EPTrick santorum : bomb em
romney : bomb em
newt : bomb em
ron paul : don't bomb em
Republican nominations - Page 479
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
TheGeneralTheoryOf
235 Posts
rick santorum : bomb em romney : bomb em newt : bomb em ron paul : don't bomb em | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On February 23 2012 20:18 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: let me sum it up for you : rick santorum : bomb em romney : bomb em newt : bomb em ron paul : don't bomb em Rick Santorum: Prevent nuclear war in middle-east Romney: Prevent nuclear war in middle-east Newt: Prevent nuclear war in the middle-east: Ron Paul: Allow Iran to start a nuclear war and murder hundreds of millions in the middle-east. Like this? | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On February 23 2012 15:12 Holophonist wrote: I'm not sure if that was an open invitation to anybody or not but real quick: The idea that allows me to believe in God is that humans are relatively moronic (and arrogant) in what we think we know. We really don't necessarily know anything about the creation of the universe and whatever the "answer" ends up being, it's going to be something we thought impossible at one point or another. I think it's ridiculous that the people who belittle me for believing in God are a lot of the same people who are becoming more and more open to some off the wall (though probably true!) theories about the univers, including ones involved alternate dimensions/realities. So we can believe in another plane of existence, as long as we don't call it heaven or hell? Eh, many atheists is open to the possibility there's a god just as they are open to scientific theories. Being open to something is not the same thing as having faith or believing something exists. What's your point? | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On February 23 2012 20:23 zalz wrote: Rick Santorum: Prevent nuclear war in middle-east Romney: Prevent nuclear war in middle-east Newt: Prevent nuclear war in the middle-east: Ron Paul: Allow Iran to start a nuclear war and murder hundreds of millions in the middle-east. Like this? The responses of Santorum/Romney/Newt were just as insane as Ron Paul's. Burying your head in the sand isn't an option, but great diplomacy isn't exactly made up out of idiot candidates threatening airstrikes and unconditional support of Israel. That said, my favorite moment of the debate was where Paul claimed 'immoral people' used contraception. Eat that, 99% of US citizens ;p. I don't think the debate changed much, maybe a little return to Romney but who knows at this point. Both Romney and Santorum performed good enough not to lose massive support I'd say. | ||
|
gold_
Canada312 Posts
VIDEO LINK: | ||
|
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
On February 23 2012 20:23 zalz wrote: Rick Santorum: Prevent nuclear war in middle-east Romney: Prevent nuclear war in middle-east Newt: Prevent nuclear war in the middle-east: Ron Paul: Allow Iran to start a nuclear war and murder hundreds of millions in the middle-east. Like this? Why would the iranies bother with bombing anybody? They might get bombs but having bombs doesnt imply that they'll use them. North Korea has A-Bombs and did you see them use them yet? If Iran wants to hurt someone they pull the plug on their Oil exports to the respective country. That hurts much more then having a bomb they cant use anyway. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On February 23 2012 15:12 Holophonist wrote: I'm not sure if that was an open invitation to anybody or not but real quick: The idea that allows me to believe in God is that humans are relatively moronic (and arrogant) in what we think we know. We really don't necessarily know anything about the creation of the universe and whatever the "answer" ends up being, it's going to be something we thought impossible at one point or another. I think it's ridiculous that the people who belittle me for believing in God are a lot of the same people who are becoming more and more open to some off the wall (though probably true!) theories about the univers, including ones involved alternate dimensions/realities. So we can believe in another plane of existence, as long as we don't call it heaven or hell? Entertaining the possibility of there being multiple universes or multiple dimensions when theory says it is a possibility is not the same as believing in it. There is absolutely no evidence or any scientific theory even remotely suggesting that your soul magically travels to heaven or hell after death and remains there for all eternity. That is simply absurd and ridiculous. You're just making shit up to fill in our gaps in scientific knowledge. And yes, you would be a moron to believe this baseless fairy tale. | ||
|
TheAntZ
Israel6248 Posts
On February 23 2012 15:12 Holophonist wrote: I'm not sure if that was an open invitation to anybody or not but real quick: The idea that allows me to believe in God is that humans are relatively moronic (and arrogant) in what we think we know. We really don't necessarily know anything about the creation of the universe and whatever the "answer" ends up being, it's going to be something we thought impossible at one point or another. I think it's ridiculous that the people who belittle me for believing in God are a lot of the same people who are becoming more and more open to some off the wall (though probably true!) theories about the univers, including ones involved alternate dimensions/realities. So we can believe in another plane of existence, as long as we don't call it heaven or hell? Its ironic that you label all human beings (or perhaps all of them that dont embrace the obvious truth that is Jesus?) as arrogant, but at the same time you believe there are entire planes of existence, created for the sole purpose of judging human beings. That an omnipotent being with the ability to create the entire fucking universe would spend effort playing with and observing the relatively irrelevant human race. That such a being would require or even want worship and adulation. Yeah, I dont know anything about the creation of the universe, which is why I believe a higher force may or may not have been involved. Maybe there really was nothingness before, I dont know, and I dont claim to. But at least I dont make arrogant as fuck claims that if such a being did exist, it would be creating entire new universes/dimensions specifically for rewarding or punishing one species from one specific planet. | ||
