|
On August 24 2011 05:41 Peterblue wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 05:34 mcc wrote:On August 24 2011 05:11 Satire wrote:
The only republican I can really get behind is Ron Paul. Being from Canada, I realize my opinion doesn't matter much, but he's always been really consistent and I can appreciate his policies. I like the democrats policies much better personally, but I get so angry when they don't show backbone. The entire two party system actually infuriates me, but that's another story.
Either way, I'd be very happy with Ron Paul or Obama won. Well I think non-US Americans should actually cheer for Ron Paul, as that would lessen the chance that some random place in the world will be bombed or invaded. It will lower the amount of US meddling in the rest of the World. Also of course his internal policies will give other countries a lot of advantages too, so good for us  As for which Republican would be best for US, hard to say, they are all rather bad, some of the non-Tea Party ones might be tolerable. Yeah, the problem with the Right wing is thatthey're so spread out now. Some of them are fucking insane and some are moderate. But the people who vote for the insane ones won't vote for the moderate ones and vice versa. It's not a good situation for their politicians, because they have to spread themselves out so far on the politicial spectrum to pick up key votes, but it's pretty much impossible to do that. It's not stopping them from trying.
Actually I think Republicans are as time goes on less and less spread out. The divide between Republicans and Democrats seems to be moving to the right of the political spectrum. As is whole American political scene and strangely society. Consequently Democrats are occupying bigger and bigger part of the spectrum and the only positions occupied by Republicans are getting crazier and crazier. Hopefully it is just a temporary trend. One mitigating factor is that the divide between them is so different in different states that you can find moderate Republicans that can appeal to "moderate" voters.
On August 24 2011 05:39 Peterblue wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 05:28 mcc wrote:On August 24 2011 05:04 H0i wrote:On August 24 2011 04:56 Whitewing wrote:On August 24 2011 04:48 H0i wrote:
First of all I'm not religious.
Now, saying things do not exist because you can not prove them with science is silly. With this logic, in the year 0, humans would not be made out of cells, because there were no microscopes to show this. Science is a helpful tool but it is not the ultimate truth, there is a lot it can't reach. Can you scientifically prove the existence or non-existence of an afterlife? You cannot. But I'm quite sure, that when you die, you'll figure out things aren't over yet. Assuming I am correct here, science just cannot prove it.
Rationality is subjective and there are some important areas science can not do anything with (yet). Saying something is false because it cannot be proven to be true just doesn't work. For someone who really likes science probably "god does not exist" is a very rational argument. For someone who grew up hearing things about this god all the time, "god exists" would be a rational argument.
I don't believe in god though, but I do believe in an afterlife. Talking about this more would derail this thread ever further, but I hope people understand what I mean. Inability to currently prove and lack of ability to theoretically prove are two different things, both based on current level of technology. And all your argument boils down to is that it was okay for them back then to have religious beliefs, but now that we know better they should go away. (I know this isn't what you meant to say, but this is the logical conclusion of that argument). You also have no basis for the "I'm quite sure, that when you die,...." You have no basis for that statement, you're essentially just making it up. The way logic works is simple: if you have no evidence to support something's existence, the default position is that it doesn't exist until you have evidence. Anything else is illogical and backwards. Sure, you're entitled to think what you want, but the rest of the world doesn't have to respect the same idea just because you believe it. Rationality, by the way, is not subjective, people just wish it was and want it to be. Fact of the matter is, rationality is very objective. As for the current republican candidates, Huntsman has no chance although I think he'd do an okay job and I would consider voting for him. As for the others? Probably not. There's a rumor floating around that Trump might throw his hat in the ring again, I at least think he'd be better than the others, despite the whole 'birther' thing. Rationality is entirely subjective. Assume we can not prove if a is false or true. At that point people usually step in and say "we can't prove it... but assuming it's true is more rational". But this is just nonsense, isn't it? This opinion on what would be the "rational" choice is just subjective to the persons individual experiences. To not mess up the thread too badly: + Show Spoiler +Rationality is objective, it has pretty objective definition and description, you should look it up.
Also we are not talking about "proof" in mathematical sense. We are talking about evidence. In absence of evidence it is rational to use principle of parsimony.
