a road or alley way before hand what will be the result?
-- Modified on 9/7/2008 1:05:56 PM
"Actually I have EQUAL disdain for both Gravity AND Evolution. Well OK, disdain is not the most appropriate word. Skepticism is more appropriate."
Skepticism is good. This is the basis of science which is what I am talking about. Science allows for proof and arguments that disprove said theory. Intelligent Design offers no way of either. Hence, it is *not* science.
"To which Theory of Gravity do you refer? The latest one that has not yet been proven?"
Wow. I'm just speechless. I truly am. Are you a flat-earther too?
"Why be a skeptic? After all, Newton figured out that whole gravity thing right?"
He came up with the theory and provided proof. We still use this basis today in science. What is your point>?
"Glad Einstein thought ‘what if’? Where does gravity come from? Simple MASS? Turns out Newton didn’t have it quite right after all. In walks the general theory of relativity."
Again, I refer to you the difference between what a layman defines as a theory versus a scientific theory. You clearly do not know the differences. Guess what, there IS a difference. Theory, according to a layman is essentially a "guess." A scientific theory on the other hand has been tested by experiment/math/etc. rigorously by the community and is held as a "truth" or "fact."
The *very* basis of a scientific theory is that it follows the scientific method. You do know what that is, don't you? Or, should I spell that out for you as well?
"What is gravity? Maybe really a curvature of space?"
Nope, it is the natural phenomenon where objects with mass attracts one another.
"Oops, here comes quantum mechanics."
Science does not claim to know everything. Yet for some reason, you expect everything that we know in science to "explain everything right now." Guess what, that is the GOAL. When we figure out something, something NEW comes up. Wow, isn't that AMAZING? That's all part of the scientific method, that's all a part of the point of science.
"The latest rage in physics says Einstein was incomplete."
No one said that Einstein is god. Einstein disagreed with the very basis of quantum mechanics. Does that make his Theory of Relativity then invalid? Nope, it's part of science. There is debate, there is conflict, there is eventual resolution. But, in terms of the CORE understanding of both the Theory of Gravity and Theory of Evolution. There is no disagreement amongst 99.99999% of the scientific community. They consider it as a FACT.
If it turns out there is an alternate view to either the Theory of Gravity or Evolution. Guess what, they'll debate it. They'll provide proofs/unproofs (is that even a word? LOL). If it turns out this "alternate view" is correct, then eventually this alternate view becomes a scientific theory and the old Gravity & Evolution theories go away.
But, there isn't a legitimate alternative view for *either* Gravity or Evolution.
"There must be a gauge boson called a graviton. Trouble is, we can’t prove or disprove their existence (yet)."
And you provided the key word here: "Yet." Also, a graviton is *not* a theory (yet). Hence, you cannot (at this time) compare graviton to the Theory of Gravity. A graviton is defined as a hypothesis as of right now.
I'll give you another example. String Theory. String Theory is the latest "hot thing" in math and physics. However, String Theory is *not* a Scientific Theory. It's still only math, and many in the scientific community consider it (as of right now) as "fun crazy math" or as some would disdain "as a philosophy."
"The point is that we got it wrong three times now. Do you REALLY think that the latest, unproven theory will end up being the LAST word on gravity?"
You really don't know your science do you? Are you up all night watching Discovery channel all the time? Gravity has been proven. We wouldn't have made it to the moon if we didn't. Or, are you one of those that believe that was faked too?
"Just because something is not observable nor measurable does NOT indicate that it does not exist and we don’t quit looking for ALL possibilities that might lead us in a different direction. . . ANY direction. If we block off a road or alley way before hand what will be the result?"
You're right, but the very premise has to be able to be proved or disproved. Again, this is the difference between Intelligent Design and the Theory of Evolution. An Intelligent Designer cannot be proved or disproved. Evolution can.
Sorry about letting my use of the word ‘theory’ slip in relating to graviton hypothesis. Other than that, you’ve given me nothing except condescension. In your effort to be supercilious you miss my main point. I wasn’t offering ID as an alternative to evolution here.
You compared the theory of gravity to that of evolution and suggested that if quad was accepting of one, he should be accepting of both. I was merely pointing out how knowledge of gravity has changed because people kept an open mind and how in the realm of the ‘theory’ of quantum mechanics the issue of gravity was still open. . . not just due to curiosity but due to unanswered questions.
