Jump to content

McCain VP choice


john5746

Recommended Posts

This conversation between you and waitforufo is probably as boring for the rest of the membership as mine with bascule at the moment. I don't think waitforufo has produced a lot of substance, no, and I told him before that he shouldn't have started on the invective, but if you continue it this is where it goes. You should probably give up on trying to convince him, just as I should probably give up on trying to get bascule to stop using ellipses and just say what he feels.......... :rolleyes:

 

I do have some advice: Find some common ground and agree to disagree on the rest.

 

All right I'll let it go. And I will try in the future to make my comments less personal in nature. But iNow has never called himself an atheist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not relevant to the topic, now is that?

 

Open a new thread if you'd like to discuss it further. I'd be happy to engage you on why we don't need the term atheist (just like I don't call myself a non-racist or a non-numerologist)... Again, new thread though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I'm an atheist, and am confident in my views, so definetly had my bullshit detectors ringing pretty quickly in the above)

 

If your atheism was not an appropriate topic for the thread, why did you bring it up in post 104?

 

By the way I didn't know the beginners atheist kit came with bell equiped bullshit detectors. Cool! Where do I sign up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fannie and Freddie are private. No impact to tax payers. Once the government bailout is complete, THEN it will impact tax payers. But, there I go, reading what people ACTUALLY said and judging them on it.

 

The difference with your analogy to Ron Paul is that your example with him were basic abstract principles, whereas with Palin it was a real world issue that she completely misframed.

 

Kind of like Biden and his apparent stupidity concerning wheelchair bound paraplegics? Healthcare is a real world issue and he doesn't even know what a wheelchair is for? He obviously is out of touch with medicine, modern and antiquated if he can't even identify a wheelchaired man and recognize the poor man can't stand up. A man who's a big supporter of stem cell research, a democrat issue.

 

Right? Hey, I'm just judging what people ACTUALLY say and do. Who cares if it's one incident taken out of context? Who cares about clarifying it?

 

Who cares about all those threads we participated in months before the primaries where we all nodded about how stupid it is that we don't allow candidates/legislators to be human? That they're not allowed to misspeak, nor given a chance to clarify statements because we, the people, expect them to be slicker than shit salesmen?

 

Sorry, but I'm not playing that stupid game iNow. Palin has plenty of stands and positions that are wrong in their substance. There's no need to play along with silly games and sound bites recorded here and there, partial quotes with no context, that supposedly show how stupid a person is. If they're that stupid, you won't need to grab a "snipet" from your favorite liberal rag, rather the entire conversation will be a highlight.

 

Between Palin and the disgusting shit coming out of the extreme left, and McCain and their stupid lipstick game...

 

Vote for Ron Paul people, or write in your favorite guy/gal. Stop letting the elite lecture you on morality while they demonstrate their impression of children on the playground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your atheism was not an appropriate topic for the thread, why did you bring it up in post 104?

 

By the way I didn't know the beginners atheist kit came with bell equiped bullshit detectors. Cool! Where do I sign up?

 

That comment was made immediately prior to sharing a video of Sarah Palin talking earlier this summer to her church where she asked them to pray for the successful implementation of an oil pipeline which god wanted, and where she said that we are doing gods work in Iraq.

 

Openly stating that I do not believe in god was my way to acknowledge my own bias and interpretation of the clip. My secondary point was that I was simply using the shorthand most likely to be understood by readers here by calling myself "atheist." The term "atheist," however, would not be necessary if our world finally woke up to rationality and critical thinking. We have collectively decided that racism is wrong and stupid, but we don't have a word for non-racists. We have collectively decided that astrology is bunk, but we don't need a word for "non-astrologers." My point is that the religions and gods of today will die and be buried in that mass graveyard which represents the ancient mythology of our ancestors. Today's god will soon enough be looked upon like Thor and Zeus and Apollo are today, and the unfounded, unsubstantiated beliefs will be rejected so fully that we won't need a word for "non-theists," much like we don't need a word for "non-numerologists." Open a new thread. I'll give you the "Why the word atheism is unecessary" presentation in greater detail.

 

 

Now, for the 28th time, you still have no substance, and you are still diverting this thread away from the primary topic and trying to focus on me.