You do not say "God does not exist", but "There is no reason to believe God exists and it is irrational to believe so". That is what atheist is saying.
Regardless, his original point is that you should not be a militant atheist - don't be ignorant. If you're saying or Show nested quote +
"Militant atheists" simply don't wish to live by a religious standard based on the morals or teachings of some bronze age tribesmen.
then you're a militant atheist. You're also a douchebag. If someone comes up to you and asks you about your beliefs, of course you can answer. But otherwise you shouldn't flaunt your atheism - be respectful. You may disagree with them, but there is no need to argue pointlessly.
First, that was a different guy that posted about militant atheists. Also militant atheist is rather stupid and non-fitting name as they are in fact not militant. From your examples I can conclude that you consider guy who says "I believe in god." a douchebag ? Because it is as disrespectful as "It's the only logically sound position to take". Also respect is earned, I see no reason for respect, civility is different matter.
|
On August 24 2011 05:58 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 05:39 Peterblue wrote:On August 24 2011 05:28 mcc wrote:On August 24 2011 05:04 H0i wrote:On August 24 2011 04:56 Whitewing wrote:On August 24 2011 04:48 H0i wrote:
First of all I'm not religious.
Now, saying things do not exist because you can not prove them with science is silly. With this logic, in the year 0, humans would not be made out of cells, because there were no microscopes to show this. Science is a helpful tool but it is not the ultimate truth, there is a lot it can't reach. Can you scientifically prove the existence or non-existence of an afterlife? You cannot. But I'm quite sure, that when you die, you'll figure out things aren't over yet. Assuming I am correct here, science just cannot prove it.
Rationality is subjective and there are some important areas science can not do anything with (yet). Saying something is false because it cannot be proven to be true just doesn't work. For someone who really likes science probably "god does not exist" is a very rational argument. For someone who grew up hearing things about this god all the time, "god exists" would be a rational argument.
I don't believe in god though, but I do believe in an afterlife. Talking about this more would derail this thread ever further, but I hope people understand what I mean. Inability to currently prove and lack of ability to theoretically prove are two different things, both based on current level of technology. And all your argument boils down to is that it was okay for them back then to have religious beliefs, but now that we know better they should go away. (I know this isn't what you meant to say, but this is the logical conclusion of that argument). You also have no basis for the "I'm quite sure, that when you die,...." You have no basis for that statement, you're essentially just making it up. The way logic works is simple: if you have no evidence to support something's existence, the default position is that it doesn't exist until you have evidence. Anything else is illogical and backwards. Sure, you're entitled to think what you want, but the rest of the world doesn't have to respect the same idea just because you believe it. Rationality, by the way, is not subjective, people just wish it was and want it to be. Fact of the matter is, rationality is very objective. As for the current republican candidates, Huntsman has no chance although I think he'd do an okay job and I would consider voting for him. As for the others? Probably not. There's a rumor floating around that Trump might throw his hat in the ring again, I at least think he'd be better than the others, despite the whole 'birther' thing. Rationality is entirely subjective. Assume we can not prove if a is false or true. At that point people usually step in and say "we can't prove it... but assuming it's true is more rational". But this is just nonsense, isn't it? This opinion on what would be the "rational" choice is just subjective to the persons individual experiences. To not mess up the thread too badly: + Show Spoiler +Rationality is objective, it has pretty objective definition and description, you should look it up.
Also we are not talking about "proof" in mathematical sense. We are talking about evidence. In absence of evidence it is rational to use principle of parsimony.
You do not say "God does not exist", but "There is no reason to believe God exists and it is irrational to believe so". That is what atheist is saying.
Regardless, his original point is that you should not be a militant atheist - don't be ignorant. If you're saying It's the only logically sound position to take -_-.
or
"Militant atheists" simply don't wish to live by a religious standard based on the morals or teachings of some bronze age tribesmen.
then you're a militant atheist. You're also a douchebag. If someone comes up to you and asks you about your beliefs, of course you can answer. But otherwise you shouldn't flaunt your atheism - be respectful. You may disagree with them, but there is no need to argue pointlessly. First, that was a different guy that posted about militant atheists. Also militant atheist is rather stupid and non-fitting name as they are in fact not militant. From your examples I can conclude that you consider guy who says "I believe in god." a douchebag ? Because it is as disrespectful as "It's the only logically sound position to take". Also respect is earned, I see no reason for respect, civility is different matter.
