Jump to content

McCain VP choice


john5746
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm confused where you think my arguement suggested that the founding fathers weren't fundamentalists. I agree, they were not, but that was never a point that I was here trying to make (I left that as a given, really).

 

I see, you were parsing it in three ways: Deist, which you felt that the FFs were, Theist/interventionist, which you feel most Christians are today, and fundamentalist, which you feel only some Christians are today. That's fine, but I don't think it leads to this conclusion...

 

It's false to suggest that the founding fathers were christian unless you expand the definition of christian to be one which is unrecognizable by today's standards (are there a lot of Anglicans in the US?)

 

... because I think most Christians today define Christianity at the utterly simplest level, as anyone who believes in the Jesus myth and sees it as central to their faith. The problem isn't what most people believe, it's the direction that a few people leverage that belief to mean that they should do, in modern political terms.

 

In other words, a few power-seekers distort an obvious broad base of Christian belief, which is common with our founding fathers, leveraging that belief into something that the founding fathers would not recognize in the political sense.

 

Which I think is where your point shines as clear and absolute truth.

 

 

The bigger issue that brought this all up... before waitforufo came in and asked me to repeat all of my references so he could then again dismiss them... was that she failed with me personally on some of my key selection criteria for the higher offices and elections (what I termed "litmus test").

 

One of those issues was a horrid misunderstanding of the founding principles of our nation, and the thought that (not only did) our founding fathers say the pledge of allegiance to the flag, but that "under god" was already a part of that pledge and was okay with them.

 

Right, I followed that, and I agree, but there are two points worth considering in spite of what I agree was an ideological response from waitforufo:

 

1) Conservatives have generally become familiar with that "1956 addition" historical fact. They get it. Their partisanship may lead them around it, but they got the message. It is simply unlikely that Palin is unaware of the 1956 addition. So either she was addressing the larger issue, or she's one of those subset people who are deliberately misleading people for political power. Which answer is correct is a matter of opinion. (I'll choose the former, until I see more evidence of the latter.)

 

2) She's not wrong in saying we have Christianity in common with the founding fathers. She's just wrong in suggesting that the founding fathers would agree with many of her political positions that she feels result from that common belief.

 

And I don't think that's putting too fine a point on it, either. We don't typically win over Christians to a more modern, progressive perspective by bludgeoning them on their faith, which is how this kind of story (re: Palin) plays out politically -- it sounds to them like you're beating her up for either mis-speaking or for believing in god. If we want these particular hearts and minds, I think we have to address their concerns in a more progressive and understanding manner.

 

(And I do mean what I say when I say "we don't typically win over Christians" -- I think we bring them around gradually over time, and that this happens frequently.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have yet to supply any links to support your contention that our nation was founded on christian principles and you've failed to support your point that our founding fathers were christian. My point stands. You've simply dismissed my references without telling ANY of us what you find incorrect or inaccurate with them.

 

And you know what? I am beating her up for believing God AND for being a dumbass who has little concept of history. Tough shit.

 

 

If you truly wish to continue this religious discussion here at SFN, then for the love of Thor tell us what you mean when you say "Christian."

 

Perhaps this site will help:

 

http://earlyamericanhistory.net/founding_fathers.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did tell you what I meant when I say Christian. I spelled it out very clearly.

 

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=christian

a religious person who believes Jesus is the Christ and who is a member of a Christian denomination

 

following the teachings or manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus Christ

 

This is not a religious conversation, it's a political one. Please review my previous post carefully before replying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Explain to us all exactly how you go from this:

 

 

The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were deists.

A necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the Christian religion. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible.

Many of the founding fathers—Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and Monroe—practiced a faith called Deism. Deism is a philosophical belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems. Deists believe in a supreme being who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws—and after creation, is absent from the world.

The men mentioned above and others who were instrumental in the founding of our nation were in no sense Bible-believing Christians.

This notion—that our country’s roots are explicitly Christian—is both foolish and wrong, for it devalues the Christian faith and disrespects the genius of the founding fathers.

