PDA

View Full Version : Rick Perry - wtf?



Pages : [1] 2

Cullion
12th August 11, 06:09 PM
Dude's like a character from a Stephen King novel. Like Hollywood cast him to start WWIII.

This is a joke, right?

Spade: The Real Snake
12th August 11, 06:19 PM
whom do you see as his "Johnny Smith"?

Cullion
12th August 11, 06:21 PM
He'll probably create his own Johnny Smith and then make his survival of the assassination attempt look like a miracle.

HappyOldGuy
12th August 11, 06:58 PM
Hush. He's Obamas secret weapon for 2012.

Okay, not that secret.

resolve
12th August 11, 07:04 PM
I don't watch news, what's going down?

Dark Helmet
12th August 11, 07:22 PM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/12/perry-on-his-predecessor-i-love-george-bush/

Your future

HappyOldGuy
12th August 11, 08:22 PM
BTW, Sarahs milfitude is officaly expired.http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/08/13/us/13caucus_palin/13caucus_palin-blog480.jpg

resolve
12th August 11, 08:41 PM
I don't get it. So some hardline conservative is running for president and this will bring about WWIII?

HappyOldGuy
12th August 11, 09:07 PM
Cullion likes to think that we are just like them.

Douglas Fairbanks: Charles, you're a foreigner; you're still an outsider. You've never understood this country.
Charlie Chaplin: It's a good country underneath, Doug.
Douglas Fairbanks: No, it's a good country on *top*. Underneath, that's what starts showing when we're scared.

Cullion
13th August 11, 02:56 AM
I don't get it. So some hardline conservative is running for president and this will bring about WWIII?

He's not a conservative, he's a militant who believes America has a role to play in fulfilling New Testamant prophecy.

bob
13th August 11, 03:09 AM
Sounds more likely to start Civil War 2 than WW3.

resolve
13th August 11, 05:20 AM
He's not a conservative, he's a militant who believes America has a role to play in fulfilling New Testamant prophecy.

Meh, America isn't even mentioned in biblical prophecy as a major player. The only thing that could be construed to be America is one of the "young lions" mentioned in Ezekiel's end-time prophecies. Sometimes people think the "young lions" of Tarshish (a westernmost coastal port city somewhere near the Mediterranean) are the British colonies and are centered around world trade. There's a lot of superficial resemblances but in context it really kind of falls apart and doesn't make any sense.

Quite a few people believe America to be a new kind of Babylon and then try to shoehorn all the prophecies concerning Babylon onto it. While some things fit, others don't.

That leaves us with a realization that, according to biblical prophecy of end times, America will cease to be the world power during the end times or at least a key player in the events of Israel and therefore not important enough to discuss. Now maybe this Rick Perry is trying to disarm/humiliate America as his "end-times goal". But George W and Barack O have done enough towards that end as is.

If he believes in the America = Babylon stuffs he might try for some crazy heavy handed reforms that are morally centered.

Other than that I'm drawing blanks. Has he said anything in particular about it?

Craigypooh
13th August 11, 06:57 AM
All the GOP candidates are barmy to some it extent it seems to be a requirement.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
13th August 11, 07:50 AM
Quite a few people believe America to be a new kind of Babylon and then try to shoehorn all the prophecies concerning Babylon onto it. While some things fit, others don't.

..........

If he believes in the America = Babylon stuffs he might try for some crazy heavy handed reforms that are morally centered.


Some people use the idea of Babylon in a figurative sense...you know that right?

Spade: The Real Snake
13th August 11, 08:08 AM
He's not a conservative, he's a militant who believes America has a role to play in fulfilling New Testamant prophecy.
You are an agent of the LDS church and, to that extent, Romney, aren't you?
Did Heavenly Father give you this mission?

Spade: The Real Snake
13th August 11, 08:09 AM
All the GOP candidates are barmy to some it extent it seems to be a requirement.
You could use that same description to describe the Dems, when their party isn't the one in power and you have a dozen candidates jockeying for the nod.

nifoc
13th August 11, 11:15 AM
I'm curious as to why this guy seems to be taken seriously. In Sweden, if anyone would have said "Well, the economy seems to be going down the drain lets pray and hope it gets better" they would never be able to take public office again. Partly because we are an extremely secularised country and partly because you have a guy in public office clearly not doing shit to make things better. But in the US this behavior is treated with at least a modicum of respect.

I know that the US is a more religious country, but do people really believe praying about it means taking action? It seems that way to many does think that at least.

Regarding the Dem/Repub thing; from the last ten years I have come to the following conclusion about how american politics work: The dems are so afraid of conflict that they willingly let the republicans fuck them in the ass over and over again. The repubs are happy to give it to them, and then go to the media and complain that the dems are a lousy lay.

HappyOldGuy
13th August 11, 11:57 AM
You could use that same description to describe the Dems, when their party isn't the one in power and you have a dozen candidates jockeying for the nod.

Number of non creationist republican candidates?

Spade: The Real Snake
13th August 11, 12:16 PM
Number of non creationist republican candidates?
that has nothing to do with the "barmy" nature of a primary.



but Cain and Romney haven't traded on their beliefs to the same extent as the rest.

HappyOldGuy
13th August 11, 12:25 PM
that has nothing to do with the "barmy" nature of a primary.

I'm pretty sure he was saying that ythe candidates were barmy, not the process.



but Cain and Romney haven't traded on their beliefs to the same extent as the rest.

I'll give you Romney provided we are grading on a curve, but Cain? Have you been on some kind of holiday from all media?

VsHZ1Z-qG2Y

Spade: The Real Snake
13th August 11, 12:30 PM
I'm pretty sure he was saying that ythe candidates were barmy, not the process.
And I am stating the process is barmy, which has nothing whatseoever to do with "creationism"





I'll give you Romney provided we are grading on a curve, but Cain? Have you been on some kind of holiday from all media?

Romney doesn't *want* to open that door, as he knows where the path leads.

As for Cain, he doesn't get much attention from the media, other that he comments about Sharia Law having no place in US Courts

HappyOldGuy
13th August 11, 12:39 PM
He said that Muslims have no business being US judges. That's not exactly the same thing. Just because your politicians are weasels doesn't mean you have to parrot them.

Spade: The Real Snake
13th August 11, 12:42 PM
He said that Muslims have no business being US judges. That's not exactly the same thing. Just because your politicians are weasels doesn't mean you have to parrot them.
am I a weasel or a parrot?

I was taking what he indicated his sentiment was. To be honest, it isn't like his "No Muslims For Judges" comment would be considered hyper-inflammatory in the bulk of the non metropolitan US.

HappyOldGuy
13th August 11, 12:49 PM
You are parroting a weasel. My cat is going to eat your avianrodent face.

And I'm quite aware of how many idiots there are in my country. I've been trying to explain that to our ferrin friends who think our politicians are an aberration.

Spade: The Real Snake
13th August 11, 12:54 PM
You are parroting a weasel. My cat is going to eat your avianrodent face.
So I am like an awesome winged agent of death from above.

NICED!



And I'm quite aware of how many idiots there are in my country. I've been trying to explain that to our ferrin friends who think our politicians are an aberration.
Although you probably had a half-stock throughout the entire debates with all the snarky infighting going on.

HappyOldGuy
13th August 11, 12:57 PM
Nope. I have a full raging drive nails with it chub of steel because Perry is in the race. Without him Romney was gonna run away with it, and Romney could actually win the general.

Everybody else is irrelevant.

Spade: The Real Snake
13th August 11, 01:18 PM
Everyone else is there for two purposes:

1) To give decent trolling material to Barry Hussy for the General

2) To jockey for the Veep nod in attempts to pull in the Tea Party supporters since Romney is essentially "Cracker Obama"

Fearless Ukemi
13th August 11, 01:46 PM
Meh, America isn't even mentioned in biblical prophecy as a major player. The only thing that could be construed to be America is one of the "young lions" mentioned in Ezekiel's end-time prophecies. Sometimes people think the "young lions" of Tarshish (a westernmost coastal port city somewhere near the Mediterranean) are the British colonies and are centered around world trade. There's a lot of superficial resemblances but in context it really kind of falls apart and doesn't make any sense.

Quite a few people believe America to be a new kind of Babylon and then try to shoehorn all the prophecies concerning Babylon onto it. While some things fit, others don't.

That leaves us with a realization that, according to biblical prophecy of end times, America will cease to be the world power during the end times or at least a key player in the events of Israel and therefore not important enough to discuss. Now maybe this Rick Perry is trying to disarm/humiliate America as his "end-times goal". But George W and Barack O have done enough towards that end as is.

If he believes in the America = Babylon stuffs he might try for some crazy heavy handed reforms that are morally centered.

Other than that I'm drawing blanks. Has he said anything in particular about it?

Babylon is a global system that is prophecied to fall. Basically, it is a false NWO before the real NWO emerges from the chaos and anarchy that results from the fall of global Babylon.

resolve
13th August 11, 04:17 PM
Yeah, I don't see how that's "America" though. America could fit inside of it yeah, but even so... how does Rick Perry fit into all of this?

Craigypooh
13th August 11, 06:07 PM
I'm pretty sure he was saying that ythe candidates were barmy, not the process.

VsHZ1Z-qG2Y

Did I say barmy? I should have said mad as a box of frogs.

And I don't think it's the process as Obama and Clinton both seemed pretty normal and reasonable as they went through the process last time.

Spade: The Real Snake
14th August 11, 12:33 PM
Did I say barmy? I should have said mad as a box of frogs.

And I don't think it's the process as Obama and Clinton both seemed pretty normal and reasonable as they went through the process last time.
Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, John Edwards.

Cullion
14th August 11, 03:53 PM
Other than that I'm drawing blanks. Has he said anything in particular about it?

He's a militant Christian Zionist. You understand what that's all about, right ?

HappyOldGuy
14th August 11, 04:17 PM
Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, John Edwards.

So what scientifically proven facts are they ignoring?