I don't consider someone who says "i believe in God" a douchebag. I consider someone who says "I believe in God and you should too" to be one.
Militant atheist is the term for it. Argue against it all you like but it's the term for it, so I'm not going to not use it.
You're right. I mean civility, not respect. But you shouldn't disrespect them either.
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 24 2011 06:04 Peterblue wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 05:58 mcc wrote:On August 24 2011 05:39 Peterblue wrote:On August 24 2011 05:28 mcc wrote:On August 24 2011 05:04 H0i wrote:On August 24 2011 04:56 Whitewing wrote:On August 24 2011 04:48 H0i wrote:
First of all I'm not religious.
Now, saying things do not exist because you can not prove them with science is silly. With this logic, in the year 0, humans would not be made out of cells, because there were no microscopes to show this. Science is a helpful tool but it is not the ultimate truth, there is a lot it can't reach. Can you scientifically prove the existence or non-existence of an afterlife? You cannot. But I'm quite sure, that when you die, you'll figure out things aren't over yet. Assuming I am correct here, science just cannot prove it.
Rationality is subjective and there are some important areas science can not do anything with (yet). Saying something is false because it cannot be proven to be true just doesn't work. For someone who really likes science probably "god does not exist" is a very rational argument. For someone who grew up hearing things about this god all the time, "god exists" would be a rational argument.
I don't believe in god though, but I do believe in an afterlife. Talking about this more would derail this thread ever further, but I hope people understand what I mean. Inability to currently prove and lack of ability to theoretically prove are two different things, both based on current level of technology. And all your argument boils down to is that it was okay for them back then to have religious beliefs, but now that we know better they should go away. (I know this isn't what you meant to say, but this is the logical conclusion of that argument). You also have no basis for the "I'm quite sure, that when you die,...." You have no basis for that statement, you're essentially just making it up. The way logic works is simple: if you have no evidence to support something's existence, the default position is that it doesn't exist until you have evidence. Anything else is illogical and backwards. Sure, you're entitled to think what you want, but the rest of the world doesn't have to respect the same idea just because you believe it. Rationality, by the way, is not subjective, people just wish it was and want it to be. Fact of the matter is, rationality is very objective. As for the current republican candidates, Huntsman has no chance although I think he'd do an okay job and I would consider voting for him. As for the others? Probably not. There's a rumor floating around that Trump might throw his hat in the ring again, I at least think he'd be better than the others, despite the whole 'birther' thing. Rationality is entirely subjective. Assume we can not prove if a is false or true. At that point people usually step in and say "we can't prove it... but assuming it's true is more rational". But this is just nonsense, isn't it? This opinion on what would be the "rational" choice is just subjective to the persons individual experiences. To not mess up the thread too badly: + Show Spoiler +Rationality is objective, it has pretty objective definition and description, you should look it up.
Also we are not talking about "proof" in mathematical sense. We are talking about evidence. In absence of evidence it is rational to use principle of parsimony.
You do not say "God does not exist", but "There is no reason to believe God exists and it is irrational to believe so". That is what atheist is saying.
Regardless, his original point is that you should not be a militant atheist - don't be ignorant. If you're saying It's the only logically sound position to take -_-.
or
"Militant atheists" simply don't wish to live by a religious standard based on the morals or teachings of some bronze age tribesmen.
then you're a militant atheist. You're also a douchebag. If someone comes up to you and asks you about your beliefs, of course you can answer. But otherwise you shouldn't flaunt your atheism - be respectful. You may disagree with them, but there is no need to argue pointlessly. First, that was a different guy that posted about militant atheists. Also militant atheist is rather stupid and non-fitting name as they are in fact not militant. From your examples I can conclude that you consider guy who says "I believe in god." a douchebag ? Because it is as disrespectful as "It's the only logically sound position to take". Also respect is earned, I see no reason for respect, civility is different matter. I don't consider someone who says "i believe in God" a douchebag. I consider someone who says "I believe in God and you should too" to be one. Militant atheist is the term for it. Argue against it all you like but it's the term for it, so I'm not going to not use it. You're right. I mean civility, not respect. But you shouldn't disrespect them either.