 

 

To this:

a religious person who believes Jesus is the Christ and who is a member of a Christian denomination

 

following the teachings or manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus Christ

 

 

 

Simply repeating yourself does not add any validity to an invalid point. I'm sorry, mate, but your persistence on this point is causing you to make a total ass of yourself.

 

 

 


line[/hr]

Now, I will again try to move us past this and return to the issue itself.

 

2) She's not wrong in saying we have Christianity in common with the founding fathers. She's just wrong in suggesting that the founding fathers would agree with many of her political positions that she feels result from that common belief.

 

I think it's about more than her "political positions." She was explicitly asked if she had a problem with the words "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance, and she responded, "If it was good enough for our founding fathers, it is good enough for me, and I'll fight for it."

 

Issues about what deism means and how it's FAR from christianity pushed aside, she's wrong on multiple levels, and is clearly clouded by her religious views. That was my problem with it. This is reinforced by the fact that she wants creationism taught in schools, that she thinks a war with Iraq is a mission from God, opposes all abortion even in the case of rape and incest, and all of the other dumb shit that tends to come with religion, especially so with the fundie conservative variety. The "Under God" in the pledge response was just one among many reasons why she's failed my personal litmus test.

Edited by iNow
multiple post merged
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I CAN"T STAND THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE PANDERING WITH THIS RELIGIOUS NONSENSE!

There. I said it.

 

So are you saying that most democrats are pandering or just your favorite christian democrat, Barack Obama?

 

Wikipedia defines pandering as follows.

 

Pandering may refer to:

 

In politics, portrayal of one's views to fit in line with a certain crowd of voters the candidate is attempting to impress, when often, these are not the candidate's true beliefs. A candidate may engage in pandering out of desperation if s/he is already losing a race, or if polls taken prior to an election show others as being in the lead.

 

 

I take a man for his word, but obviously you don't think too much of this Barack Obama fellow. Are you sure you are not a stelth John McCain supporter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are you saying that most democrats are pandering or just your favorite christian democrat, Barack Obama?

 

Wikipedia defines pandering as follows.

 

Pandering may refer to:

 

In politics, portrayal of one's views to fit in line with a certain crowd of voters the candidate is attempting to impress, when often, these are not the candidate's true beliefs. A candidate may engage in pandering out of desperation if s/he is already losing a race, or if polls taken prior to an election show others as being in the lead.

 

 

I take a man for his word, but obviously you don't think too much of this Barack Obama fellow. Are you sure you are not a stelth John McCain supporter?

 

I'm not a robot. I'm rational and critical thinking human being who cares about his country and the people who live in it. There are things I agree with on both sides of the political ideological spectrum, and also things I disagree with on both sides. I don't have to agree with everything a particular side says or does in order to prefer them over the other. I don't have to surrender my personal ideas to go along with the herd.

 

I prefer Obama over McCain.

 

Again, this thread is not about me, though. It's about McCain's choice of Palin to run with him on the Republican ticket as the VP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were deists.

 

But that doesn't appear to be the case. I'm just quoting you, iNow. Your sources:

Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%

Presbyterian 30 18.6%

Congregationalist 27 16.8%

Quaker 7 4.3%

Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%

Lutheran 5 3.1%

Catholic 3 1.9%

Huguenot 3 1.9%

Unitarian 3 1.9%

Methodist 2 1.2%

Calvinist 1 0.6%

TOTAL 204

 

And your words:

It turns out that Anglicans made up 55-60% of the entire religious spectrum for our nations founders, and Anglicanism can effectively be lumped under the christian umbrella.

 

They were, for the most part, stereotypical Jesus-myth Christians, guy. I don't know why you're so offended by this, but you shouldn't be, because it doesn't harm your central point that the founding fathers would find modern Christianity and its political positions somewhat alien and possibly even anathema. Maybe it touches on something you wish were true about the country's founding, I don't know. But I really think all this emotion is misplaced and unnecessary.

 

 

... she's wrong on multiple levels, and is clearly clouded by her religious views. That was my problem with it. This is reinforced by the fact that she wants creationism taught in schools, that she thinks a war with Iraq is a mission from God, opposes all abortion even in the case of rape and incest, and all of the other dumb shit that tends to come with religion, especially so with the fundie conservative variety. The "Under God" in the pledge response was just one among many reasons why she's failed my personal litmus test.