 

You clearly ARE a republican. Screw the issues. Let's talk about the other guy using lies, retarded logic, and distractions. :doh:

 

 

 


line[/hr]

 

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/09/the_definition_of_theistic_rat.php

Since all of the religions with which they were familiar promoted morality, they held that virtually all religions were more or less equally valid and led to the same God who is called by many names. Theistic rationalists generally disdained doctrines or dogmas. They found them to be divisive, speculative, and ultimately unimportant since many roads lead to God.

 

 

This is an excellent description of the views of the leading founders - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin. In a new paper, Frazer argues that Gouverneur Morris, one of the most unjustly ignored of the founding fathers, also fits that description.

 

The problem here is that most people have attempted to fit the founders into one of two categories, Christian or deist. But as Frazer notes, deism in that day and age was much more hostile toward Christianity than these men were:

 

In addition, deism was in many ways as much a critique of Christianity as a religion of its own. Deist thought rejected virtually every tenet and fundamental of Christianity and deists were generally critical of Christianity's central figure: Jesus. In short, deists wanted nothing to do with Christianity or its Christ. While theistic rationalists shared some ideas with deists, they had a much greater regard for Christianity and for Jesus than did most deists.

Thus we could have Thomas Jefferson reject the notion that Jesus was anything but a mere human being while simultaneously embracing the ethical system of Jesus as the most perfect and sublime ever invented. And thus many of these men could talk of the many corruptions and lies in orthodox Christianity while simultaneously praising other aspects of that religion and believing that it was generally a good thing because it made people more moral.

 
Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vote for Ron Paul people, or write in your favorite guy/gal. Stop letting the elite lecture you on morality while they demonstrate their impression of children on the playground.

 

Not while he denounces the current candidates while standing next to Cynthia McKinney, of all people. That'd be like voting for Saruman because he found a really cool black orb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not while he denounces the current candidates while standing next to Cynthia McKinney, of all people. That'd be like voting for Saruman because he found a really cool black orb.

 

Damn, so now my guy is going down for guilt by association also?

 

Surely you know it's about rejecting the two party system, not embracing the Green Party?

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gj4x1Ijw4MDlWEadWey5y9c0GlhgD9340JAG0

 

He appeared at a news conference with three third-party candidates: independent Ralph Nader; former Georgia Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party candidate; and Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate. Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate, was invited but said at his own news conference later that he declined because Paul didn't endorse one candidate.

 

The majority of Americans, about 60 percent, are unhappy with their choices in the race, Paul said. He urged the three third-party candidates to bring all their supporters together to vote against the "establishment candidates."

 

 

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10436693/1/ron-paul-dismisses-mccain-obama.html?puc=googlen&cm_ven=GOOGLEN&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA

 

"The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems. This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates -- Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others."

 

I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn, so now my guy is going down for guilt by association also?

 

Um, dude, it was a joint press conference -- he made the association deliberately.

 

Paul called the presidential elections a charade and said voters are faced with the "lesser of two evils."

 

Then he actually stood there and told people that the differences between the smaller parties were trivial and that we should come together and vote for them in order to reject the major parties. I actually agree with that basic reasoning' date=' but he couldn't have done a worse job undermining his point if he'd resurrected Adolf Hitler and put HIM on the podium. Voting for Cynthia McKinney wouldn't be selecting an alternative. It would be choosing an even GREATER evil.

 

The majority of Americans, about 60 percent, are unhappy with their choices in the race, Paul said. He urged the three third-party candidates to bring all their supporters together to vote against the "establishment candidates."

 

Paul deliberately associated himself with the kind of crackpots who post in our Pseudoscience and Speculations board on 9/11 conspiracies, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system' date=' which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems. This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates -- Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others."

[/quote']

 

Looks like I'll be voting for Ron Paul then. I too wish to see the end of the two party system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, dude, it was a joint press conference -- he made the association deliberately.

 

Correct. Not sure why you're pointing out the obvious, but that's cool.

 

Then he actually stood there and told people that the differences between the smaller parties were trivial and that we should come together and vote for them in order to reject the major parties. I actually agree with that basic reasoning, but he couldn't have done a worse job undermining his point if he'd resurrected Adolf Hitler and put HIM on the podium. Voting for Cynthia McKinney wouldn't be selecting an alternative. It would be choosing an even GREATER evil.