(other than Edwards maybe not being clear on where babies come from)

Spade: The Real Snake
14th August 11, 04:59 PM
So what scientifically proven facts are they ignoring?

(other than Edwards maybe not being clear on where babies come from)
huh?
all those morons I listed are all whackjobs.

Cullion
14th August 11, 05:52 PM
I like Denis Kucinich.

Spade: The Real Snake
14th August 11, 11:22 PM
you can have him.

HappyOldGuy
14th August 11, 11:46 PM
He makes me believe in magic.

Cause leprechaun.

Spade: The Real Snake
14th August 11, 11:49 PM
he makes me believe in hypnosis, cuz marrying up

EvilSteve
15th August 11, 11:37 AM
He's not a conservative, he's a militant who believes America has a role to play in fulfilling New Testamant prophecy.

He's an utterly flaming closet case who is rumored to have been caught in a compromising position with a male staffer. Also rumored to be dating his personal chef (male).

He won't get the nod because the politicos behind the GOP know this and know it will out during the campaign season if he's nominated.

EvilSteve
15th August 11, 11:39 AM
I like Denis Kucinich.

You mean the only reasonable guy around that absolutely no one listens to?

Folks around these parts like to call him "extreme left." Then again, they also call Obama a communist, so folks around these parts aren't all that bright.

Spade: The Real Snake
15th August 11, 11:45 AM
You mean the only reasonable guy around that absolutely no one listens to?

Folks around these parts like to call him "extreme left." Then again, they also call Obama a communist, so folks around these parts aren't all that bright.
I am running for President of the United States to enable the Goddess of Peace to encircle within her arms all the children of this country and all the children of the world.

EvilSteve
15th August 11, 11:53 AM
I am running for President of the United States to enable the Goddess of Peace to encircle within her arms all the children of this country and all the children of the world.

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/features/health/theskinny/blog/Goddessdressing.jpg

No need- we already have salad dressing for that.

Robot Jesus
15th August 11, 12:59 PM
I'm in the states agian

Talk radio

Host: growth positive supply side, the rich arn't investing the capital they have because they need more tax cuts. They have lots of capital already but worry about higher taxes; supply side solutions

Newt: supply side solutions, Obama hates millionaires and wants nothing but class warfare, supply side solutions.




Guy at continental breakfast: With moderates like Bachman how can we loose"

Feryk
15th August 11, 02:11 PM
Guy at continental breakfast: With moderates like Bachman how can we loose"

And the scary part is that she appears moderate with all the Tea Party idiocy that has been flying around. If y'all think democracy is flawed, wait until the religious right gets their theocracy back on track.

Spade: The Real Snake
15th August 11, 02:26 PM
And the scary part is that she appears moderate with all the Tea Party idiocy that has been flying around. If y'all think democracy is flawed, wait until the religious right gets their theocracy back on track.
It'll be milf-held fucking footlong Iowa corndawgs across this good ol' USOFFUCKINGA

Feryk
15th August 11, 02:41 PM
Snake, I'll sponsor your immigration to Canada.



SRS.

Cullion
15th August 11, 02:42 PM
New Apostolic Reformation + closeted homosexuality + bombastic neoconservative foreign policy = WWIII.

bob
15th August 11, 04:05 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/14/dominionism-michele-bachmann-and-rick-perry-s-dangerous-religious-bond.html?om_rid=NGcdOd&om_mid=_BOSQ7zB8ctRRHD

resolve
15th August 11, 04:16 PM
Ok well THAT makes sense then. I've never even heard of Dominionism through Christian Reconstructionism before. Something to add on to the pile of wild christian history I guess. I can understand the appeal, but it is fundamentally flawed according to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Also this bit had me in stitches though:


The Christian Reconstructionists tend to be skeptical of Pentecostalism, with its magic, prophesies, speaking in tongues, and wild ecstasies.

MAGIC? Does this mean I'm a wizard?!?!? Can I cast magic missile?

Feryk
15th August 11, 04:20 PM
Chilling. You could take those same words, change the religion on the front nameplate, and have the mandates of every fundamentalist hardline terrorist organization in the world.

Ajamil
15th August 11, 04:24 PM
I know that the US is a more religious country, but do people really believe praying about it means taking action? It seems that way to many does think that at least. There are those that think it does something. There are those that do it out of habit, and don't think about it at all. There are those that say they believe it whenever someone with a camera or a clipboard asks them. There are those that think they should say they believe it whether they do or don't. There are those who agree with all the previous ones just to get a position of power. There are those who strive for a position of power because they believe like all the previous people.

I think there's lots of different reasons, but the end voice always seems to come out the same.

Cullion
15th August 11, 04:33 PM
Rick Perry's Zionism is of a kind that would like to see all the Jews return to Israel to fulfill prophecy and bring about Armageddon and then admit they were wrong about Jesus the whole time.

I'm paraphrasing, but I'm quite serious.

Feryk
15th August 11, 04:37 PM
Nothing like the end of the world to say 'I told you so!'.

Ajamil
15th August 11, 05:46 PM
I wouldn't mind politicians being End Timers if the prophecies said Nirvana came through hard work, compromise, and healthy competition. It's the fact that all the prophecies have to go through this mother of all conflicts that will bathe the world in blood running three feet deep in order to get to the good times that worries me.

Feryk
15th August 11, 06:02 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fo pinion%2Findex.jsonp

Looks like Paul Krugman is no fan of Perrynomics either.

bob
15th August 11, 06:05 PM
I wouldn't mind politicians being End Timers if the prophecies said Nirvana came through hard work, compromise, and healthy competition. It's the fact that all the prophecies have to go through this mother of all conflicts that will bathe the world in blood running three feet deep in order to get to the good times that worries me.

It doesn't even get to good times.

Ajamil
15th August 11, 06:13 PM
Well not for YOU. Heathen.

Feryk
15th August 11, 06:20 PM
Well not for YOU. Heathen.

And you are...? Pagan!

BURN HIM!!!

bob
15th August 11, 06:30 PM
Well not for YOU. Heathen.

Your lot has got it all over the Jesus crew in the eternity carrot stakes. It's like the difference between unlocking a secret level when you beat the game or getting to look at the high score screen forever.

HappyOldGuy
15th August 11, 09:17 PM
Guy at continental breakfast: With moderates like Bachman how can we loose"

I heard a republican talking head call Rick Perry the moderate voice in the election between Bachman and Romney. That's kinda like being a middleweight on the biggest loser.

Cullion
16th August 11, 06:54 AM
Ron Paul is still getting shafted it would seem

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61412.html

Fearless Ukemi
16th August 11, 07:47 AM
At least Stewart will mention him.

QO93P6uz9t8

EvilSteve
16th August 11, 08:10 AM
I knew this would be a bad election season when Newt Gingrich seemed like the level-headed, reasonable one in the GOP debate.

Craigypooh
16th August 11, 08:20 AM
Also this bit had me in stitches though:
MAGIC? Does this mean I'm a wizard?!?!? Can I cast magic missile?

Don't you think faith healing and other miracles which the vast majority of christians believe in could be considered magic?

Craigypooh
16th August 11, 08:23 AM
I knew this would be a bad election season when Newt Gingrich seemed like the level-headed, reasonable one in the GOP debate.

Newt put his hand up along with everyone else when asked whether they would reject a 10 to 1 (spending cuts to tax raises) compromise budget deal.

Fearless Ukemi
16th August 11, 08:28 AM
Don't you think faith healing and other miracles which the vast majority of christians believe in could be considered magic?

It's not magick when Jesus does it.

Ajamil
16th August 11, 08:59 AM
Can't break a law you create in an absolute monarchy.

Cullion
16th August 11, 09:20 AM
Don't you think faith healing and other miracles which the vast majority of christians believe in could be considered magic?

Yes. The reason most Christians might initially say 'no' is because the word is associated with the occult practices forbidden in the bible (I think it's mostly in Deuteronomy), like contacting the dead or fortune telling.

Fearless Ukemi
16th August 11, 09:31 AM
Not really. Jesus Christ is believed to be the word of God in flesh and the source of life. When healing is done in his name, God is glorified and is not magick. The self does not come into play and is just merely a vessel for God to perform the miracle.

What magick is: “Magick is the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will.
-Aleister Crowley gave this definition for magick in his "Magick in Theory and Practice"

Adding to this definition is the absence of God. As you can see from that definition, magick is not always a ritual or attempt to call upon supernatural forces. We all perform magick every day. Our morning rituals one has to do to “wake up” is a form of magick, so is a prayer to whatever deity you may favor. Whenever you will some change and then set about causing said change, you are performing magick. It’s really that simple.

Fearless Ukemi
16th August 11, 09:35 AM
I'm not saying it isn't possible for a practicing Christian to participate in magick, assuming the name wouldn't bother them too much. A lot of rituals already use god names of YHWH. It'd be pretty easy to strip the pagan content and replace it with Judeo-Christian stuff. Just as well, any ritual could be fitted into the form of a prayer.

Cullion
16th August 11, 09:39 AM
Aleister Crowley didn't invent Magic, and redefining the commonly understood meaning to 'what I do when I wake up' is sophistry.

Fearless Ukemi
16th August 11, 09:48 AM
Fair point, but there is a clear difference between a genuine miracle and magick.

Craigypooh
16th August 11, 09:53 AM
genuine miracle

oxymoron.

Fearless Ukemi
16th August 11, 09:59 AM
How?

Craigypooh
16th August 11, 10:02 AM
coz they're all fake.

Fearless Ukemi
16th August 11, 10:05 AM
Well, the only way you can say that with certainty is if you can say with certainty that there is no God.

Cullion
16th August 11, 10:10 AM
Fair point, but there is a clear difference between a genuine miracle and magick.

Yes. A miracle is when Yahweh does it, and magic is when another spirit does it.

Craigypooh
16th August 11, 10:12 AM
Which ones are recognised as genuine by the Royal Society or MIT? Could you provide a peer reviewed paper in a reputable scientific journal?