 

Nothing wrong with having an opinion about Palin, as I said earlier. I just think we can do better than telling religiously-influenced voters how they're wrong to let their religion influence their vote (e.g. calling them "fundies"). Telling people they're wrong isn't how you win hearts and minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a robot. I'm rational and critical thinking human being who cares about his country and the people who live in it. There are things I agree with on both sides of the political ideological spectrum, and also things I disagree with on both sides. I don't have to agree with everything a particular side says or does in order to prefer them over the other. I don't have to surrender my personal ideas to go along with the herd.

 

I prefer Obama over McCain.

 

Again, this thread is not about me, though. It's about McCain's choice of Palin to run with him on the Republican ticket as the VP.

 

Okay then, back to Sarah Palin. When judging whether or not Palin is a good VP candidate, you have to look at issues that are important to large groups of people. To judge issues effectively each individual should set aside to last those issues that cause an artery to pop on their forehead.

 

Obviously your atheism is very important to you. But face facts, almost every one who thinks that the words "under God" in our pledge or "In God We Trust" on our money are great violations of the first amendment to the constitution is already voting for Barack Obama. Have you ever met anyone who claimed they had a conversion experience because of words in our pledge or on our money? If you ask people what the words "In God We Trust" on our money means, most will say it means from all others we need cash. Great religious incite there. Ask the next stranger you speak to if they are interested in the history of how these words entered our pledge (Knights of Columbus) or were printed on our money (Civil War). They will likely think you are a Jehovah's Witness. Ask if they care if Palin knew the correct answer. This issue will not turn the election so don't blow a gasket over it.

 

The 2006 Eagle Forum Gubernatorial Questionnaire

Question 11) Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

 

Sarah Palin) Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

 

In my opinion, this is just a flip answer geared a pulling the chain of those that think these phrases are a big deal. Looks like it worked. The answer probably got her a lot of votes. Did you expect her to write a complete history on the origins of these phrases in this questionnaire?

 

Abortion. Everyone all ready knows that this is a litmus test issue with both parties. Republicans pro-life, Democrats pro-choice. Bring this issue up with a swing voter and their eyes will glass over. They have heard about it forever. Most are actually smart enough to know if the Supreme Court throws out Roe v. Wade, that those old state laws that made it legal before Roe v. Wade will still be in effect or that their states will just pass laws making it legal. Perhaps with a few restrictions similar to our friends in Europe. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm) Again, this issue will not turn the election.

 

Teaching Creationism in public schools. (http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html)

 

Sarah Palin --

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

 

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

 

So what is your beef?

 

(Bascule - I have now, as promised, read all of iNow's citations. Happy? By the way I very much liked your post #114. Madison is one of my favorite original dads.)

 

Guns. Americans love guns. See Madison and Jefferson. Big winner for McCain / Palin.

 

Knocked up daughter. Just won the single mom swing vote. And all the moms and aunts of girls that get knocked up. Obama admitting his mother was 18 when he was born was just a bonus.

 

Energy. Americans love consuming energy and hate spending money. Also in their lifetimes the environment has gotten nothing but better in any day-to-day measurable way. Palin a big winner for the McCain ticket.

Edited by waitforufo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Energy. Americans love consuming energy and hate spending money. Also in their lifetimes the environment has gotten nothing but better in any day-to-day measurable way.

 

Care to support this with any hard data? I know I could argue against it, but I've found that rationality and evidence rarely seem to work against ideological entrenchment.

 

 

The environment has gotten better? Let me give you the benefit of the doubt here. What parameters are you using to define "better?" What parts of the "environment" are you talking about? I've got increasing extinctions, receding sea ice, increased cancer incidence, increased drought, increased storm intensities, exponetially increasing ppms of CO2, and countless other scientifically verified factors showing significant detriment to the environment in past years which seem to basically cut the point which you made above off at the ankles.