Nothing wrong with disrespecting blatant stupidity when it arises. As for being a douchebag, sure, I might be one sometimes, but at least I can logically show my position step by step and explain it reasonably and rationally, which is a necessary component of a sound position. So yeah, I'll take being an asshole over being irrational and stupid any day. At the end of the day, at least I can look myself in the mirror and say that I didn't compromise on what clearly makes sense.
Further, this part of the discussion is referring to the candidates, people who are running for president. When people run for office on a platform of religious beliefs (even if only partially), you'd better damn well believe they're open to criticism for it.
|
On August 24 2011 07:07 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 06:04 Peterblue wrote:On August 24 2011 05:58 mcc wrote:On August 24 2011 05:39 Peterblue wrote:On August 24 2011 05:28 mcc wrote:On August 24 2011 05:04 H0i wrote:On August 24 2011 04:56 Whitewing wrote:On August 24 2011 04:48 H0i wrote:
First of all I'm not religious.
Now, saying things do not exist because you can not prove them with science is silly. With this logic, in the year 0, humans would not be made out of cells, because there were no microscopes to show this. Science is a helpful tool but it is not the ultimate truth, there is a lot it can't reach. Can you scientifically prove the existence or non-existence of an afterlife? You cannot. But I'm quite sure, that when you die, you'll figure out things aren't over yet. Assuming I am correct here, science just cannot prove it.
Rationality is subjective and there are some important areas science can not do anything with (yet). Saying something is false because it cannot be proven to be true just doesn't work. For someone who really likes science probably "god does not exist" is a very rational argument. For someone who grew up hearing things about this god all the time, "god exists" would be a rational argument.
I don't believe in god though, but I do believe in an afterlife. Talking about this more would derail this thread ever further, but I hope people understand what I mean. Inability to currently prove and lack of ability to theoretically prove are two different things, both based on current level of technology. And all your argument boils down to is that it was okay for them back then to have religious beliefs, but now that we know better they should go away. (I know this isn't what you meant to say, but this is the logical conclusion of that argument). You also have no basis for the "I'm quite sure, that when you die,...." You have no basis for that statement, you're essentially just making it up. The way logic works is simple: if you have no evidence to support something's existence, the default position is that it doesn't exist until you have evidence. Anything else is illogical and backwards. Sure, you're entitled to think what you want, but the rest of the world doesn't have to respect the same idea just because you believe it. Rationality, by the way, is not subjective, people just wish it was and want it to be. Fact of the matter is, rationality is very objective. As for the current republican candidates, Huntsman has no chance although I think he'd do an okay job and I would consider voting for him. As for the others? Probably not. There's a rumor floating around that Trump might throw his hat in the ring again, I at least think he'd be better than the others, despite the whole 'birther' thing. Rationality is entirely subjective. Assume we can not prove if a is false or true. At that point people usually step in and say "we can't prove it... but assuming it's true is more rational". But this is just nonsense, isn't it? This opinion on what would be the "rational" choice is just subjective to the persons individual experiences. To not mess up the thread too badly: + Show Spoiler +Rationality is objective, it has pretty objective definition and description, you should look it up.
Also we are not talking about "proof" in mathematical sense. We are talking about evidence. In absence of evidence it is rational to use principle of parsimony.
You do not say "God does not exist", but "There is no reason to believe God exists and it is irrational to believe so". That is what atheist is saying.