BTW, Einstein did allow for explaining gravity as a curvature of space-time.
You also said, "Or, are you one of those that believe that (moon landing) was faked too?"
Do you really think that or is it one of your rhetorically useless tools in a conversation such as this? But as long as you opened the door, I’ll inject. . . you’re so eager to squash me as an ID ideologue you seem unable to recognize yourself as being the epitome of some of the scientific ideologues prevalent today.
dastranger,
"A scientific theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence."
A "scientific theory" is more analogous to the layman's term of "fact" than theory. HUGE difference here. To the scientific community, just like the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Evolution is a FACT."
Whats fact yesterday to some scientists might not be fact today by others..The theory of evolution is full of many facts with quite a few missing links..Darwins theories are viewed differently today with its many flaws..
Some scientific theories that leading scientists proved in the past are proven untrue today..Theories are the only derived from the Human intelligence available today not the advanced mind of tomorrow{hopefully}.In other words Scientific theories are merely books in progress to maybe be finished by a brighter mind at a later date..
False The Earth is Flat
False No creatures have gone extinct
False The Earth is the center of the Universe
Fasle The speed of sound can not be broken
true Newton's theory of mechanics and Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism can not be universally applied
False There are 109 elements
To be continued after more modification..Darwinism
"Whats fact yesterday to some scientists might not be fact today by others..The theory of evolution is full of many facts with quite a few missing links..Darwins theories are viewed differently today with its many flaws."
So, give me one LEGITIMATE scientist who does not believe in Evolution.
Again, you don't seem to "get it." Just because things in the past were invalidated, doesn't mean that things today are wrong. Additionally, using you're own argument, *because* you can "in theory (layman's version)" disprove evolution, that fact ALONE makes it a valid idea to become a scientific theory.
You cannot disprove or prove Intelligent Design. Thus, ID cannot be considered SCIENCE.
You are mixing two things up: religion and science. I believe in a god (as I've stated previously), but when you are talking about the FIELD OF SCIENCE, it makes NO SENSE to insert a non-scientific idea, just like me throwing in discussions of thermodynamics in a theology class. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!
"Some scientific theories that leading scientists proved in the past are proven untrue today."
Yup, but until evolution is disproven (which hasn't yet been), the scientific community and myself will continue to hold it to be true. Again, you've validated that evolution is science and not faith. THIS IS THE POINT OF SCIENCE.
"To be continued after more modification.. Darwinism"
Yet, to this day, the Theory of Evolution's basic tenants are still Darwin's. And, until there is a *real* viable SCIENTIFIC alternative to evolution (there isn't any at this time), Evolution is the way it is.
Again, ID is not science. It's faith. (rinse and repeat).
-- Modified on 9/7/2008 9:33:03 AM
Person A refuses to "support" political party A due to a list of 5 grievances = "If you have no room for tolerance of all..." = then you are the Most unpatriotic."
I think you are way too quick to pull out the "unpatriotic card."
placing intelligent design co-equally with evolution? Or how about letting it into the same room as evolution?
Not above science but the same or at the same time?
-- Modified on 9/6/2008 10:26:58 PM
exactly where it belongs, IN CHURCH. Inteligent design is never taught as an alternative or as any type of science. It is taught as what it is, religious dogma and has no more place in our publc schools than does the Bible or the Koran.
The very idea of teaching religion in science class is ridiculous and sends a very contradictory message to our youth. How can you teach a child scientific method at the same time you are attempting to cram a fairy tale down his throat?
Much better to have an unproven theory like evolution shoved down someone's throat, and have it passed off as "science." Evolution is just as much a fairy tale as you people here claim religion is.
"Much better to have an unproven theory like evolution shoved down someone's throat, and have it passed off as "science." Evolution is just as much a fairy tale as you people here claim religion is."
Evolution *has* been proven time and time again. Or, are you one of those that believe that god placed dinosaurs as a "test for man?"
You clearly do not know the difference between how a layman defines "theory" and scientific theory. You do know that there is a difference, don't you?
Again, you *cannot* disprove or prove the existence of an Intelligent Designer. The Theory of Evolution on the other hand *can be* proven or disproven. This is why ID is *NOT* science and Evolution *is* science.
And evolution is still a theory!!!
"And evolution is still a theory!!!"
And here provides PROOF, that you clearly do not know the difference between a SCIENTIFIC theory and how a layperson "defines" as a theory.