Edited by Pangloss
multiple post merged
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just ran across this and thought I'd add it for balance:

 

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/05/top-7-myths-lies-and-untruths-about-sarah-palin/

 

You know what kills me about that? While they are using the article to admonish the people who are posting doctored photos on the web of her in a bikini holding a gun, they simulatanously share the same photo at the very start of the article knowing it will appeal to people (whether those people care that it's doctored or not). It will stir that, "damn, I wouldn't mind looking at her during a few more press conferences" mentality, forming a deeper connection based on more primal instincts and gut level decision making, and all the while they get to criticize the people who are sharing it online. Talk about having cake and eating it, too.

 

 

 

If you really want balance, you should read this:

 

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1837918,00.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Care to support this with any hard data? I know I could argue against it, but I've found that rationality and evidence rarely seem to work against ideological entrenchment.

 

 

The environment has gotten better? Let me give you the benefit of the doubt here. What parameters are you using to define "better?" What parts of the "environment" are you talking about? I've got increasing extinctions, receding sea ice, increased cancer incidence, increased drought, increased storm intensities, exponetially increasing ppms of CO2, and countless other scientifically verified factors showing significant detriment to the environment in past years which seem to basically cut the point which you made above off at the ankles.

 

The water they drink, the air they breathe, the way their waste and trash are disposed of, the amount they recycle. No more crying indians on the side of the interstate. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4ozVMxzNAA) Those day-to-day measures of the environment.

 

I don't care how many pictures they see of polar bears desperately clinging to an ice cube, they know that the environment that they personally live in is better and getting better still.

Edited by waitforufo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The water they drink, the air they breathe, the way their waste and trash are disposed of, the amount they recycle. No more crying indians on the side of the interstate. Those day-to-day measures of the environment.

 

I don't care how many pictures they see of polar bears desperately clinging to an ice cube, they know that the environment that they personally live in is better and getting better still.

 

But day-to-day measurements is an argument from ignorance really. Just because I don't know there's a world war going on involving half the planet doesn't mean I'm not about to get invaded. It just means that I can appeal to my base and say "see, look around you, nothing but peace".

 

I realize we don't live next to the polar bears, which is why we rely on those who do. We also haven't developed the sensory perception to measure CO2 levels without instruments, so again, we rely on those who use such instruments. Rinse and repeat for just about every point on iNow's list.

 

I understand your position on global warming being a hoax, or a religion, but you have to counter science with science. You may be able to counter each instrumental measurement and their conclusions - like challenging the notion that storm systems have actually increased verses being documented, accuracy of records and etc - but looking around and concluding there's no issue because your water tastes better is not going to cut it, except on the Rush Limbaugh show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First the book banning. Complete hearsay. One librarian said another librarian told her that the Palin asked a question about how to ban books. The original librarian could not be reached for comment. Again, any speech or bill where she promoted book banning?

So, it's complete hearsay, huh? Wowsers wally. I wonder about this, then:

 

 

 

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1117009&format=&page=2&listingType=2008pres#articleFull

Back in 1996, when she first became mayor, Sarah Palin asked the city librarian if she would be all right with censoring library books should she be asked to do so.

According to news coverage at the time, the librarian said she would definitely not be all right with it. A few months later, the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, got a letter from Palin telling her she was going to be fired. The censorship issue was not mentioned as a reason for the firing. The letter just said the new mayor felt Emmons didn't fully support her and had to go.

 

Emmons had been city librarian for seven years and was well liked. After a wave of public support for her, Palin relented and let Emmons keep her job.

 

<...>

 

In December 1996, Emmons told her hometown newspaper, the Frontiersman, that Palin three times asked her -- starting before she was sworn in -- about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose.

 

Emmons told the Frontiersman she flatly refused to consider any kind of censorship.

 

<...>

 

When the matter came up for the second time in October 1996, during a City Council meeting, Anne Kilkenny, a Wasilla housewife who often attends council meetings, was there.

 

Like many Alaskans, Kilkenny calls the governor by her first name.

 

"Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?" Kilkenny said.

 

"I was shocked. Mary Ellen sat up straight and said something along the line of, 'The books in the Wasilla Library collection were selected on the basis of national selection criteria for libraries of this size, and I would absolutely resist all efforts to ban books.'"

 

Palin didn't mention specific books at that meeting, Kilkenny said.