 

That's fair. I think it was about rejecting the two party system since he endorsed three candidates, all of which were third party candidates, rather than a statement of character. So, I don't think he cared if Hitler was on stage. He was endorsing a third party voting message without reverance to those third party's ideologies (the Green Party and Nader's Party are practically the anti-thesis of Paul's platform).

 

Paul deliberately associated himself with the kind of crackpots who post in our Pseudoscience and Speculations board on 9/11 conspiracies, etc.

 

Yeah, I wish he'd speak out against them, but he won't. He refuses to counter groups that support him, and I guess here he's even giving support. I can understand if that bothers you, but it doesn't bother me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That comment was made immediately prior to sharing a video of Sarah Palin talking earlier this summer to her church where she asked them to pray for the successful implementation of an oil pipeline which god wanted, and where she said that we are doing gods work in Iraq.

 

Actually it had to do with our claim below.

 

"Did I mention that she supports … wars with Iraq because Jesus told us to?" (iNow #88)

 

You justified this claim with a YouTube video.

 

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k)

 

From that video you took the following quote.

 

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." (iNow #108)

 

Now I promised to stop making this about you and me, so instead let's parse the above quote shall we.

 

First we have "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God."

 

The intention of the sentence above turns on the word "Pray." She is asking the congregation to pray for three things.

 

1) "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right."

 

2) Pray "also for this country."

 

3) Pray "that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task from God."

 

Any problem with the above so far?

 

You seem to have a problem with 3) above. I think we can agree that the "them" she is referring to in 3) are the "men and women" of 1) above. Correct? In the context of the sentence, Palin seems to be asking the congregation to pray that our national leaders are sending our men and women out on a correct task.

 

Item 3) above seems to be quite different from "Did I mention that she supports … wars with Iraq because Jesus told us to?"

 

Perhaps my interpretation of "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God" is confused.

 

Palin seems to understand that this sentence she just delivered was a bit awkward. So she provides a sentence of clarification. She then says "That's what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

 

Why would she think it important that the plan we are on is in fact "God's plan." As a religious person, would she see danger in a path that was different from "God's plan?" I think she would.

 

Perhaps the interpretation of Palin's quote should not be left to someone who has an active distain for religion.

 

When you give the quote in post 108 you bold text "on a task that is from God." These words mean little without context. I hope I have provided such context.

 

I fail to understand the context of the information about Christianity and Deism. As a side note however I am surprised by your fascination with Deism. Deist's are the ultimate believers in Intelligent Design. Design so perfect it needs no intervention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the love of Thor, you're a dumbass. You have misrepresented me so horribly that it's no wonder we're arguing. You have no idea what I'm actually talking about.

 

As a citizen of this country, I can interpret words from our politicians just as any other citizen, regardless if I am religious or not.

My comments on deism regarded the founding fathers, and not my own approach to spirituality.

Her comments about god are representative of larger neuroses, and you couldn't have missed my point more (remember how I kept asking how her religious views are supposed to be any different from Osama bin Laden's?).

 

Further, you continue to misquote the actual words to which I was responding so as to strawman my actual position.

 

Finally, despite your opening comment, you did (in fact) continue posting about me instead of issues... like economics, job creation, the environment, foreign policy, the war where we keep sending our kids to die for no good reason, etc.

 

 

 

Pangloss - Would you kindly close this thread? This is just getting worse and worse.

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I wish he'd speak out against them, but he won't. He refuses to counter groups that support him, and I guess here he's even giving support. I can understand if that bothers you, but it doesn't bother me.

 

I have to admit I'm a little twitchy when it comes to anything involving Cynthia McKinney. Whether it's accusing the Bush administration of being behind 9/11 or the New Orleans levy collapses, refusing to abide by reasonable security measures and attacking Capital Hill police, or just being the very embodiment of all that has gone wrong with black leadership in this country since the King assassination, she really rubs me the wrong way.

 

But in the interest of fairness, she's not comparable to Hitler, and I should not have said that. (Not that you were asking, but I wanted to say something anyway.)

 

Mod note: Closing thread because I agree with iNow, you guys are just being silly now and I think it's a good time to cut it off so we can move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.