Cullion
16th August 11, 10:14 AM
Magic isn't scientific so peer review isn't relevant.

EvilSteve
16th August 11, 10:14 AM
Newt put his hand up along with everyone else when asked whether they would reject a 10 to 1 (spending cuts to tax raises) compromise budget deal.

Yes, but he was the only one who would answer a question even semi-directly. Everyone else just spouted sound bites.

Craigypooh
16th August 11, 10:18 AM
Magic isn't scientific so peer review isn't relevant.

The catholic church tries (not very hard) to test "miracles" scientifically.

Cullion
16th August 11, 10:24 AM
I'm not following your point.

Fearless Ukemi
16th August 11, 10:28 AM
Thread officially derailed.

Craigypooh
16th August 11, 10:40 AM
I'm not following your point.

I wouldn't bother, it's not a very good point.

Craigypooh
16th August 11, 10:42 AM
Yes, but he was the only one who would answer a question even semi-directly. Everyone else just spouted sound bites.

I thought his answers on the economy were just as bad as all the others.

The other question I would have liked to see a show of hands on was "do you believe in evolution?"

Fearless Ukemi
16th August 11, 11:01 AM
Why? I thought they were jockeying to manage executive policies and decision making, not to teach biology.

EvilSteve
16th August 11, 11:09 AM
I thought his answers on the economy were just as bad as all the others.

The other question I would have liked to see a show of hands on was "do you believe in evolution?"

Hmm.. I wasn't paying that much attention, but I thought his answers on the economy were atrocious, and everyone else's weren't answers at all.

And the irony here is, I would bet they ALL believe in evolution, and most of them would have kept their hands down, as believing in creationism / ID is a prerequisite for pulling the crazy vote over here. What's even sadder is that non-crazy people don't flee in droves from politicians who say things that stupid.

EvilSteve
16th August 11, 11:11 AM
Why? I thought they were jockeying to manage executive policies and decision making, not to teach biology.

To me it's just a litmus test of how willing you are to lie in public. The equivalent question for dems is (or was) do they believe in gay marriage. Most do, but won't admit it.

Cullion
16th August 11, 11:13 AM
Hmm.. I wasn't paying that much attention, but I thought his answers on the economy were atrocious, and everyone else's weren't answers at all.

And the irony here is, I would bet they ALL believe in evolution, and most of them would have kept their hands down, as believing in creationism / ID is a prerequisite for pulling the crazy vote over here. What's even sadder is that non-crazy people don't flee in droves from politicians who say things that stupid.

Ron Paul doesn't. Most of the population doesn't flee in droves from politicians who say things as stupid as 'the answer here is more debt' or 'the answer here is to invade another middle-eastern country'. Why should they care about somebody's private beliefs regarding a scientific theory ?

EvilSteve
16th August 11, 11:24 AM
Ron Paul doesn't. Most of the population doesn't flee in droves from politicians who say things as stupid as 'the answer here is more debt' or 'the answer here is to invade another middle-eastern country'. Why should they care about somebody's private beliefs regarding a scientific theory ?

Wow- didn't realize that. Well, thanks for telling me- I might have voted for him.

And I'm not giving my vote to anyone who says the answer is more debt or invading a foreign country. So, that pretty much rules out the entire GOP and Democratic party.

Anyone know if Nader is running again?

EvilSteve
16th August 11, 11:34 AM
Worse yet:



Subject: Re: Didn’t see his hand
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:15:06 -0400
From: Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
To: Ron Shank

Ron,

Ron Paul did not raise his hand during that question, it was Tancredo, Huckabee & Brownback who raised their hands. Dr. Paul is physician and believes in evolution.


So, even worse- he's just a liar.

Cullion
16th August 11, 11:38 AM
Worse yet:



So, even worse- he's just a liar.

He has answered the question, directly at a public meeting, on camera, after protesting that he didn't believe his private religious beliefs were relevant to his candidacy.

This is the transcript :-



'Well, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter, and I think it's a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don't accept it, you know, as a theory, but I think [it probably doesn't bother me. It's not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my life to understand the exact origin. I think] the Creator that I know created us, everyone of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner, I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side. [So I just don't...if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it's an interesting discussion, I think it's a theological discussion, and I think it's fine, and we can have our...if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office.

Fearless Ukemi
16th August 11, 11:47 AM
The question "do you believe in evolution" is loaded anyways simply because people with an agenda have lead people to believe that the the theory of evolution has specific claims that it does not. For example, evolution does not say that humans evolved from monkeys, yet half the people I know seem to think it does.

I believe in many forms of evolution and devolution. It's pretty evident that life is an evolving process, including human life. I also believe that the societies we form are a type of super organism in themselves and that they too evolve or devolve.

But for the religious aspect of the question, evolution and creation are not mutually eclxusive concepts.

EvilSteve
16th August 11, 11:53 AM
Yes, and I applaud him for his openness and honesty. Actually, not his honesty since his campaign later said he did believe in it. But really, not believing in evolution? Sorry, I can't get behind that. That's not a religious thing, that's a stupid thing.

Cullion
16th August 11, 12:03 PM
Yes, and I applaud him for his openness and honesty. Actually, not his honesty since his campaign later said he did believe in it.

So if a campaign employee mistakenly claims you believe something which you don't (and are quite willing to be clear about on the record in public), how does this prove you are dishonest ?


But really, not believing in evolution? Sorry, I can't get behind that. That's not a religious thing, that's a stupid thing.

Which of these three beliefs is more dangerous to you and your loved ones:-

i) The answer to the US government's financial problems is to print more money to give to certain Wall Street banks.

ii) Now is the time to teach another middle-eastern country some respect.

iii) I don't think my private religious views should matter here and I zealously believe in constitutional seperation of church and state. I don't even believe that being pro-life, personally, gives me the right to use the presidency to overrule state laws on abortion. But I think you should know that I believe in God and think he might have been involved in the development of the human species, but that's a stupid thing to argue over in a political campaign.

Seriously, which of those three answers is the dumbest and most dangerous to you and yours ?

Spade: The Real Snake
16th August 11, 12:09 PM
It depends upon the mouth from which those words are falling.
Individually, the first two are of greater concern. When you look behind the curtain and see more of the one speaking those words, that's the rub.

Too many people think of "Hates Mexicans" when they hear the name "Ron Paul" despite them likely agreeing with a greater percentage of his platform than disagree.

Cullion
16th August 11, 12:13 PM
Surely everybody understands that's bullshit by now ?

EvilSteve
16th August 11, 12:18 PM
So if a campaign employee mistakenly claims you believe something which you don't (and are quite willing to be clear about on the record in public), how does this prove you are dishonest ?



Which of these three beliefs is more dangerous to you and your loved ones:-

i) The answer to the US government's financial problems is to print more money to give to certain Wall Street banks.

ii) Now is the time to teach another middle-eastern country some respect.

iii) I don't think my private religious views should matter here and I zealously believe in constitutional seperation of church and state. I don't even believe that being pro-life, personally, gives me the right to use the presidency to overrule state laws on abortion. But I think you should know that I believe in God and think he might have been involved in the development of the human species, but that's a stupid thing to argue over in a political campaign.

Seriously, which of those three answers is the dumbest and most dangerous to you and yours ?

That he doesn't believe in things even more dangerous than creationism isn't really the point. I had basically written off BOTH major parties but thought I might give Paul a chance, but no thanks. Sure, he's not as virulent about it as a Rick Perry, but I'm not voting for someone from the "evolution is just a theory" crowd unless they've got another equally viable theory to put forward. (Protip: ID isn't that theory).

Fearless Ukemi
16th August 11, 12:31 PM
"Fetch me a fruit of the Banyan tree"

"Here is one, sir"

"Break it"

"I have broken it, sir"

"What do you see?"

"Very tiny seeds sir"

"Break one"

"I have broken it, sir"

"What do you see now?"

"Nothing, sir"

"My son, what you do not perceive is the essence, and in that essence, a mighty tree exists. Believe me, my son, in that essence is the self of all that is."

-Chandogya Upanishad vi 13

Spade: The Real Snake
16th August 11, 12:38 PM
Surely everybody understands that's bullshit by now ?
It's a non-issue as he is essentially marginalized in the current primary, if his campaign were able to get legitimate footing after his second place Iowa showing, you better believe the 2007 videos of his numerous Tea Party rallies in the Southwest would surface

resolve
16th August 11, 01:29 PM
The theory of evolution doesn't even cover origins... that falls under the category of abiogenesis.

What the theory of evolution covers (at least now) is how mutations and subtle changes occur in populations of species and then extrapolates that data to interpret the fossil record and then uses the fossil record to reinforce that extrapolation.

There's a massive difference between the "theory of how life changes" to the "theory of how life started". And abiogenesis has many hypotheses and running theories as is.

The only reason evolution has such a strong (almost impossibly strong) standing in the scientific community is the aforementioned fossil record link.

The greater theory of evolution and the lesser theory of the origin of man from a common ancestor of the great apes is even more contentious.

Ajamil
16th August 11, 01:39 PM
Evolutionary theory doesn't need the fossil record, it's just nice collaborative evidence. There's an experiment mentioned in Dawkin's Greatest Show on Earth that I'm surprised isn't more well-known; it documents a strain of bacteria evolving to process a completely different food source.

EvilSteve
16th August 11, 02:18 PM
Evolutionary theory doesn't need the fossil record, it's just nice collaborative evidence. There's an experiment mentioned in Dawkin's Greatest Show on Earth that I'm surprised isn't more well-known; it documents a strain of bacteria evolving to process a completely different food source.

Doesn't ID allow for that though? I thought the point of ID was to front for creationism by accepting the observable effects of evolution while denying the unobservable ones (e.g. a bacterium evolving into a human).

nifoc
16th August 11, 03:08 PM
Doesn't ID allow for that though? I thought the point of ID was to front for creationism by accepting the observable effects of evolution while denying the unobservable ones (e.g. a bacterium evolving into a human).The difference is that ID requires a designer, of which there has been no sign, while evolution works fine as described. ID is claiming that a designer must be present without presenting evidence of such an entity, it therefore fails a basic criterion of scientific theory.