 

Palin herself, questioned at the time, called her inquiries rhetorical and simply part of a policy discussion with a department head "about understanding and following administration agendas," according to the Frontiersman article.

 

<...>

 

Books may not have been pulled from library shelves, but there were other repercussions for Emmons.

 

Four days before the exchange at the City Council, Emmons got a letter from Palin asking for her resignation. Similar letters went to police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton and finance director Duane Dvorak. John Cooper, a fifth director, resigned after Palin eliminated his job overseeing the city museum.

 

Palin told the Daily News back then the letters were just a test of loyalty as she took on the mayor's job, which she'd won from three-term mayor John Stein in a hard-fought election. Stein had hired many of the department heads. Both Emmons and Stambaugh had publicly supported him against Palin.

 

 

I think one of the things that hurts these Republican right wing ideological bullies who try to intimidate people and make them fearful of losing their jobs is the fact that we have access to information and print stories done so we can research questions and issues. McCain really should have had his team vet her more fully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear John -- You have lost me by choosing a creationist as your VP candidate . A person who is not pursuaded by the strength of the science behind evolutionary theory is not one who would get the facts straight on any other issue . Re abortion ; bringing to term with a mongloid child may be excuasable as the child is maneageable but would she do the same if the fetus was afflicted with spinal bifida-- which would result in a lifetime of suffering for the victim .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting to me that when 90+% of women are having Down babies aborted, physicians and scientists express serious ethical concerns and people talk about "Eugenics by abortion". But when a conservative Bible-thumper decides to have such a child, words like "excusable" suddenly get trotted out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1117009&format=&page=2&listingType=2008pres#articleFull

Palin didn't mention specific books at that meeting, Kilkenny said.

 

Palin herself, questioned at the time, called her inquiries rhetorical and simply part of a policy discussion with a department head "about understanding and following administration agendas," according to the Frontiersman article.

 

 

I think one of the things that hurts these Republican right wing ideological bullies who try to intimidate people and make them fearful of losing their jobs is the fact that we have access to information and print stories done so we can research questions and issues. McCain really should have had his team vet her more fully.

 

 

Now you have a bit of circumstantial evidence. Your own reference above says no specific books were mentioned. What you are doing is a bit like calling someone a murderer without even a missing persons report let alone a body or a weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting to me that when 90+% of women are having Down babies aborted, physicians and scientists express serious ethical concerns and people talk about "Eugenics by abortion". But when a conservative Bible-thumper decides to have such a child, words like "excusable" suddenly get trotted out.

 

People like to complain, and complaints get more reporting than compliments. However, I'm pretty sure it's different people complaining for each case.

 

Also, for this case, there are conflicting concerns. Eugencis is a big concern, as abortions based on genetic disorders could remove useful genes from the gene pool. The genes for sickle cell anemia, for example, provide some protection from malaria. So aborting downs children could set a precedent for that. However, down syndrome is a spontaneously formed genetic disorder, so it is unlikely to have anything useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But day-to-day measurements is an argument from ignorance really. Just because I don't know there's a world war going on involving half the planet doesn't mean I'm not about to get invaded. It just means that I can appeal to my base and say "see, look around you, nothing but peace".

 

I realize we don't live next to the polar bears, which is why we rely on those who do. We also haven't developed the sensory perception to measure CO2 levels without instruments, so again, we rely on those who use such instruments. Rinse and repeat for just about every point on iNow's list.

 

I understand your position on global warming being a hoax, or a religion, but you have to counter science with science. You may be able to counter each instrumental measurement and their conclusions - like challenging the notion that storm systems have actually increased verses being documented, accuracy of records and etc - but looking around and concluding there's no issue because your water tastes better is not going to cut it, except on the Rush Limbaugh show.

 

 

I don't see how recognizing the incredible success of the environmental movement in my lifetime is a display of ignorance. iNow either doubts this success or thinks it is trivial. I on the other hand believe it is evidence that we will continue to have success in making improvements. I'm just not part of the mass hysteria crowd.

 

Right now the economy is very important. Palin is on that side of the economy/environment political debate. I belive that position will draw more votes to McCain than the environment side will draw to Obama.