|
Mordanis
United States893 Posts
On February 23 2012 22:32 paralleluniverse wrote: Entertaining the possibility of there being multiple universes or multiple dimensions when theory says it is a possibility is not the same as believing in it. There is absolutely no evidence or any scientific theory even remotely suggesting that your soul magically travels to heaven or hell after death and remains there for all eternity. That is simply absurd and ridiculous. You're just making shit up to fill in our gaps in scientific knowledge. And yes, you would be a moron to believe this baseless fairy tale. There is also no concrete evidence against it. Back in the Medieval period, someone could have said "The Sun, the Earth, and the planets are grouped with that band of light we call the Milky Way into a 'galaxy'", and a response could have been "I haven't seen evidence supporting this conclusion". Just because no evidence has been found yet does not imply that none will be found in the future. You are just as blind in your opposing of this as the people who believe they go to heaven. You are making things up to fill in gaps in scientific "knowledge" Remember with science, people "knew" that kinetic energy was E=mv^2, but then some guy came along and said that is only accurate in a few cases. How can you be so arrogant as to "know" that this won't happen with any of the currently accepted theories? It is great to say "I think this theory is very likely", but terrible to say "I think this theory is correct". Edit: OT, I think I'm going to vote fore Paul because A)he has no chance to win, and I don't really want to support any of the candidates, and B) I actually like some things he says (reduce debt, reduce warmongering). Quite the meh field for a first election, but oh well... | ||
|
TheAntZ
Israel6248 Posts
On February 24 2012 00:02 Mordanis wrote: There is also no concrete evidence against it. Back in the Medieval period, someone could have said "The Sun, the Earth, and the planets are grouped with that band of light we call the Milky Way into a 'galaxy'", and a response could have been "I haven't seen evidence supporting this conclusion". Just because no evidence has been found yet does not imply that none will be found in the future. You are just as blind in your opposing of this as the people who believe they go to heaven. You are making things up to fill in gaps in scientific "knowledge" Remember with science, people "knew" that kinetic energy was E=mv^2, but then some guy came along and said that is only accurate in a few cases. How can you be so arrogant as to "know" that this won't happen with any of the currently accepted theories? It is great to say "I think this theory is very likely", but terrible to say "I think this theory is correct". Of course it is, because if a theory is correct its no longer a theory. Its a law. But in answer to your post, let me ask you this. Do you believe, beyond the hint of a doubt, that there is no invisible double decker burger floating in orbit around the earth? Because based on your post I'd have to assume that you believe anything is possible, no matter how absurd, as long as it cant be disproved. So I ask, does this mean you think there exists ANY possibility at all that there is a giant, invisible, intangible burger revolving around our planet? | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On February 24 2012 00:02 Mordanis wrote: There is also no concrete evidence against it. Back in the Medieval period, someone could have said "The Sun, the Earth, and the planets are grouped with that band of light we call the Milky Way into a 'galaxy'", and a response could have been "I haven't seen evidence supporting this conclusion". Just because no evidence has been found yet does not imply that none will be found in the future. You are just as blind in your opposing of this as the people who believe they go to heaven. You are making things up to fill in gaps in scientific "knowledge" Remember with science, people "knew" that kinetic energy was E=mv^2, but then some guy came along and said that is only accurate in a few cases. How can you be so arrogant as to "know" that this won't happen with any of the currently accepted theories? It is great to say "I think this theory is very likely", but terrible to say "I think this theory is correct". Edit: OT, I think I'm going to vote fore Paul because A)he has no chance to win, and I don't really want to support any of the candidates, and B) I actually like some things he says (reduce debt, reduce warmongering). Quite the meh field for a first election, but oh well... There's nothing wrong saying "I think this theory is correct." The word "think" is the important part. Knowing something is another matter. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On February 24 2012 00:02 Mordanis wrote: There is also no concrete evidence against it. Back in the Medieval period, someone could have said "The Sun, the Earth, and the planets are grouped with that band of light we call the Milky Way into a 'galaxy'", and a response could have been "I haven't seen evidence supporting this conclusion". Just because no evidence has been found yet does not imply that none will be found in the future. You are just as blind in your opposing of this as the people who believe they go to heaven. You are making things up to fill in gaps in scientific "knowledge" Remember with science, people "knew" that kinetic energy was E=mv^2, but then some guy came along and said that is only accurate in a few cases. How can you be so arrogant as to "know" that this won't happen with any of the currently accepted theories? It is great to say "I think this theory is very likely", but terrible to say "I think this theory is correct". Edit: OT, I think I'm going to vote fore Paul because A)he has no chance to win, and I don't really want to support any of the candidates, and B) I actually like some things he says (reduce debt, reduce warmongering). Quite the meh field for a first election, but oh well... The difference is, is that you can be humble and admit you don't know, and base your decisions off what you do know, or you can be arrogant and say "No, I know there definitely is a heaven." We simply don't know, and the way logic works, is that you assume there isn't one until proven otherwise. It's idiocy to act on the existence of something when there is no evidence it exists, because it's even more likely that it doesn't exist than it does. This goes for anything we don't know about. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On February 23 2012 20:23 zalz wrote: Rick Santorum: Prevent nuclear war in middle-east Romney: Prevent nuclear war in middle-east Newt: Prevent nuclear war in the middle-east: Ron Paul: Allow Iran to start a nuclear war and murder hundreds of millions in the middle-east. Like this? Iran wouldn't "start a nuclear war", I'm not sure why people assume they would. The speed at which they would fall on their knees would be ridiculous and they know that. On February 24 2012 00:12 Whitewing wrote: The difference is, is that you can be humble and admit you don't know, and base your decisions off what you do know, or you can be arrogant and say "No, I know there definitely is a heaven." We simply don't know, and the way logic works, is that you assume there isn't one until proven otherwise. It's idiocy to act on the existence of something when there is no evidence it exists, because it's even more likely that it doesn't exist than it does. This goes for anything we don't know about. I still think it's odd that we make a special case for (some) religions when there's 0 evidence. We don't do that for scientology, and we don't do that for the existence of unicorns even though we can't prove that there are no unicorns. Most people aren't agnostic about weird conspiracy theories and conveniently impossible to prove alien stories. They outright deny them. Pretty much all of my beliefs, or at least a vast majority of them, are debatable in the realm of rationality, and in many cases I'm open to change (generally only slightly  ). Yet religion is put on a pedestal and to merely question it is an insult, even when proper arguments are presented - and naturally it's because defending a "weak" position which has no evidence is hard. In this day and age, retreating to the "that's why it's called faith" position has to be uncomfortable. That's why some of the feel like they're under attack, although in the US, atheists are a much more hated minority - their billboards get censored and such.To defend themselves they say "I'm allowed to believe anything I want", and I'm not aggressive toward that kind of thinking. Try to understand though, and this is my opinion. Atheists tend* to be on the left - we have a vision of the world which we believe, whether you agree or not, to be favorable. Religious people tend* to be on the right, they have a vision of the world which they believe to be favorable. Naturally, both sides vehemently disagree with the other side. In many cases, the left thinks that the right is unknowingly sabotaging their country - damaging the "social fiber" and the economy - and vice-versa. (And that's spiced up by the fact that many politicians on both sides put the "war" of politics above the interest of the country) So again, try to understand that atheists, at least many of them, have a certain view of politics which is opposed to the right, and when they "fight" religion, it's in large part because they value rationality, especially in politics - religion shouldn't affect my life. Yes, some atheists just entertain a vile hatred of religion for whatever reason they may have, but bad people are bad. For my part, if you practice your religion in your home, you're cool so long as you don't sacrifice virgins to the Gods. But politics are serious business. I don't think it's good when GWB says they're going to war because God told him to - shouldn't he go for more "worldly" reasons? I don't like it when religion halts stem cell research which could lead to medical advances that may eventually save my life or the life of my (eventual) children. That's why Santorum is so scary, even to many religious folks. It's because he's a fundy, which is scary to many people. This is the real world, and it should be carefully handled by someone who knows the world. Not someone who's entire action plan is based around religion. *: Tend, as in tendency. Don't make a fuss about my generalization. | ||
|
Whole
United States6046 Posts
On February 23 2012 14:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Stop the religious debate. ^from two pages ago by a banling | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
People are insane to think that Iran is acquiring nuclear weapons to wreck havoc and kill as many people as possible. The greatest strength of a nuclear weapon is not that weapon itself, but the power that it gives a nation in terms of diplomacy. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On February 24 2012 00:59 Djzapz wrote: Iran wouldn't "start a nuclear war", I'm not sure why people assume they would. The speed at which they would fall on their knees would be ridiculous and they know that People always say that. But where is the logic behind forcing women to wear a veil? You aren't dealing with a rational enemy, you are dealing with a theocracy, one that regularly gets into heated arguments with Israel. Israel and Iran both have vested interests in the Israel/Palestina conflict. Now every time Israrel and Palestina get into a tussle, we have to take into account that Iran and Israel might start lobbing nukes at one another? And what about Saudi-Arabia? You can bet your life savings on the fact that they are going to try and get a nuke of their own. Now we have two countries, both fanatically religious (Saudi-Arabia even more than Iran) with nuclear weapons. Both of which hate the other and both of which hate the west and both of which hate Israel. One of which is run by a thieving band of royals whom rely on a group of salafist imams for support. It isn't a coincidence that most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi-Arabia. They really hate our guts over there. Iran's government might hate us, but the people in Iran are actually reasonably western by middle-eastern standards. Saudi-Arabia just hates us from top to bottom. The only reason they are BFF's with America is because they hate Iran more than America. Saudi-Arabia is going to collapse as soon as the oil runs out. What are they left with then? Their secularish royal family will get killed without their obscene ammount of money. Then we have the salafists in charge. Don't expect Saudi-Arabia to modernize its economy. The religious core was already calling the telephone an obscene intrusion of western culture. What logic is there behind flying yourself into a building? Logic does not dictate the world and it certainly does not dictate the middle-east and it most certainly does not dictate saudi-arabian salafist imams. Even if Iran doesn't throw the bomb, we are still facing a Saudi-Arabia that will get the bomb in return. Iran's regime with a bomb scares me, if Saudi-Arabia gets a bomb I will seriously start digging a shelter. You just can't let these countries get a bomb. Complain all you like about how it isn't fair because we have nukes. I am not going to let the world go down in a nuclear holocaust because of "fairness." | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On February 24 2012 02:10 zalz wrote: People always say that. But where is the logic behind forcing women to wear a veil? You aren't dealing with a rational enemy, you are dealing with a theocracy, one that regularly gets into heated arguments with Israel. Israel and Iran both have vested interests in the Israel/Palestina conflict. Now every time Israrel and Palestina get into a tussle, we have to take into account that Iran and Israel might start lobbing nukes at one another? And what about Saudi-Arabia? You can bet your life savings on the fact that they are going to try and get a nuke of their own. Now we have two countries, both fanatically religious (Saudi-Arabia even more than Iran) with nuclear weapons. Both of which hate the other and both of which hate the west and both of which hate Israel. One of which is run by a thieving band of royals whom rely on a group of salafist imams for support. It isn't a coincidence that most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi-Arabia. They really hate our guts over there. Iran's government might hate us, but the people in Iran are actually reasonably western by middle-eastern standards. Saudi-Arabia just hates us from top to bottom. The only reason they are BFF's with America is because they hate Iran more than America. Saudi-Arabia is going to collapse as soon as the oil runs out. What are they left with then? Their secularish royal family will get killed without their obscene ammount of money. Then we have the salafists in charge. Don't expect Saudi-Arabia to modernize its economy. The religious core was already calling the telephone an obscene intrusion of western culture. What logic is there behind flying yourself into a building? Logic does not dictate the world and it certainly does not dictate the middle-east and it most certainly does not dictate saudi-arabian salafist imams. Even if Iran doesn't throw the bomb, we are still facing a Saudi-Arabia that will get the bomb in return. Iran's regime with a bomb scares me, if Saudi-Arabia gets a bomb I will seriously start digging a shelter. You just can't let these countries get a bomb. Complain all you like about how it isn't fair because we have nukes. I am not going to let the world go down in a nuclear holocaust because of "fairness." Iran is not that crazy. NK and maybe Saudi Arabia is, but Iran does seem to have it's own interests in it's mind. We've stopped proliferation before and it wasn't by setting up antagonistic relationships, if I'm not mistaken. War is simply not the most effective method of deterrence and I'm tired of the fire and brimstone rhetoric. Moreover this warlike unilateral crap is completely undermining our authority as a world power. Edit: it should be mentioned that pursuing nuclear weapons is considered one of the four ways that states can lose their sovereignty (along with genocide, terrorism, and invasion, all of which Iraq demonstrated). However I don't think Iran has done any of the others, except maybe terrorism. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On February 24 2012 02:10 zalz wrote: But where is the logic behind forcing women to wear a veil? You aren't dealing with a rational enemy, you are dealing with a theocracy, one that regularly gets into heated arguments with Israel. I'm not defending it. I don't like Iran, and I don't like dictatorships or theocracies. I just don't think going to war against it is the way to go. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
But if there proves to be no way of getting Iran to stop working towards a nuke, then an invasion can be justified. I believe that going to war to prevent nuclear proliferation is a completly legit reason. Having said that, I really hope it doesn't get that far. I would be completly in favour of removing a lot of trade sanctions if that would get them to give up on the bomb. In the ideal situation, the people would rise up again and get rid of their theocracy which they obviously don't want either. Establish a democracy and really get their country back on track. The population of Iran is western enough to make it work. (*Que person that mentions the CIA overthrowing the Iranian democracy and pretend like it's new info) | ||
| ||