EvilSteve
16th August 11, 03:12 PM
The difference is that ID requires a designer, of which there has been no sign, while evolution works fine as described. ID is claiming that a designer must be present without presenting evidence of such an entity, it therefore fails a basic criterion of scientific theory.

Yes, I agree- but the point I was making is that ID was created because creationism is observably false (organisms can change) so creationists created ID to relocate their "god of the gaps" to the more secure "irreducible complexity" bunker.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
16th August 11, 03:32 PM
The only reason evolution has such a strong (almost impossibly strong) standing in the scientific community is the aforementioned fossil record link.

The greater theory of evolution and the lesser theory of the origin of man from a common ancestor of the great apes is even more contentious.

One word for you to consider whilst you go away and actually read a book.....

GENES

resolve
16th August 11, 03:44 PM
*sigh*

Ignorance.

Vieux Normand
16th August 11, 03:59 PM
The greater theory of evolution and the lesser theory of the origin of man from a common ancestor of the great apes is even more contentious.

It's only "contentious" to those who never look at human feet. One thick medial digit, a gap, then four slender lateral digits. In mammal species that have not had a relatively-recent arboreal phase in their development, the structure of the foot, hoof or whatever is bilaterally-symmetrical: larger digits being at the centre of the foot, smaller digits or remnants being on both sides.

The human foot is bilaterally-asymmetrical for the same reason the human hand is (large medial digit, gap, four smaller lateral digits). It has not yet entirely shed its structural commonalities with the hand. The human foot is an appendage which--in our ancestors--actually was a hand.

I bring this matter up with creationists (including the idiots who think "evolution claims humans evolved from chimpanzees"--which, of course, it doesn't) and they have no answer--no better explanation, evidence or anything at all addressing the why the modern human foot looks the way it does.

Feryk
16th August 11, 04:40 PM
I'm gonna file all the evolution vs. creation shit under "Who The Fuck Cares" and get on with it.

Ron Paul is being marginalized by the religious right faction of the GOP. They are organized and have a lot of media influence. He is doomed regardless of his message - which is too bad.

The thing you should all be scared of is the same thing you should've been scared of for the last 20 years: the zealots got organized. Unfortunately, the moderates have been supplanted.

Whoever comes out of the GOP nomination process will be beholden to the religious right. Period. They are now the straw that stirs the drink of the GOP. Romney included.

Give that some serious thought heading into the next election, please.

Cullion
16th August 11, 04:58 PM
That he doesn't believe in things even more dangerous than creationism isn't really the point. I had basically written off BOTH major parties but thought I might give Paul a chance, but no thanks. Sure, he's not as virulent about it as a Rick Perry, but I'm not voting for someone from the "evolution is just a theory" crowd unless they've got another equally viable theory to put forward. (Protip: ID isn't that theory).

You're actually prepared to sit out of a presidential election at a critical juncture in your nation's history with your arms folded in a huff because of an argument over the fossil record ?

Really?

Wow.

bob
16th August 11, 06:49 PM
I'm no Paul fan but he looks like a prom queen compared to the prolapsed bovine nether regions that is the rest of the gop field.

Also the comedy fan in me wants to see him clean up state after state until the mainstream media ignoring him becomes epically awkward.

HappyOldGuy
16th August 11, 08:28 PM
So if a campaign employee mistakenly claims you believe something which you don't (and are quite willing to be clear about on the record in public), how does this prove you are dishonest ?



Which of these three beliefs is more dangerous to you and your loved ones:-

i) The answer to the US government's financial problems is to print more money to give to certain Wall Street banks.

ii) Now is the time to teach another middle-eastern country some respect.

iii) I don't think my private religious views should matter here and I zealously believe in constitutional seperation of church and state. I don't even believe that being pro-life, personally, gives me the right to use the presidency to overrule state laws on abortion. But I think you should know that I believe in God and think he might have been involved in the development of the human species, but that's a stupid thing to argue over in a political campaign.

Seriously, which of those three answers is the dumbest and most dangerous to you and yours ?

One is falsifiable. Once you reject rationality and evidence as the main drivers for your decisions, nothing else matters.

Hell, I didn't support Gore in 2000 just for weaseling on the question. It's an absolute deal breaker.

Unless I'm pretty sure you are just lying.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
17th August 11, 04:08 AM
*sigh*

Ignorance.

Really? That's your answer?

Cullion
17th August 11, 04:44 AM
One is falsifiable.

The first two are falsifiable, the third doesn't even constitute a theory of it's own, but private doubt about another theory.



Once you reject rationality and evidence as the main drivers for your decisions, nothing else matters.

You would have to do that, in a far more dangerous way, to believe either of the first two propositions.



Unless I'm pretty sure you are just lying.

I would be quite happy voting for Ron Paul if I was American. I'd have no hesitation voting for somebody with private beliefs I didn't agree with as long as his political programme was one I did agree with.

EvilSteve
17th August 11, 07:47 AM
You're actually prepared to sit out of a presidential election at a critical juncture in your nation's history with your arms folded in a huff because of an argument over the fossil record ?

Really?

Wow.

I'm not sitting anything out. I'm voting for a third party because as far as I see it both the Democratic and Republican parties are beholden to exactly the same moneyed interests and voting for either of them would be throwing my vote away.

Perhaps I'm too hard on Ron Paul- he is entitled to his beliefs so long as he doesn't foist them off onto the rest of us, but I feel quite strongly that U.S. politics needs to break its addiction to God. We were founded on the separation of church and state and people ought to remember that.

EvilSteve
17th August 11, 07:53 AM
The thing you should all be scared of is the same thing you should've been scared of for the last 20 years: the zealots got organized. Unfortunately, the moderates have been supplanted.


A while back I saw a documentary on Bush Sr's lost bid for re-election. What one of the campaign managers said is that they realized too late that all you need to do to win as a Republican is to cater to evangelicals. This was the start of the drive for the religious right vote. And it's true- the GOP in the U.S. largely represents the wealthy and their winning strategy is to pander to psychopaths with medieval beliefs.

The Democratic party on the other hand, largely represents no one. Their winning strategy is to suck as much corporate dick as possible and then run on the "but you wouldn't want the Republicans to win" slogan.

Cullion
17th August 11, 08:26 AM
I'm not sitting anything out. I'm voting for a third party because as far as I see it both the Democratic and Republican parties are beholden to exactly the same moneyed interests and voting for either of them would be throwing my vote away.

Perhaps I'm too hard on Ron Paul- he is entitled to his beliefs so long as he doesn't foist them off onto the rest of us, but I feel quite strongly that U.S. politics needs to break its addiction to God. We were founded on the separation of church and state and people ought to remember that.

He does, that's why he's so annoyed about questions like this being part of the debate and has explicitly stated that the constitution doesn't allow him a say on abortion despite him personally being pro-life.

Nonetheless, I have read at least 3 articles in the past month (one of them in the UK) falsely describing anti-abortionism as part of his campaign platform based on misunderstanding a second hand report that he's a 'pro lifer'.

EvilSteve
17th August 11, 08:46 AM
He does, that's why he's so annoyed about questions like this being part of the debate and has explicitly stated that the constitution doesn't allow him a say on abortion despite him personally being pro-life.

Nonetheless, I have read at least 3 articles in the past month (one of them in the UK) falsely describing anti-abortionism as part of his campaign platform based on misunderstanding a second hand report that he's a 'pro lifer'.

Yes, the bulk of the U.S. media and voting public view complex points of view as 'liberal' and 'weak' which is why intelligent and honest people tend to be excluded from the political process.

Seriously though, the man is a doctor. How the hell does he not believe in evolution? He is one of a very few people in this world who should understand the mechanisms by which it functions.

Cullion
17th August 11, 08:58 AM
Yes, the bulk of the U.S. media and voting public view complex points of view as 'liberal' and 'weak' which is why intelligent and honest people tend to be excluded from the political process.

Seriously though, the man is a doctor. How the hell does he not believe in evolution? He is one of a very few people in this world who should understand the mechanisms by which it functions.

Simple by believing it possible for a supreme being to be capable of changing or ignoring scientific laws at will (as their author in the first place). It's an entirely self-consistent belief system that doesn't yield to any empirical assault.

Ph.D Biologists and medically trained people who doubt evolution for religious reasons aren't that uncommon. Christopher Hitchens is currently being treated for cancer by a very famous scientist who happens to also be a devout Christian who believes in theistic evolution and miracles:-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article673663.ece

I don't actually know what he thinks did happen; if you look at his (rambling) quote he seems to segue back and forth and hint that he thinks God may have directed the process somehow.

I don't think it has much to with his policy platform, and I certainly don't think his logic is any more contorted than that used to justify many other widely accepted political beliefs.

EvilSteve
17th August 11, 09:24 AM
Simple by believing it possible for a supreme being to be capable of changing or ignoring scientific laws at will (as their author in the first place). It's an entirely self-consistent belief system that doesn't yield to any empirical assault.

Ph.D Biologists and medically trained people who doubt evolution for religious reasons aren't that uncommon. Christopher Hitchens is currently being treated for cancer by a very famous scientist who happens to also be a devout Christian who believes in theistic evolution and miracles:-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article673663.ece

I don't actually know what he thinks did happen; if you look at his (rambling) quote he seems to segue back and forth and hint that he thinks God may have directed the process somehow.

I don't think it has much to with his policy platform, and I certainly don't think his logic is any more contorted than that used to justify many other widely accepted political beliefs.

Actually, it yields quite readily to a logical assault- an omniscient, omnipotent being capable of creating the entire universe would be smart enough to create rules it didn't need to break. A being capable of seeing all the diverse paths evolution can take wouldn't need to bother tinkering with it- it could just set the right conditions and watch it flow as planned, much like an engineer digging a canal.