Regardless, his original point is that you should not be a militant atheist - don't be ignorant. If you're saying It's the only logically sound position to take -_-.
or
"Militant atheists" simply don't wish to live by a religious standard based on the morals or teachings of some bronze age tribesmen.
then you're a militant atheist. You're also a douchebag. If someone comes up to you and asks you about your beliefs, of course you can answer. But otherwise you shouldn't flaunt your atheism - be respectful. You may disagree with them, but there is no need to argue pointlessly. First, that was a different guy that posted about militant atheists. Also militant atheist is rather stupid and non-fitting name as they are in fact not militant. From your examples I can conclude that you consider guy who says "I believe in god." a douchebag ? Because it is as disrespectful as "It's the only logically sound position to take". Also respect is earned, I see no reason for respect, civility is different matter. I don't consider someone who says "i believe in God" a douchebag. I consider someone who says "I believe in God and you should too" to be one. Militant atheist is the term for it. Argue against it all you like but it's the term for it, so I'm not going to not use it. You're right. I mean civility, not respect. But you shouldn't disrespect them either. Nothing wrong with disrespecting blatant stupidity when it arises. As for being a douchebag, sure, I might be one sometimes, but at least I can logically show my position step by step and explain it reasonably and rationally, which is a necessary component of a sound position. So yeah, I'll take being an asshole over being irrational and stupid any day. At the end of the day, at least I can look myself in the mirror and say that I didn't compromise on what clearly makes sense. Further, this part of the discussion is referring the candidates, people who are running for president. When people run for office on a platform of religious beliefs (even if only partially), you'd better damn well believe they're open to criticism for it.
On a related note, it should be illegal to run on anything involved with religion...
|
Hey guys, religion is fascinating to me as well and I love to discuss it, but this thread is about the Republican nomination and I'd rather it didn't get closed. The existence or non-existence of God is not germane to the discussion, but the policies that Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann advocate certainly are.
The comment that John Huntsman believing in evolution will be a deal breaker for most Republican voters is relevant and in my opinion an accurate observation, but it appears that it was mis-interpreted and the train derailed from there.
I, for one, am very interested in each candidate's position about this tax cut issue that broke yesterday. Someone linked the AP article a few pages back but many people probably missed it amidst all the off-topic stuff.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REPUBLICANS_PAYROLL_TAX?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-08-22-04-04-22
|
On August 24 2011 11:14 Senorcuidado wrote:Hey guys, religion is fascinating to me as well and I love to discuss it, but this thread is about the Republican nomination and I'd rather it didn't get closed. The existence or non-existence of God is not germane to the discussion, but the policies that Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann advocate certainly are. The comment that John Huntsman believing in evolution will be a deal breaker for most Republican voters is relevant and in my opinion an accurate observation, but it appears that it was mis-interpreted and the train derailed from there. I, for one, am very interested in each candidate's position about this tax cut issue that broke yesterday. Someone linked the AP article a few pages back but many people probably missed it amidst all the off-topic stuff. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REPUBLICANS_PAYROLL_TAX?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-08-22-04-04-22
Hmmm, I don't really think we should discuss that. The major problem for the US is their bipartisanship, and pig headed sticking to ideals. If the Republicans are willing to moderate their stance we should not be hot on their heels to criticize them. Additionally, higher taxation is definitely necessary, along with MASSIVE spending cuts, if the US hopes to get rid of their debts. To not do so is ridiculously unresponsible, and could lead to them no longer being viewed as a world power.
EDIT: Oh, actually I guess we could discuss their stances, but I don't like the direction the article linked is going in. It reeks of bipartisanship.
|
On August 24 2011 11:23 Peterblue wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 11:14 Senorcuidado wrote:Hey guys, religion is fascinating to me as well and I love to discuss it, but this thread is about the Republican nomination and I'd rather it didn't get closed. The existence or non-existence of God is not germane to the discussion, but the policies that Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann advocate certainly are. The comment that John Huntsman believing in evolution will be a deal breaker for most Republican voters is relevant and in my opinion an accurate observation, but it appears that it was mis-interpreted and the train derailed from there. I, for one, am very interested in each candidate's position about this tax cut issue that broke yesterday. Someone linked the AP article a few pages back but many people probably missed it amidst all the off-topic stuff. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REPUBLICANS_PAYROLL_TAX?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-08-22-04-04-22 Hmmm, I don't really think we should discuss that. The major problem for the US is their bipartisanship, and pig headed sticking to ideals. If the Republicans are willing to moderate their stance we should not be hot on their heels to criticize them. Additionally, higher taxation is definitely necessary, along with MASSIVE spending cuts, if the US hopes to get rid of their debts. To not do so is ridiculously unresponsible, and could lead to them no longer being viewed as a world power. EDIT: Oh, actually I guess we could discuss their stances, but I don't like the direction the article linked is going in. It reeks of bipartisanship.