 

By the way, I still think this election is Obama's to lose. Either way the country is strong enough to survive either candidate and their VP picks.

 

It's interesting to me that when 90+% of women are having Down babies aborted, physicians and scientists express serious ethical concerns and people talk about "Eugenics by abortion". But when a conservative Bible-thumper decides to have such a child, words like "excusable" suddenly get trotted out.

 

http://news.scotsman.com/health/MP-bids-to-outlaw-abortions.4260541.jp

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article669451.ece

 

Abortion is a common eugenics solution to club feet and cleft palates in the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Palin didn't mention specific books at that meeting, Kilkenny said.

So what? She is still a person who would consider the banning of books a good thing. She is still a person who asked how she might go about banning books. She is still a person who, when told that no books would be banned, sought to have the librarian who refused her fired from her position.

 

I don't care that she didn't mention specific books, as that is COMPLETELY and WHOLLY irrelevant to the problem here. The fact that she would EVEN CONSIDER banning ANY book is a problem on multiple levels.

 

 

 

I don't see how recognizing the incredible success of the environmental movement in my lifetime is a display of ignorance.

Now you're equivocating and changing your position. You DIDN'T say that there has been success in the environmental movement, you said EXACTLY this:

 

in their lifetimes the environment has gotten nothing but better in any day-to-day measurable way.

 

You said that the environment itself has gotten better, I challenged you on it, you then changed what you were saying and misrepresented what I was saying.

 

Anyone reading this thread knows what I mean and can see that you are more inconsistent that a toddler lying about eating paste. If people don't understand my postion accurately, then I'll be glad to clarify. Now, you can stop misrepresenting me. If you're doing your best to represent me accurately, and this is what you're coming up with, then you are moron blinded by the lies you're being fed by the propaganda machine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abortion is a common eugenics solution to club feet and cleft palates in the UK.

 

Interesting articles, thanks. According to those links, it's not a very desirable option, with the UK considering banning abortion when it's done for those reasons (but how would they enforce that?). It doesn't sound like that happens very often, but it sounds like a bad idea when it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what? She is still a person who would consider the banning of books a good thing. She is still a person who asked how she might go about banning books. She is still a person who, when told that no books would be banned, sought to have the librarian who refused her fired from her position.

 

I don't care that she didn't mention specific books, as that is COMPLETELY and WHOLLY irrelevant to the problem here. The fact that she would EVEN CONSIDER banning ANY book is a problem on multiple levels.

 

 

 

 

Now you're equivocating and changing your position. You DIDN'T say that there has been success in the environmental movement, you said EXACTLY this:

 

 

 

You said that the environment itself has gotten better, I challenged you on it, you then changed what you were saying and misrepresented what I was saying.

 

Anyone reading this thread knows what I mean and can see that you are more inconsistent that a toddler lying about eating paste. If people don't understand my postion accurately, then I'll be glad to clarify. Now, you can stop misrepresenting me. If you're doing your best to represent me accurately, and this is what you're coming up with, then you are moron blinded by the lies you're being fed by the propaganda machine.

 

With regard to the book banning issue, she asked a question. No books were banned. You got nothing, so deal with it.

 

How are my two statements, that you quote, inconsistent?

 

First I said "in their lifetimes the environment has gotten nothing but better in any day-to-day measurable way." You challenged this. In response to you I said " The water they drink, the air they breathe, the way their waste and trash are disposed of, the amount they recycle. No more crying indians on the side of the interstate. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4ozVMxzNAA) Those day-to-day measures of the environment." Then in a separate post after a challenge from ParanoiA I said "I don't see how recognizing the incredible success of the environmental movement in my lifetime is a display of ignorance."

 

In my lifetime and in the lifetime of most people living today, day-to-day measures of the environement have gotten better. Cleaner water, cleaner air, better waste management... the list goes on and on. When I was in the 8th grade I was told that lake Erie would never recover. Recover it has. When was the last time the Cuyahoga river caught fire? (http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1642) Lead in gasoline? Gone. Water ways that were once open sewers are now scenic water ways. Those are day-to-day measureable ways. What part of that don't you get?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • 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.