Cullion
17th August 11, 09:40 AM
Actually, it yields quite readily to a logical assault- an omniscient, omnipotent being capable of creating the entire universe would be smart enough to create rules it didn't need to break.

Why ? You just committed the same error of logic that I had to castigate Nob for a while ago.



A being capable of seeing all the diverse paths evolution can take wouldn't need to bother tinkering with it- it could just set the right conditions and watch it flow as planned, much like an engineer digging a canal.

Only if you assumed that the universe worked in a deterministic manner like that. You're making unwarranted assumptions about something you don't even believe exists.

Cullion
17th August 11, 09:41 AM
From now on this stupid proposition is called 'God can't exist because otherwise he would've had to do things this way', and it is no longer allowed on sociocide.

Spade: The Real Snake
17th August 11, 10:58 AM
From now on this stupid proposition is called 'God can't exist because otherwise he would've had to do things this way', and it is no longer allowed on sociocide.
"God is a framer and not a finish carpenter" theory.

jkdbuck76
17th August 11, 11:12 AM
Hush. He's Obamas secret weapon for 2012.

Okay, not that secret.

No. That is Michelle Bachman.

Ajamil
17th August 11, 11:17 AM
Actually, it yields quite readily to a logical assault- an omniscient, omnipotent being capable of creating the entire universe would be smart enough to create rules it didn't need to break.Need to =/= want to.

Spade: The Real Snake
17th August 11, 11:21 AM
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/08/paul-ryan-presidential-campaign-/1?csp=34news

Feryk
17th August 11, 12:55 PM
I think Ron Paul needs to rethink his strategy. Right now, he's branded as a Don Quixote-like character.

He needs to be more subversive and infiltrate the Tea Party.

He speaks enough crazy assed Evangelicalism to get by, and he can influence their policy makers in the back room as a strategist. Perhaps some of his libertarianism would get more serious treatment then.

EvilSteve
17th August 11, 01:06 PM
Why ? You just committed the same error of logic that I had to castigate Nob for a while ago.

Only if you assumed that the universe worked in a deterministic manner like that. You're making unwarranted assumptions about something you don't even believe exists.

I don't assume the universe is at all deterministic, just that a being capable of perceiving all of time, space and probability at once has no need for the celestial equivalent of "IDNOCLIP" in Doom.

Sure, maybe God just felt like breaking his own rules. But that's a bit of a cop out and shows a startling lack of faith in God's ability. A Deist has arguably greater faith in God than a creationist.



From now on this stupid proposition is called 'God can't exist because otherwise he would've had to do things this way', and it is no longer allowed on sociocide.

That wasn't the argument I was making. My point was that literal interpretations of the bible don't make any sense as they are full of contradictions and often based on assumptions that are provably false.

The ill-tempered Hebrew storm god that functions as the godhead of Christianity is a very large theological structure that can't be crammed into the gaps of human knowledge without cleaving large pieces off. So, if you're not going to take it on faith that the Earth is about 6000 years old it makes no sense to take it on faith that the Christian god violates his own laws of physics to tinker with evolution, even when it has no need to.

Spade: The Real Snake
17th August 11, 01:07 PM
I think Ron Paul needs to rethink his strategy. Right now, he's branded as a Don Quixote-like character.

He needs to be more subversive and infiltrate the Tea Party.

He speaks enough crazy assed Evangelicalism to get by, and he can influence their policy makers in the back room as a strategist. Perhaps some of his libertarianism would get more serious treatment then.
The 2007ish early stages of the Tea Party were big Paul supporters, at least from what I saw in the Southwest, mostly for his hard-line Immigration stance.

....which include Bullshido's KenpoClyde O'Briant

EvilSteve
17th August 11, 01:08 PM
I think Ron Paul needs to rethink his strategy. Right now, he's branded as a Don Quixote-like character.

He needs to be more subversive and infiltrate the Tea Party.

He speaks enough crazy assed Evangelicalism to get by, and he can influence their policy makers in the back room as a strategist. Perhaps some of his libertarianism would get more serious treatment then.

I thought Paul was sort of regarded as a pioneer of the Tea Party movement? From what I understand, teabaggers love his wrinkled ass.

Feryk
17th August 11, 01:12 PM
...not enough to push him for President. Instead they want to back Bachman or some other flake. If Paul went from the stage to the backroom, he could head off alot of stupid BEFORE it gets to the front stage.

Spade: The Real Snake
17th August 11, 01:32 PM
Paul lacks that shallow charisma we look for in our perspective leaders

Craigypooh
17th August 11, 01:44 PM
Why? I thought they were jockeying to manage executive policies and decision making, not to teach biology.

I like the leader of the free world to have a decent grasp of reality.

Craigypooh
17th August 11, 01:52 PM
From now on this stupid proposition is called 'God can't exist because otherwise he would've had to do things this way', and it is no longer allowed on sociocide.

Like assuming "God" is consistent, logical or even competent?

Cullion
17th August 11, 04:17 PM
I don't assume the universe is at all deterministic, just that a being capable of perceiving all of time, space and probability at once has no need for the celestial equivalent of "IDNOCLIP" in Doom.

It doesn't matter what you think such a being would need. That's no way to infer what it's behaviour would be.



Sure, maybe God just felt like breaking his own rules. But that's a bit of a cop out and shows a startling lack of faith in God's ability.

No it doesn't, it simple doesn't assume that all such a beings motives would be intelligible like you're doing.



That wasn't the argument I was making. My point was that literal interpretations of the bible don't make any sense as they are full of contradictions and often based on assumptions that are provably false.

Like what ?

Cullion
17th August 11, 04:20 PM
I like the leader of the free world to have a decent grasp of reality.

You really believe that agreeing with your team when it comes to a debate over fossils is more important than grasp of economic or geopolitical reality ? why?

Do you believe in faith-based economics?

Feryk
17th August 11, 04:28 PM
Keep it up Cullion, and I'll make you watch The Secret.

I'll do it.

Cullion
17th August 11, 04:30 PM
This is my thread and I can do what the fuck I like.

Hey, I've got a question for you militant atheists :-

Would you check a surgeon's opinions on evolution before you allowed them to operate on your child ?

Be honest.

And, if not, why not ?

In fact, don't bother, I've already won this one. I don't believe for one fucking minute any of you would ask that question and none of you are going to have a coherent answer why.

'I am perfectly happy for that guy to operate on my child, but no fucking way am I going to trust him with the economy. I want the good 'ole atheist who believes in borrowing more money to give it to the banks to handle that for me'.

Feryk
17th August 11, 04:34 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b1GKGWJbE8

You were warned.

HappyOldGuy
17th August 11, 07:36 PM
Do you believe in faith-based economics?

You mean like those Austrian fellers who think we shouldn't play with secrets man was not meant to know math?

Robot Jesus
17th August 11, 07:57 PM
what the hell is devolution?

Ajamil
17th August 11, 08:27 PM
Devolution was a term used by a Hindu apologist to describe a top-down creation of the universe; the idea that first there was consciousness, which brought about matter instead of matter increasing in complexity to give rise to consciousness. However I think the term as used here is meant to show that evolution doesn't always move in a certain "direction." That a line of beings might evolve increasing complexity, but they also might evolve into more simplistic beings.

Personally it's why I like to think of it not as an evolutionary line, but as an expanding sphere. I think it's counterproductive to think that since a roaches' species has existed in some form for millions of years, they are more primitive than a human's genes. The DNA sequence for roaches today is just as modern as a human's, it's just that their history of speciation isn't as changing.

HappyOldGuy
17th August 11, 08:31 PM
what the hell is devolution?

Really?

wXKNTLsLJVk

Cullion
18th August 11, 03:03 AM
You mean like those Austrian fellers who think we shouldn't play with secrets man was not meant to know math?

You are on my frowny-face list.

bob
18th August 11, 04:14 AM
This is my thread and I can do what the fuck I like.

Hey, I've got a question for you militant atheists :-

Would you check a surgeon's opinions on evolution before you allowed them to operate on your child ?

Be honest.

And, if not, why not ?

In fact, don't bother, I've already won this one. I don't believe for one fucking minute any of you would ask that question and none of you are going to have a coherent answer why.

'I am perfectly happy for that guy to operate on my child, but no fucking way am I going to trust him with the economy. I want the good 'ole atheist who believes in borrowing more money to give it to the banks to handle that for me'.

When my wife was 16 she went to see a surgeon with severe stomach pains. He was a lay preacher or elder in some church and decided that she was 'immoral' and a 'a slut' and just looking for an excuse to get birth control. So she went to a real doctor and got a real diagnosis. Ended up having about 6 operations over the next 6 years. I had a similar experience as a kid when I had a severe infection which caused me to behave like a monster. It was diagnosed by a Christian doctor as a failing of morality and discipline on my mother's part. I also suspect he was a pedo but that's beside the point.

So in answer to your question (or rather the question you should have asked), if I got the slightest hint that someone's whacky religious (or moral or philosophical) beliefs somehow informed their professional practice then fuck yeah I wouldn't want anything to do with them.

Cullion
18th August 11, 05:27 AM
When was the last time you actually asked a doctor about their religious beliefs ?

You don't, do you? I especially bet you don't ask asian medical staff about their religious beliefs.

Ron Paul didn't bring this up either, and there's no reason to believe, whatsoever, that his views on the fossil record have any bearing on his policies.

bob
18th August 11, 05:31 AM
His religious views certainly have an impact on his interpretation of the constitution.

Cullion
18th August 11, 05:37 AM
Explain.

Arhetton
18th August 11, 05:38 AM
I thought Paul was sort of regarded as a pioneer of the Tea Party movement? From what I understand, teabaggers love his wrinkled ass.

The first tea party day was actually a Ron Paul 'money bomb' event and it grew organically and was co-opted from there. Palin is not a tea party candidate, and in a way neither is Bachmann.

I think people who disregard Paul underestimated the flow on effects from his 2008 campaign and they are going to make the same mistake in 2012.

Conditions favor his message, the campaign is going to be bigger and better funded this time around.