A Scientific Theory is:
"A theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence."
In the scientific community, a scientific theory is *FACT*. Theory in layman's terms is a *GUESS*. Big difference.
Guess you think that the "Theory of Gravity" is just a GUESS?
Guess you do. (Look, I did a pun).
No, I know that "Gravity" is not a theory, but a natural law. That was proven by Sir Isaac Newton, by the way. The scientific community can call it anything they want to. Just because they say it, doesn't make it so. Since we're talking about evolution, and mankind evolving from apes, and since you know so much about it, maybe you can answer this: If we came from apes, why do we still have apes? And when, and why, did the process stop? And who made it stop? Just wondering.
"No, I know that "Gravity" is not a theory, but a natural law. That was proven by Sir Isaac Newton, by the way."
Yup, Evolution is as well.
"The scientific community can call it anything they want to. Just because they say it, doesn't make it so."
Why the disdain to science? You do know that science is constantly evolving with new ideas that either prove or disprove current hypothesis or theories. However, there has *yet* to be a contrary scientific view to evolution that has garnerned the mantle of "scientific theory." But as soon as one comes around, then I'll be behind it as well.
"Since we're talking about evolution, and mankind evolving from apes, and since you know so much about it, maybe you can answer this: If we came from apes, why do we still have apes?"
Why do we still of cockroaches? Natural selection. In terms of apes, some may have mutated/etc. to become humans today. Other's didn't. Just like how some forms of reptiles became birds and others didn't. You do know that there is clear fossil evidence for both the evolution of man and of birds. Don't you?
"And when, and why, did the process stop? And who made it stop? Just wondering."
The process hasn't stopped. Why do you think it has? How do you think the medical community has come to a better understanding of viruses/disease/development of drugs/genetics/etc.? Guess what, it came from the study and understanding of evolution.
dastranger
A Scientific Theory is:
"A theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence."
His definition is correct but he forgot about all the "Laymen" that realize there are MISSING links in the theory of evolution, so until those links are found there is no logical self consistent model..
Frieking scientists are so crammed full of brains there is no room for logic to travel..
"God placed dinosaurs on earth as a test for man?" Where did you come up with that? Dinosaurs were created at the same time as all the other animals.
""God placed dinosaurs on earth as a test for man?" Where did you come up with that?"
This is what many creationists believe.
"Dinosaurs were created at the same time as all the other animals."
Trilobites perhaps.
Are you one of those "flat-earthers?" Looks like it to me.
What creationists have you been talking to? No I'm not a "flat-earther," since I believe the world is round. Speaking of a round earth, in the Book of Isaiah, Chapter 40, verse 22, it begins, "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,......" Last time I checked, the earth is round. Is "flat-earther" another phrase that originated on the P&R board? Gee, I should hang out here more. I'm missing so much!!!!!!
"What creationists have you been talking to? No I'm not a "flat-earther," since I believe the world is round."
Well, I'm glad you aren't a "flat-earther." Welcome to reality. If you'd like to know more about a "flat-earther" then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
"Speaking of a round earth, in the Book of Isaiah, Chapter 40, verse 22, it begins, "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,......" Last time I checked, the earth is round."
But, what is a circle? A circle is a 2D shape. Most flat-earthers believe that the earth is round, but is flat.
"Is "flat-earther" another phrase that originated on the P&R board? Gee, I should hang out here more. I'm missing so much!!!!!!"
See above URL.
No thanks, I'll pass on the URL. The "Flat-Earth Society" doesn't sound like something I'd really be interested in. Thanks for the chat. We MUST continue this again sometime. bcnu
jhb
with such flat assertions.
I agree that a majority (probably a large percentage) of ID thinkers approach it from a faith based or religious standpoint. And that's unfortunate. There are scientists that are trying to approach the failings of Darwinism, but the Darwinists have a Flat Earth mentality when it comes to differing views. The non-faith based ID community does not approach this from a beginning stance that there is a God or that he created everything. They simply have an open mind to it.
In the quest for the truth REAL science does NOT rule out any possible explanation until it can be proven false. Sure, Darwinism works great for lots of things starting with species and genus mutations, but it has huge failings and holes. Our understanding of the universe and astrophysics has got to be so infinitesimal that one must keep an open mind to unimaginable possibilities. To rule something out because one deems it absolutely not provable or not disprovable is NOT science.