So our problems are bipartisanship, and sticking to ideals? Huh?
Then you say we should increase taxation and cut spending, but bipartisanship is bad?
I don't get it, but at least it's better than the endless and pointless debate on religion that invades every other thread. Good luck getting people to discuss taxes when they want to just repeat that republicans and christians are crazy.
|
On August 24 2011 11:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 11:23 Peterblue wrote:On August 24 2011 11:14 Senorcuidado wrote:Hey guys, religion is fascinating to me as well and I love to discuss it, but this thread is about the Republican nomination and I'd rather it didn't get closed. The existence or non-existence of God is not germane to the discussion, but the policies that Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann advocate certainly are. The comment that John Huntsman believing in evolution will be a deal breaker for most Republican voters is relevant and in my opinion an accurate observation, but it appears that it was mis-interpreted and the train derailed from there. I, for one, am very interested in each candidate's position about this tax cut issue that broke yesterday. Someone linked the AP article a few pages back but many people probably missed it amidst all the off-topic stuff. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REPUBLICANS_PAYROLL_TAX?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-08-22-04-04-22 Hmmm, I don't really think we should discuss that. The major problem for the US is their bipartisanship, and pig headed sticking to ideals. If the Republicans are willing to moderate their stance we should not be hot on their heels to criticize them. Additionally, higher taxation is definitely necessary, along with MASSIVE spending cuts, if the US hopes to get rid of their debts. To not do so is ridiculously unresponsible, and could lead to them no longer being viewed as a world power. EDIT: Oh, actually I guess we could discuss their stances, but I don't like the direction the article linked is going in. It reeks of bipartisanship. So our problems are bipartisanship, and sticking to ideals? Huh? Then you say we should increase taxation and cut spending, but bipartisanship is bad? I don't get it, but at least it's better than the endless and pointless debate on religion that invades every other thread. Good luck getting people to discuss taxes when they want to just repeat that republicans and christians are crazy.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not...
I'm not saying that increasing taxes and lowering spending is necessary 100%... but I mean, it kind of is if you ever want to get rid of that debt. I guess you could pass it on to future generations and wash your hands of it, which is why I said not dealing with it is irresponsible.
And yes, I consider the people who debate constantly about the antics of extremist factions to be the Jersey Shore drama/trash section of politics. I definitely prefer discussing taxes over that, because taxation is actually somewhat important.
I really don't get what confused you so much in my previous post, anyways.
|
On August 24 2011 11:37 Peterblue wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 11:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 24 2011 11:23 Peterblue wrote:On August 24 2011 11:14 Senorcuidado wrote:Hey guys, religion is fascinating to me as well and I love to discuss it, but this thread is about the Republican nomination and I'd rather it didn't get closed. The existence or non-existence of God is not germane to the discussion, but the policies that Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann advocate certainly are. The comment that John Huntsman believing in evolution will be a deal breaker for most Republican voters is relevant and in my opinion an accurate observation, but it appears that it was mis-interpreted and the train derailed from there. I, for one, am very interested in each candidate's position about this tax cut issue that broke yesterday. Someone linked the AP article a few pages back but many people probably missed it amidst all the off-topic stuff. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REPUBLICANS_PAYROLL_TAX?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-08-22-04-04-22 Hmmm, I don't really think we should discuss that. The major problem for the US is their bipartisanship, and pig headed sticking to ideals. If the Republicans are willing to moderate their stance we should not be hot on their heels to criticize them. Additionally, higher taxation is definitely necessary, along with MASSIVE spending cuts, if the US hopes to get rid of their debts. To not do so is ridiculously unresponsible, and could lead to them no longer being viewed as a world power. EDIT: Oh, actually I guess we could discuss their stances, but I don't like the direction the article linked is going in. It reeks of bipartisanship. So our problems are bipartisanship, and sticking to ideals? Huh? Then you say we should increase taxation and cut spending, but bipartisanship is bad? I don't get it, but at least it's better than the endless and pointless debate on religion that invades every other thread. Good luck getting people to discuss taxes when they want to just repeat that republicans and christians are crazy. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not... I'm not saying that increasing taxes and lowering spending is necessary 100%... but I mean, it kind of is if you ever want to get rid of that debt. I guess you could pass it on to future generations and wash your hands of it, which is why I said not dealing with it is irresponsible. And yes, I consider the people who debate constantly about the antics of extremist factions to be the Jersey Shore drama/trash section of politics. I definitely prefer discussing taxes over that, because taxation is actually somewhat important. I really don't get what confused you so much in my previous post, anyways.