Perry's entrance to the race has split the votes between Romney and Bachmann, its good for Paul.

It is the political story of the year.


Also the comedy fan in me wants to see him clean up state after state until the mainstream media ignoring him becomes epically awkward.

Probably a top 3 finish in Iowa and maybe top 4 in New Hampshire this time around. Which could result in either a blackout or the RNC moving to block him from delegates again (happened in Nevada). Either way he is the dark horse candidate again. There's every indication it will be an amplification of the 2008 campaign which collapsed in Iowa & NH. So it will probably all be over in February but man is it going to be so damn entertaining!

bob
18th August 11, 05:55 AM
Explain.

Establishment clause.

Arhetton
18th August 11, 05:56 AM
here is the tea party origin story.

don't see Bachmann or Palin in here...

6bNiDx7qTjA

Cullion
18th August 11, 06:05 AM
You'll have to do better than that, Bob. Paul hasn't in any sense called for theocratic legislation. Unless you're arguing that only atheists should be allowed to hold the US presidency.

You're kinda making this up, aren't you ?

bob
18th August 11, 06:16 AM
You'll have to do better than that, Bob. Paul hasn't in any sense called for theocratic legislation. Unless you're arguing that only atheists should be allowed to hold the US presidency.

You're kinda making this up, aren't you ?

Yes of course. I'm on the opposite team to you remember.

Craigypooh
18th August 11, 06:53 AM
You really believe that agreeing with your team when it comes to a debate over fossils is more important than grasp of economic or geopolitical reality ? why?

Do you believe in faith-based economics?

No, this is a debate about fossils:

In 1949, C. M. Sternberg was the first to question this and favoured instead that Triceratops was more closely related to Arrhinoceratops and Chasmosaurus based on skull and horn features, making Triceratops a ceratopsine (chasmosaurine of his usage) genus. However, he was largely ignored with John Ostrom, and later David Norman, both placing Triceratops within Centrosaurinae.

Saying "I don't believe in evolution" is having a complete disregard for evidence when forming an opinion.

Would you vote for David Icke to be prime minister, if he happened to agree with your economic views?

Cullion
18th August 11, 07:25 AM
Saying "I don't believe in evolution" is having a complete disregard for evidence when forming an opinion.

Lots of things which politicians from Hilary Clinton to David Cameron accept as true require a disregard for evidence. This one doesn't have any impact on public policy.

You don't even know what exactly he does believe in, at no point was an argument for young earth creationism made.



Would you vote for David Icke to be prime minister, if he happened to agree with your economic views?

Would you vote for Stalin over Ron Paul ? If not, why not ?

You're getting nerd rage about a man's religious opinion, when you aren't even quite sure what it is, when the elephant in the room is that the other candidates either want to engage in pointless expeditionary warfare or don't even believe in basic arithmetic whilst their economy collapses around them.

Never mind, I already know you don't really believe what you're saying because you're another one of those people angry about evolution on the internet who would never ask this question of a surgeon about to operate on him.

EvilSteve
18th August 11, 08:27 AM
It doesn't matter what you think such a being would need. That's no way to infer what it's behaviour would be.

Actually, there is- in Christian doctrine, humanity is made in God's image, so it's not unreasonable to think that God would act similarly to a human. And in fact, in the Bible, that is more or less what God acts like. Keep in mind, we're not talking about some theoretical God here, but God as described in the Bible, where he generally tends to act like a human with a Napoleonic complex.


No it doesn't, it simple doesn't assume that all such a beings motives would be intelligible like you're doing.

It is a cop out. God in the Bible acts more or less like a very powerful human pretty much every time he shows up (even when it's as a burning bush) but then all of a sudden his motives are inscrutable when painted into a corner on evolution?


Like what ?

Well, for one thing the Bible describes a geocentric cosmogony. You can't really be asking me what parts of the Bible aren't factually true, right?

If you just want to talk about a theoretical omniscient, omnipotent deity then your arguments are absolutely correct- its motives would be inscrutable. But the Christian god doesn't even act omniscient in many parts of the Bible (because I don't think the original Yahweh WAS omniscient- he was just a storm god that lived in a box in the temple of a henotheistic(sp?) people),


As for your bit about the surgeon- I wouldn't ask that question because I doubt it would ever occur to me that he wouldn't believe in evolution. If I found out that person was a creationist, I would likely continue to shop around unless they either a) had an absolutely brilliant track record otherwise or b) the situation was dire and searching elsewhere endangered my child's life.

Cullion
18th August 11, 08:35 AM
Actually, there is- in Christian doctrine, humanity is made in God's image, so it's not unreasonable to think that God would act similarly to a human.

You don't actually know much about Christian doctrine, do you ?



And in fact, in the Bible, that is more or less what God acts like. Keep in mind, we're not talking about some theoretical God here, but God as described in the Bible, where he generally tends to act like a human with a Napoleonic complex.

In the New Testament ? In the book of Ezekiel? In Deuteronomy?




It is a cop out. God in the Bible acts more or less like a very powerful human pretty much every time he shows up (even when it's as a burning bush) but then all of a sudden his motives are inscrutable when painted into a corner on evolution?

You've never read the bible, have you?



Well, for one thing the Bible describes a geocentric cosmogony.

No it doesn't.



As for your bit about the surgeon- I wouldn't ask that question because I doubt it would ever occur to me that he wouldn't believe in evolution.

Lots of surgeons in the US are devoutly religious. You're lying about the rest. If you really cared you'd ask. And you believe all kinds of bizarre things about what Christians believe or what it says in the bible that you appear to have made up for yourself.

Fearless Ukemi
18th August 11, 08:47 AM
what the hell is devolution?

This is what we should start seeing across the world today, especially in industrialized countries. I guess it is devolution in the sense that "survival of the fittest" is no longer the norm, so negative detrimental traits should soon start prevailing among the human species. If evoution is true, then so is devolution and we should soon start seeing a sharp increase in disease and mental illnesses.

Fearless Ukemi
18th August 11, 08:57 AM
When my wife was 16 she went to see a surgeon with severe stomach pains. He was a lay preacher or elder in some church and decided that she was 'immoral' and a 'a slut' and just looking for an excuse to get birth control. So she went to a real doctor and got a real diagnosis. Ended up having about 6 operations over the next 6 years. I had a similar experience as a kid when I had a severe infection which caused me to behave like a monster. It was diagnosed by a Christian doctor as a failing of morality and discipline on my mother's part. I also suspect he was a pedo but that's beside the point.

So in answer to your question (or rather the question you should have asked), if I got the slightest hint that someone's whacky religious (or moral or philosophical) beliefs somehow informed their professional practice then fuck yeah I wouldn't want anything to do with them.

Those doctors don't sound very Christ like in my opinion.

Fearless Ukemi
18th August 11, 09:00 AM
Well, for one thing the Bible describes a geocentric cosmogony.


I didn't want to get into a theological debate, so I'm just quoting the above as false.

The earth is the main focus of the Genesis narrative, but that does not imply a geocentric cosmology and in fact the book of Enoch describes the solar system pretty close to correctly.

It was the Roman Catholic church that banned the book of Enoch and pushed a geocentric model based really only a prayer by Joshua asking for the sun to stand still in the sky.

EvilSteve
18th August 11, 09:13 AM
http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/memes-christianity-the-belief-that-a-cosmic-jewish-zombie-who-was-his-own-father-can-make-you-live-forever-if-you-symbolically-eat-his-flesh-and-telepathically-tell-him-you-accept-him-as-your-master-s.jpg

FFS- I know this thread is getting tired when you're just asking questions rather than making arguments. If you are arguing that I was perhaps unjustly biased against Ron Paul because he made a vague statement saying he thought God might have had something to do with human evolution, I've already conceded that point, but don't try to convince me that there is any sense to believing in creationism. That's just silly and I know you don't believe it either. But if it makes you feel better, I will admit that someone with a sufficient knowledge of Christianity can make a convoluted argument for why it makes sense to believe in creationism/ID. That doesn't make it so, but it is possible to frame a logically consistent argument for believing in something illogical.

And yes I know many U.S. surgeons are quite devout- my aunt and uncle are two of them and neither is a creationist. My issue is not with Christianity, but with the creepy creeping fundamentalism that has wormed its way into US politics. Perhaps you've noticed it in folks like the person this thread is named for.

EvilSteve
18th August 11, 09:14 AM
I didn't want to get into a theological debate, so I'm just quoting the above as false.

The earth is the main focus of the Genesis narrative, but that does not imply a geocentric cosmology and in fact the book of Enoch describes the solar system pretty close to correctly.

It was the Roman Catholic church that banned the book of Enoch and pushed a geocentric model based really only a prayer by Joshua asking for the sun to stand still in the sky.

Okay, I'll take you on your word I was wrong about this. My bad.

Also, last post was a reply to Cullion, not you.

Cullion
18th August 11, 09:23 AM
The problem is, EvilSteve, that all your arguments until your long, tear-stained 'I concede' post are based on :-

a) not really knowing much about the things you're criticising.

b) proceeding to pull things out of your arse (the bible says the sun goes around the Earth!)

c) finally trying to claw something back in your 'leave me alone' post by making the absurd segue that it's not, y'know, evolution that bothers you, just the idea that somebody religious might have some other political programme, but you totally didn't mean Ron Paul.

This is only so easy and so much fun because people are so bad at admitting they're wrong, early and graciously.

Fearless Ukemi
18th August 11, 09:24 AM
It's all good. I don't like politicians catering to fundies either.... for many reasons.

EvilSteve
18th August 11, 09:38 AM
The problem is, EvilSteve, that all your arguments until your long, tear-stained 'I concede' post are based on :-

a) not really knowing much about the things you're criticising.

b) proceeding to pull things out of your arse (the bible says the sun goes around the Earth!)

c) finally trying to claw something back in your 'leave me alone' post by making the absurd segue that it's not, y'know, evolution that bothers you, just the idea that somebody religious might have some other political programme, but you totally didn't mean Ron Paul.