I agree that what you see as creationism shouldn’t be taught as co-equal to Darwinism. I know you won’t change your mind about ID, but try to think of it as maybe have a one in a quintillion chance.
I direct both you and GaGambler to a 4 month old thread (GaG actually participated towards the end).
The earlier exchange between JHB and Dastranger was one of the most embarrassing I have ever seen. Never before have I heard more ridiculous arguments on either side of the issue.
Even Quad with his 8th grade education should know that Darwin NEVER said man was descended from apes. Anybody that doesn't know that is obviously too stupid to debate with.
In case either of you were sincere in your delusional statements about evolution let me clarify. Humans were not descended from apes, humans and apes share a common ancestor from which we were both descended from. Anyone who got past the third grade should know this.
I will confess to being, if not drunk off my ass at least on my way to being so, but even at my drunkest I make more sense than either of you.
Please, if you are going to argue fifth grade science at least be smarter than a fifth grader.
And some of your comments about religion are just as embarrassing. You seem to know less about it that I do about evolution. You seem to think that everytime religion is mentioned, sometime is trying to "shove it down your throat." Of course, that seems to be the main theme of this board anyway.
jhb
1) My comments were directed at DA (see the last line of my post). I misplaced the entry.
2) I never mentioned apes, etc.
3) I actually ageed with you about not only not teaching religion, but also not teach creationism ID.
4) My 'beef' is with the Darwimism 'scientific' community.
but admit to perhaps misplacing them. lol
Sorry RWU I realize it appeared that I was speaking to you(I was admittedly drunk) My words were directed at JHB for this ridiculous statement.
"Since we're talking about evolution, and mankind evolving from apes, and since you know so much about it, maybe you can answer this: If we came from apes, why do we still have apes? And when, and why, did the process stop? And who made it stop? Just wondering"
Dastranger's response wasn't much better.
"In terms of apes, some may have mutated/etc. to become humans today. Other's didn't"
even drunk I make more sense that this, even if I can't figure out where to post it. lol
Taken together they nail it.
Yup, I am pretty disgusted myself with all of the things you just mentioned. I would be absolutely thrilled to find a viable candidate who agrees with you and I on the above named issues, AND who is conservative on pretty much everything else. *Alas* I am not holding my breath to ever find such a candidate.
Here is why I can never support the Democratic Party.....
1. The liberal view believes that Americans need to be saved from making bad choices. You see evidence of this in the battle to ban those terrible smokers (of which I am one), their battle to bad trans fats (gimme my damned grease ball burgers!!!!) Liberals honestly believe, that for every problem, there is a government solution. Regardless of whether it is childhood obesity, cigarette smokers, or more serious issues like the environment, liberals remain convinced that government is the best solution. Our entire experience has proven time and again that gov't sponsored solutions can NEVER equal the ingenuity and innovation of a free market, but the liberal view is to utterly ignore the evidence of history, and press on with more gov't nanny programs. Freedom means alot of things. Among them, you have the freedom to fail. Liberals forget that.
2. On foreign policy, liberals just don't get it. Obama has characterized Iran as a "tiny country". Looked at a map lately Obama?? He has said it is not a threat. Liberals would have us retreat in the war on terror, not just in Iraq, but in our gathering of intelligence, our fight to develop strong alliances in the Middle East (iraq). They would have us return to pre-9/11 mentality where terrorism is handled as a criminal act, rather than an act of war. We simply can NOT allow that to happen again. We can NOT relax our vigilance.
3. On the economy, liberal thinking would drive our economy into the ground. Unemployment has risen to 6.1% and no one can deny that is bad, but it is NOTHING compared to what we would see if liberals had their say. Raise cap gains, raise the minimum wage, raise payroll taxes - go for it. Watch small businesses, which employ nearly half of all workers - start collapsing. Liberals believe that we can tax our way to prosperity, and again history has shown repeatedly that you simply cannot.
4. On the environment, liberals are wrong again. Hey, I am all for saving the spotted owl too. Protecting our environment is a matter of health and safety, not to mention in the best interest of our economy and security. But NOT to the point where good jobs are lost, local economies are allowed to stagnate, and we put ourselves into a position to make the largest transfer of wealth in history. Obama wants to "fast track" alternative energy. Great idea. Lets do that. But even "fast tracking" alternative energy won't start showing real benefits for a decade or more. We need stable oil prices NOW, not 10 years from now, and the ONLY way we can keep oil prices stable now is to DRILL. Not just a litte, but ALOT.