What confused me is that bipartisanship is the opposite of sticking to ideals, and you say both are bad.
Also, you say we should increase taxes and cut spending, which requires bipartisanship, which you repeat is bad. You are contradicting yourself.
|
I honestly can't read these political threads anymore, I get tired of blatant narcissism and stupidity from wayyy to many people. So tired of the Atheism vs Religion crap. If you don't believe, fine. If you do, whatever. With how absurdly politically correct society is today, In no manner will any first world country be ruled in a theocratic fashion.
|
On August 24 2011 11:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 11:37 Peterblue wrote:On August 24 2011 11:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 24 2011 11:23 Peterblue wrote:On August 24 2011 11:14 Senorcuidado wrote:Hey guys, religion is fascinating to me as well and I love to discuss it, but this thread is about the Republican nomination and I'd rather it didn't get closed. The existence or non-existence of God is not germane to the discussion, but the policies that Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann advocate certainly are. The comment that John Huntsman believing in evolution will be a deal breaker for most Republican voters is relevant and in my opinion an accurate observation, but it appears that it was mis-interpreted and the train derailed from there. I, for one, am very interested in each candidate's position about this tax cut issue that broke yesterday. Someone linked the AP article a few pages back but many people probably missed it amidst all the off-topic stuff. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REPUBLICANS_PAYROLL_TAX?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-08-22-04-04-22 Hmmm, I don't really think we should discuss that. The major problem for the US is their bipartisanship, and pig headed sticking to ideals. If the Republicans are willing to moderate their stance we should not be hot on their heels to criticize them. Additionally, higher taxation is definitely necessary, along with MASSIVE spending cuts, if the US hopes to get rid of their debts. To not do so is ridiculously unresponsible, and could lead to them no longer being viewed as a world power. EDIT: Oh, actually I guess we could discuss their stances, but I don't like the direction the article linked is going in. It reeks of bipartisanship. So our problems are bipartisanship, and sticking to ideals? Huh? Then you say we should increase taxation and cut spending, but bipartisanship is bad? I don't get it, but at least it's better than the endless and pointless debate on religion that invades every other thread. Good luck getting people to discuss taxes when they want to just repeat that republicans and christians are crazy. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not... I'm not saying that increasing taxes and lowering spending is necessary 100%... but I mean, it kind of is if you ever want to get rid of that debt. I guess you could pass it on to future generations and wash your hands of it, which is why I said not dealing with it is irresponsible. And yes, I consider the people who debate constantly about the antics of extremist factions to be the Jersey Shore drama/trash section of politics. I definitely prefer discussing taxes over that, because taxation is actually somewhat important. I really don't get what confused you so much in my previous post, anyways. What confused me is that bipartisanship is the opposite of sticking to ideals, and you say both are bad. Also, you say we should increase taxes and cut spending, which requires bipartisanship, which you repeat is bad. You are contradicting yourself.
Ah, I see what you mean. Sorry I was using bipartisanship instead of partisanship, I guess would be the correct term. So reread it with that in mind and I think it's non-contradictory.
I can really see why you were confused haha. My bad.
|
TL.net wants Bachmann to win?
is that a joke
|
On August 24 2011 12:32 insomdapowahouz wrote:
TL.net wants Bachmann to win?
is that a joke
I honestly do want Bachmann to win.
Consider what would happen if she were to gain Republican nomination - she would obviously rack up the votes of the right wing nut jobs, but that's not anything new for Republicans. They already do so every election, because their only voting option is the Republicans. However, if she were to win she would also alienate a LARGE section of the more moderate conservatives, essentially guaranteeing whoever runs against her a pretty easy victory. She would lose probably about 15-20% of the total vote that a Republican candidate would hope to get, making it impossible for her to win. Also, the swing states would just never vote for her.