This is only so easy and so much fun because people are so bad at admitting they're wrong, early and graciously.

You just can't let it alone, can you? Well, neither can I so I guess that's fair...

I absolutely DID mean Ron Paul. That's how this all got started. I just eventually agreed that I was being a bit rabid about my antitheism and that what Paul said was not that fundie-crazy.

Also, though I chose a bad example for the factual inaccuracy of the Bible (I was in fact referring to the prayer Ukemi mentioned) I could very well have pointed out that the Bible also says that humanity was spontaneously generated by God somewhere in modern day Iran, but serves me right for trying to be clever.

But, I know you think that fundamentalism is just as ridiculous as I do, and if the likes of a Ray Comfort ever crossed your path you'd probably tear him a new asshole. So why be an apologist for this nonsense?

Cullion
18th August 11, 09:45 AM
I'm not. I started this thread. It's about the bad kind of theism.

p.s. You were not in fact referring to the prayer that Ukemi mentioned, because you didn't know it existed. What you had was a half-remembered idea about the persecution of Galileo. You've never actually read that prayer. Why lie?

EvilSteve
18th August 11, 10:17 AM
I'm not. I started this thread. It's about the bad kind of theism.

p.s. You were not in fact referring to the prayer that Ukemi mentioned, because you didn't know it existed. What you had was a half-remembered idea about the persecution of Galileo. You've never actually read that prayer. Why lie?

I never mentioned Galileo, and wasn't even thinking about him, because that's the Catholic church, not the Bible. Where did you get that?

I was aware of that prayer because Clarence Darrow referenced it during the Scopes trial, which I wrote a paper on ages ago. He was questioning William Jennings Bryan on the subject, who didn't have a good answer as to why the Bible, which was factually correct by his argument, would refer to the sun orbiting the Earth. So good question, why WOULD I lie?

But given Ukemi's post, it does beg the question why Bryan would resort to being evasive when he had a perfectly good out, as well as a point of reference where the Bible supposedly is factually correct. But that's for another thread.

And that wasn't a tear-stained leave me alone post, it was a tear-stained plea for sanity. It was "look, if I admit I was unduly harsh in my criticism of Ron Paul will you stop making the retarded argument that it makes sense for people to believe in creationism/ID, because I know you don't really think that?"

Cullion
18th August 11, 10:19 AM
I don't believe this response either. You, sir, have been constructing a story using google.

EvilSteve
18th August 11, 10:44 AM
I don't believe this response either. You, sir, have been constructing a story using google.

I wrote my junior research paper on the Scopes trial when I was in high school. Coming from a family of academics I've always had an interest in the suppression of science for religious or political reasons. It's also why I'm very sensitive to politicians talking creationism.

I've never been less than honest on this board and I don't know when I've ever given you or anyone else cause to call me a liar. Call me wrong if you want, but to call me a liar is unjustified. What nerve of yours did I hit?

Cullion
18th August 11, 10:49 AM
Have a nice day EvilSteve.

EvilSteve
18th August 11, 11:13 AM
I guess that's as close to an apology as I'll get.

See you later, Cullion.

Cullion
18th August 11, 11:16 AM
Apology? ho ho ho!

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
18th August 11, 11:23 AM
BAD Cullionz!

What's your problem with perry then?

You think if he gets in power he will suddenly deport all the jew and make everyone read the bible instaed of doing physics?

Cullion
18th August 11, 11:26 AM
No. I think he'll be a belligerent retard in the middle East because he'll believe he's furthering God's plan for a Greater Israel.

Fearless Ukemi
18th August 11, 11:30 AM
God's plan really just consists of salvaging the pieces left over from the shit storm WE create.

Zionist Christians that want to praise Israel in its current condition need to go back and read the prophecies regarding Israel in the last days. If they probably already know them, then I would say they are really just agents of the Destroyer.

I think this could be one of the reasons that Jesus said the prostitutes will enter his kingdom before the established religious leaders.

EvilSteve
18th August 11, 11:32 AM
No. I think he'll be a belligerent retard in the middle East because he'll believe he's furthering God's plan for a Greater Israel.

It remains to be seen whether Perry actually BELIEVES the bullshit he spews or whether he's just trying to ride the crazy train to the White House (he used to work for Al Gore which to me makes all this suspect). But suffice it to say I don't want that man anywhere near the presidency either.

Cullion
18th August 11, 11:47 AM
Al Gore is crazy too.

Rick Perry isn't stupid. But he is beholden to the same forces as George Bush.

EvilSteve
18th August 11, 12:01 PM
I think this could be one of the reasons that Jesus said the prostitutes will enter his kingdom before the established religious leaders.

The other being hos give way better head than Pat Robertson.

Feryk
18th August 11, 12:46 PM
Rick Perry will not be President. He will not even win the GOP nomination. He and Bachman will swing the agenda so far to the religious right, though, that eventual GOP candidate will be safely in their pockets.

resolve
18th August 11, 12:52 PM
I really hope Ron Paul gets the nomination this time.

That or starts his own "Bull Moose Party" but actually wins the popular vote. That'd just be... beyond awesome.

Craigypooh
18th August 11, 01:13 PM
Lots of things which politicians from Hilary Clinton to David Cameron accept as true require a disregard for evidence. This one doesn't have any impact on public policy.

Evolution is different - the evidence is overwhelming.


You don't even know what exactly he does believe in, at no point was an argument for young earth creationism made.

Neither do you.



Would you vote for Stalin over Ron Paul ? If not, why not ?

No. I don't like his policies on mass murder. Also he's dead. Dead people don't make good leaders.


You're getting nerd rage about a man's religious opinion, when you aren't even quite sure what it is, when the elephant in the room is that the other candidates either want to engage in pointless expeditionary warfare or don't even believe in basic arithmetic whilst their economy collapses around them.

I'm pretty sure I said they were all barmy and gave really poor answers to the questions on the economy.


Never mind, I already know you don't really believe what you're saying because you're another one of those people angry about evolution on the internet who would never ask this question of a surgeon about to operate on him.

This is a rather obvious strawman.

Asking people whether they believe in evolution isn't my only method of judging someone's fitness to do their job properly, and I never said it was.

Fearless Ukemi
18th August 11, 01:19 PM
I really hope Ron Paul gets the nomination this time.

That or starts his own "Bull Moose Party" but actually wins the popular vote. That'd just be... beyond awesome.

Someone on Sherdog posted he wants to see a new political position, "Caller of Bullshit", that will put Ron Paul on the floors of both the Senate and the House and all he would have to do all day is call people out on their bullshit.

Cullion
18th August 11, 01:21 PM
This is a rather obvious strawman.

Asking people whether they believe in evolution isn't my only method of judging someone's fitness to do their job properly, and I never said it was.

It's not a strawman, it's entirely pertinent. It would never occur to you to ask somebody about their views on evolution even when their job directly involves competence regarding human biology. It's absurd to insist it's relevant when discussing a political candidate. You're only doing it because you're being led by the nose by the media.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
18th August 11, 01:40 PM
It's absurd to insist it's relevant when discussing a political candidate.

Not if the candidate to proposing to substitute science with a philosophical opinion it isnt.

Cullion
18th August 11, 01:43 PM
But that hasn't happened.

Craigypooh
18th August 11, 01:43 PM
It's not a strawman, it's entirely pertinent. It would never occur to you to ask somebody about their views on evolution even when their job directly involves competence regarding human biology. It's absurd to insist it's relevant when discussing a political candidate. You're only doing it because you're being led by the nose by the media.

Asking people whether they believe in evolution isn't my only method of judging someone's fitness to do their job properly, and I never said it was.

Cullion
18th August 11, 01:47 PM
It's certainly not a good reason in this case. Americans are going to destroy their economy with all this 'yeah I sort of agree with Ron Paul, but didn't he one time kind of hint that he might not wholly agree with evolutionary theory' nonsense.

Craigypooh
18th August 11, 03:44 PM
It's certainly not a good reason in this case. Americans are going to destroy their economy with all this 'yeah I sort of agree with Ron Paul, but didn't he one time kind of hint that he might not wholly agree with evolutionary theory' nonsense.

Really? I think Obama is a better option. He doesn't spout anywhere near so much shit.

Cullion
18th August 11, 03:55 PM
lol. game over. Your political opinion no longer counts.

Feryk
18th August 11, 03:58 PM
lol. game over. Your political opinion no longer counts.

Craig should've put sarcasm tags around his last post. Cullion is not in his happy place right now.

EvilSteve
19th August 11, 07:59 AM
Rick Perry for president banner at the top of the page, FTW!

Also, don't worry about Americans making a stupid decision about the presidency because Ron Paul made an obtuse comment about evolution; most of us don't believe in evolution anyway!

Ajamil
19th August 11, 08:43 AM
That's depressingly true - his anti-war stance is a much bigger factor in his abhorrence to the right.

Cullion
19th August 11, 09:24 AM
I think the banking system owns a lot them on both sides of the house too. That's why attempts to audit the Fed etc.. that he proposes always get snarled up 'in committee'.

EvilSteve
19th August 11, 10:38 AM
I have never understood why, why, WHY folks on the right (generally the type to not believe in evolution) have such an overwhelming fondness for war when it's quite often their kids getting killed in our wars for covert conquest.

EvilSteve
19th August 11, 10:45 AM
I think the banking system owns a lot them on both sides of the house too. That's why attempts to audit the Fed etc.. that he proposes always get snarled up 'in committee'.

Been reading Secrets of The Temple, a book on the Fed, recently and I don't know that it's even that sinister. Or maybe it's more sinister- keeping the Fed unaudited and inscrutable insulates Congress from any sort of responsibility for unpopular economic decisions (which they are largely too ignorant to make anyway), and also provides a convenient villain in times of economic crisis, as evidenced by Rick Perry's recent rantings on how he (implied) thinks Ben Bernanke should be hanged.

So basically, it's in almost no one's interest to really reform the Fed- except maybe the public's interest, but no one gives a shit about them.