Sure, I would love to tell the Republican Party to shove it where the sun doesn't shine sometimes because the pseudo-religious crap pretty much nauseates me. When it comes down to it, I am more Libertarian than Republican. My basic premise is that the gov't that governs least governs best, and leave me the hell alone please. But the only alternative to Republicans are the Democrats, and they have strayed so far left that I simply cannot trust them one bit on the issues that matter most.
So that is why I hold my nose, try not to think about my fellow gays and lesbians (since I am enthusiastically bisexual) and cast my vote for the GOP.
"The liberal view believes that Americans need to be saved from making bad choices. You see evidence of this in the battle to ban those terrible smokers (of which I am one), their battle to bad trans fats (gimme my damned grease ball burgers!!!!)"
You do know that both Democrats *AND* Republicans *both* worked on the "battle of smokers."
"Liberals honestly believe, that for every problem, there is a government solution."
A bit of generalization, but again both parties do this. Personally, I believe in a balance. Just as Gov't can't solve everything, the private sector can't solve everything either. Anyone believing that no government is the answer to absolutely everything is seriously fooling themselves.
"Our entire experience has proven time and again that gov't sponsored solutions can NEVER equal the ingenuity and innovation of a free market"
Hey, I agree with you that the free market is great. I disagree that it's the answer to everything. Just like you may be tired of hearing a liberal say: "The Gov't solves everything!" (The Gov't clearly can't and doesn't), I personally am tired of thinking of hearing people say: "The Free Market will solve everything." It won't.
"but the liberal view is to utterly ignore the evidence of history, and press on with more gov't nanny programs. Freedom means alot of things. Among them, you have the freedom to fail. Liberals forget that."
So you think that all liberals don't believe in freedom? Is that what you're implying? I love how you're generalizing "all liberals." Just like the generalization that all Conservatives are against gays but secretly closeted gays? We know this isn't true, just like the statement that liberals don't believe in freedom.
"2. On foreign policy, liberals just don't get it."
I would argue that the conservatives equally "don't get it."
"Obama has characterized Iran as a "tiny country". Looked at a map lately Obama?? He has said it is not a threat."
He also said: "Iran a major threat; I would never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect homeland."
We can all pick and choose quotes to our liking. Are you claiming that if Obama were president, and Iran attacked the U.S., that he would do nothing?
"Liberals would have us retreat in the war on terror, not just in Iraq, but in our gathering of intelligence, our fight to develop strong alliances in the Middle East (iraq)"
So, why aren't we spending most of efforts in Afghanistan then? You do know that it has been shown that the Bush administration actively *lied* about terrorist connections in Iraq. It has been shown to be *not* true at all.
Secondly, I do not believe in destroying my own personal freedom in the "War on Terrorism." I believe (just as it appears you do as well) that the government should stay *out* of my personal life and hindering on my own *personal freedoms.* I'm against adding security and at the same time giving up *any* of my personal freedoms. Ben Franklin seems to agree with me:
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
"They would have us return to pre-9/11 mentality where terrorism is handled as a criminal act, rather than an act of war. We simply can NOT allow that to happen again. We can NOT relax our vigilance."
I'd rather us follow our own US laws. Treat people as human beings, even if they do not. Speaking of which, explain to me this double standard, why so gung ho on torture when the majority of the conservatives call them devoted Christians? Explain to me this double standard. What did Jesus say?
"Love your enemies." "Turn the other cheek."
How are these conservatives being "good Christians then?"
"On the economy, liberal thinking would drive our economy into the ground. Unemployment has risen to 6.1% and no one can deny that is bad, but it is NOTHING compared to what we would see if liberals had their say."
Personally, I don't believe either party really has huge effects on these matters. There were downturns during when Conservatives were in office (Bush Sr., part of the Reagan years). There were upturns during Democrat years (most of Clinton years, much of JFK years). The vice versa is true as well.
"Liberals believe that we can tax our way to prosperity, and again history has shown repeatedly that you simply cannot."
You do know that one of the biggest expansion in government was done by a conservative: Ronald Reagan. How about another one? The so-called "no new taxes" George Bush Sr.