If she were to win, the US would be completely and absolutely fucked, I feel, but she won't.
|
Okay I didn't think it meant strategically, just who you wanted to see president
|
On August 24 2011 12:32 insomdapowahouz wrote:
TL.net wants Bachmann to win?
is that a joke
If TL.net wants Obama to win, then TL.net will want Bachmann to win the Republican nomination. EZ victory for Obama.
|
eh.. my rule of thumb is if they say creationism should be taught in school (*coughbachmanncough*) they're an idiot
if they're a new-earth creationist they're a complete idiot.
|
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html
Has been posted previously but it is well worth a read. In particular Mr Perry seems to have a hard-on for congressional power. There also seems to be a nice contradiction in his positions.
Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.
His reasoning behind this is "'[W]e should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability," Which in my language means he believes that lifetime membership on the most important judicial bench is bad because people can't show their agreement / disagreement with the judges positions. Basically, if the country doesn't like a judge they can get bent.
Another idea of his is
End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.
Now this seems to me contradictory to the sentiments he used for changing supreme court tenure. If you believe judges should be held accountable for their decisions, why would you repeal a system where senators are directly voted for by the public. Repealing this amendment adds a layer of confusion where it isn't needed. Senators are currently directly responsible to the electorate they represent. Why change it?
As I said he seems to have a hard-on for congressional power, which is scary given the short timelines that the congress operates on. Important decisions should be independent of the every day politicking. Supreme court judges are already being scrutinised for possible political leanings, imagine if they changed every four years? Where would the consistency come from? You can't have a federal bench supporting a position on say Roe vs Wade (silly example I know) and then changing position regularly.
This just seems a weird thing to take a controversial position on. Judges need to be independent, lifetime tenure gives them that.
|
On August 24 2011 14:38 Probulous wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.htmlHas been posted previously but it is well worth a read. In particular Mr Perry seems to have a hard-on for congressional power. There also seems to be a nice contradiction in his positions. Show nested quote +Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution. His reasoning behind this is Show nested quote +"'[W]e should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability," Which in my language means he believes that lifetime membership on the most important judicial bench is bad because people can't show their agreement / disagreement with the judges positions. Basically, if the country doesn't like a judge they can get bent. Another idea of his is Show nested quote + End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment. Now this seems to me contradictory to the sentiments he used for changing supreme court tenure. If you believe judges should be held accountable for their decisions, why would you repeal a system where senators are directly voted for by the public. Repealing this amendment adds a layer of confusion where it isn't needed. Senators are currently directly responsible to the electorate they represent. Why change it? As I said he seems to have a hard-on for congressional power, which is scary given the short timelines that the congress operates on. Important decisions should be independent of the every day politicking. Supreme court judges are already being scrutinised for possible political leanings, imagine if they changed every four years? Where would the consistency come from? You can't have a federal bench supporting a position on say Roe vs Wade (silly example I know) and then changing position regularly. This just seems a weird thing to take a controversial position on. Judges need to be independent, lifetime tenure gives them that.
Yes he is contradicting himself, pretty normal for a politician
He just wants to erode independence of judicial branch, because that would suit him and his friends to push their social policies. He wants to amend the constitution to forbid gay marriage and to make abortions state matter (basically meaning that in Republican states abortion will be illegal).
As for the senators I am not sure why he wants it that way, but in 19th century I think senators were selected in a way he proposes so maybe he just wants to go back to the original way of doing it ?
|
While the rest of the world is busy avoiding a new global recession, America is busy arguing about abortions and evolution.
Good job!
|
On August 24 2011 17:15 liepzig wrote:
While the rest of the world is busy avoiding a new global recession, America is busy arguing about abortions and evolution.
Good job!
As I said, they're the Jersey Shore of politics. In Canada our politics is literally focused on actually useful stuff(because there is very little interesting happening), but in the US it's focused on the people in politics, and their opinions... it's a pretty shitty way to run the biggest country in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