"We need stable oil prices NOW, not 10 years from now, and the ONLY way we can keep oil prices stable now is to DRILL."
We'll have to agree to disagree on this. Most economists agree that drilling for oil will do little to nothing to the price of oil. Sorry, it won't. If we drilled in Alaska and our coastlines, guess how much oil would be added? Less than 1% of all U.S. oil consumption. Drop in the bucket? More like Mist in the Bucket.
"But the only alternative to Republicans are the Democrats, and they have strayed so far left that I simply cannot trust them one bit on the issues that matter most."
I actually would argue that neither party really adheres to their core values anymore. Look at the expansion of government under conservative administrations.
I'm a fan of having this liberal and conservative sides to Congress. However, both sides have moved so far away from their core values that we don't really have this balance anymore. Instead, like we see on these boards, we have people attacking one another because of "which side their on." Just as I don't believe that "big government" solves everything, I do not believe that going entirely "free market" will solve everything as well.
"So that is why I hold my nose, try not to think about my fellow gays and lesbians (since I am enthusiastically bisexual) and cast my vote for the GOP."
This is where I'm lost. How can you support a party that has such disdain for gays and bisexuals?
Jesus also said that it is right for a man to defend his own household and to care for his own. A man who doesn't care for his own, especially those in his house, is worse than an infidel.
Yes. So silly it is cute. just looking at some of these things makes you laugh.
Yes, the right wants the U.S. to be bankrupt. Of course if the ruling wealthy class bankrupts the rest of the nation that will help the rich. Then when they have nothing more to drain from the pockets of the poor they can just suck their blood. Having everyone else starving to death will make the lives of the rich so much better. That is why the struggling masses in the US are huddled around stagnant ponds eating roaches and larvae.
Yes, they want to be hated by the world. Everyone on the right wants to be hated. Being hated is so nice. That is why a pro-American is in office in France and Africa and Central Europe love us. (ooops. Maybe we should nuke them so they don't like us that much.)
Talking and listening to no one. What does that even mean. Bush just negotiated with Fucking Lybia. He got N. Korea to demolish it nuclear plant through negotiations to which he U.S. was one of six parties. All talking together. What more do you want?
Hey, jerk face, it was the CLINTON administration that imposed the greatest limitations on habeas corpus in the last 300 years in the form of the Anti-Terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act. I do habeas defense for a living and the legislation signed by Clinton did more to limit hab for AMERICAN CITIZENS than any other thing that has been passed by congress or executive order in the last seven years.
Ignoring the plight of 99% of the population. Go to Circuit City. Who the hell is buying big screen HD TVs?
You are so cute in your meaningless rant.
But Sins did an excellent job of setting you straight. All except the homeless statistic. You are too high by about a factor of THIRTY. See my post above.
Faith in things unseen, a world to come, a benevolent patriarch, big donations.
I guess dastrange does NOT believe in man made climate change since it is unproven.
11) without due process or just cause, spying on innocent, law abiding citizens, daring any one or a group of them to claim violation of fourth amendment rights;
(12) eager to suspend habeas corpus;
19) embarrassing and insulting all humankind, especially the vast majority of US citizens, by torturing and otherwise treating inhumanly persons obviously innocent of any offense under US or International law; and (20) operating with more hidden agendas than there are stars in the heavens (the Bush #2 administration had an entire war in Iraq among its hidden agendas
You then have no understanding of these matters of the law
Also you do know Obama voted with the REps on spying.
-- Modified on 9/7/2008 12:09:10 AM
Actually, viewing the Republicans as the class of the rich is very dated. It is the other way around.
If you look at any city and locate the wealthiest district, you are likely to have a Democrat in congress. The west side of L.A. is the Beverly Hills, Bel Air, Westwood area. Solid Democrat.
Try New York and the Uppper East Side. No McCain buttons there.
Let's swing back to San Francisco, Heartland of the Left. Very wealthy and expensive city. Of course, with all the good hearts in S.F., they have had a perpetual homeless problem that gets worse every year. Indeed, the one city in the U.S. that is most like India is S.F. where the rich live and work surrounded by beggers.
And the caring left in S.F. has done so well taking care of the public schools. Why they did such a good job that all the rich people have said, "We won't even use these wonderful public schools we created. We will give more assets to the poor by not using them and sending our kids to private schools. Then we will improve public education more and send fewer of our kids."