Yes, the banks absolutely spend money to buy members of congress, but the joke is that most of the time they don't even need to.

Cullion
19th August 11, 11:57 AM
Congress doesn't have any power over what the Fed does, so they aren't really protecting themselves from blame by refusing to audit it.

Cullion
19th August 11, 12:00 PM
I have never understood why, why, WHY folks on the right (generally the type to not believe in evolution) have such an overwhelming fondness for war when it's quite often their kids getting killed in our wars for covert conquest.

Because broadly 'right wing' motivations like 'rugged individualism' and 'love of country' (in themselves, often good things) can much more easily be twisted into belligerent jingoism via propaganda than the sort of instincts we'd all tend to associate with liberalism (sympathy for the underdog, tolerance of personal choices).

There have been great advances in war propaganda in the last generation aimed at getting the latter type of person to support expeditionary warfare, but they haven't quite nailed it yet. (It worked really well against the Serbs because they were 'white christian racists', not so well in the middle-East despite much effort being expounded talking about the tyranny of the rulers and the 'backward' views of rural middle-eastern muslims).

Feryk
19th August 11, 12:13 PM
Congress doesn't have any power over what the Fed does, so they aren't really protecting themselves from blame by refusing to audit it.

Wouldn't the audit imply some sort of oversight of the Fed? If they have no power, what happens if the audit turns up something actionable? Nothing?

Cullion
19th August 11, 12:20 PM
they never previously had the power to audit the Fed either. Congress could pass a law giving it power to audit the Fed, change the way the governor is appointed, abolish the fed or paint the fed green.

Feryk
19th August 11, 12:23 PM
they never previously had the power to audit the Fed either. Congress could pass a law giving it power to audit the Fed, change the way the governor is appointed, abolish the fed or paint the fed green.

Agreed, but that is a huge change in the government landscape. Right now, if ANYONE audited the Fed, it would just shrug it's shoulders and continue on. Amazing that it has that kind of autonomy, really.

Cullion
19th August 11, 12:28 PM
It has been partially and quietly audited recently.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25750

EvilSteve
19th August 11, 12:45 PM
Congress doesn't have any power over what the Fed does, so they aren't really protecting themselves from blame by refusing to audit it.

They don't have any power over it at the moment, but they could absolutely pass legislation giving themselves power over it, or nationalizing it, or abolishing it. And the reason that won't happen is the reasons stated above.

Cullion
19th August 11, 12:49 PM
This narrative doesn't really make sense to me: 'we want to leave something alone that causes everybody else real economic trouble, that's within our power to fix, so nobody will blame us'

Feryk
19th August 11, 12:54 PM
I think government almost always has a tendency to want to exert influence or control over everything. Something like the Fed is being left alone on purpose, and we can all speculate about the reasons why.

EvilSteve
19th August 11, 12:55 PM
Because broadly 'right wing' motivations like 'rugged individualism' and 'love of country' (in themselves, often good things) can much more easily be twisted into belligerent jingoism via propaganda than the sort of instincts we'd all tend to associate with liberalism (sympathy for the underdog, tolerance of personal choices).

There have been great advances in war propaganda in the last generation aimed at getting the latter type of person to support expeditionary warfare, but they haven't quite nailed it yet. (It worked really well against the Serbs because they were 'white christian racists', not so well in the middle-East despite much effort being expounded talking about the tyranny of the rulers and the 'backward' views of rural middle-eastern muslims).

I know, it's just... you know you'd really think seeing your kid getting shipped home in a box would grant you a moment of clarity. I suppose not enough of them have had to suffer that tragedy as yet.

And on a related note, if there's anyone who hasn't seen the Pat Tillman Story yet, it's on Netflix instant.

Feryk
19th August 11, 12:57 PM
It has been partially and quietly audited recently.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25750

That should have been a nuclear bomb in the press. 16 Trillion? WTF would the press keep quiet about this?

EvilSteve
19th August 11, 01:02 PM
This narrative doesn't really make sense to me: 'we want to leave something alone that causes everybody else real economic trouble, that's within our power to fix, so nobody will blame us'

That's because that's not really the narrative. It's more like: "We want to leave the Fed alone because we don't know enough about monetary policy to make those decisions ourselves, and don't want to be blamed when someone screws up. Plus, Wall Street will stop giving us money (although they won't)." Also, most Americans have absolutely no concept of how much damage the Fed can and has done to the U.S. economy, so there isn't as much pressure as there should be on politicians to fix/reform/eliminate it.

Obviously that's not EVERYONE in Congress. You do get people like Paul or Kucinich opposing it, but they are actively marginalized.

EvilSteve
19th August 11, 01:12 PM
That should have been a nuclear bomb in the press. 16 Trillion? WTF would the press keep quiet about this?

Perhaps because of the distinct lack of boobies in the story. Perhaps because the Obama admin leaned on them and they're sympathetic. Well, got a twitter feed? Spread it yourself. I'm going to.

But it's a good thing we can't spend less than one tenth that amount over 10 years to provide healthcare for people.

Feryk
19th August 11, 01:18 PM
If the Fed has ALREADY diluted your currency by 16 TRILLION dollars, then you won't really need to worry about healthcare. You won't be able to afford anything anyways.

Cullion
19th August 11, 02:24 PM
http://www.chartingstocks.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ed-aj638a_laffe_ns_20090609175213.gif

I have been posting these graphs for 2 years now.

Craigypooh
19th August 11, 02:59 PM
lol. game over. Your political opinion no longer counts.

But he's got a Nobel Peace prize. Who else will stop America's warmongering and reduce their military spending?

EvilSteve
19th August 11, 03:37 PM
Good job guys! Your tireless investigative work has changed the Rick Perry ad banner to a Ron Paul ad banner!

Craigypooh
19th August 11, 03:42 PM
No, Rick Perry just ran out of election funds.

EvilSteve
19th August 11, 03:51 PM
If only we were so lucky. At this point I'd rather vote for your avatar. (Although I'd prefer his Elizabethan descendant).

Craigypooh
20th August 11, 02:50 AM
It's seems Douglas Adams had the right idea -


Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

Feryk
20th August 11, 10:05 AM
http://www.chartingstocks.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ed-aj638a_laffe_ns_20090609175213.gif

I have been posting these graphs for 2 years now.

You have. I just refused to believe 16 TRILLION was the right number.

Cullion
20th August 11, 10:07 AM
My first estimate for the size of bailout required back in 2008 was 5 trillion and most people here laughed at me then. Now I look at the size of the credit derivatives market and I don't try and make estimates any more.

Craigypooh
20th August 11, 10:48 AM
The thing about the size of any OTC derivative market is that there's lots of of transactions which basically cancel out, so the the net risk is a lot smaller than is implied by the gross value.

That's one of the reasons for the change to more exchange traded contracts

Ajamil
20th August 11, 11:20 AM
Cullion, do you have that graph going back to the depression? Isn't that the other time our currency inflated by a huge amount? I also find it interesting that there's only one tiny blip where the monetary base actually deflated between Y2K and 9/11.

Cullion
20th August 11, 11:38 AM
Cullion, do you have that graph going back to the depression? Isn't that the other time our currency inflated by a huge amount?

Well, the credit in circulation formed a fairly spectacular bubble which popped. This credit bubble is larger.



I also find it interesting that there's only one tiny blip where the monetary base actually deflated between Y2K and 9/11.

Alan Greenspan nipped that in the bud by creating a housing bubble. The thing is, the real economy made up of people doing a day's work, machines, natural resources, it's actually very resilient to things like natural disasters. We have an advanced, technological civilisation. We can repair broken things quickly.

Our real economic disasters are man made, and they almost always involve people getting silly about lending or borrowing money, or governments debasing the value of the money to pay for a war or 'bread and circuses'. It's the same story throughout the ages.

Arhetton
7th September 11, 09:23 PM
I just watched the candidates debate and it was pathetic.

MSNBC asked all of the candidates about their views on the federal reserve, the economy, foreign policy etc

Apparently Perry wants to audit the fed and is against 'keynesian' economics (sound familiar?).

Oh yeah, they didn't ask Ron Paul any of the above questions.

There was a question at the end about if he did not want to help starving & poor children (yes, this was actually the last question of the debate, after they spent two hours ignoring him).

America, I don't want to know you any more. Enjoy your economic and moral collapse into the shit pile you have become.

We will look to global leadership from China.

OKTHXBYE

Ajamil
7th September 11, 09:36 PM
I gotta remember to re-register as Republican so I can vote for Ron in the primaries.

Hedley LaMarr
7th September 11, 10:36 PM
The candidate that impressed me the most was Huntsman. He cited an interesting report by the Milken Institute that asserts


The National Defense Council Foundation estimates that Americans pay approximately $10.86 a gallon
for gasoline imported from the Persian Gulf when counting the military costs of defending the sea lanes,
oil fields, pipelines, storage depots, and ports .

EvilSteve
8th September 11, 07:40 AM
I love this crap:

The National Defense Council Foundation estimates that Americans pay approximately $10.86 a gallon
for gasoline imported from the Persian Gulf when counting the military costs of defending the sea lanes, oil fields, pipelines, storage depots, and ports.

How much do we pay for milk in real costs because we defend our borders? Bullshit numbers is bullshit.

Well, I think most of our milk comes from within our borders, and defense of our borders can't be wholly attributed to milk. Defending foreign shipping lanes, and our various wars for empire can be largely attributed to our need to keep oil a) plentiful and b) denominated in dollars.

What I'm more interested in is - how much more or less would we spend if instead of using third party contractors like Blackwater/Xie, Bechtel, KBR, etc we used exclusively U.S. military combat and engineering units?

Also, I heard Ron Paul did well last night, despite desperate attempts to marginalize him. Anyone else see the debate?

Cullion
8th September 11, 08:51 AM
I can assure you that starting a war near where something is produced, is likely to make that thing more expensive rather than less expensive.

EvilSteve
8th September 11, 09:36 AM
I can assure you that starting a war near where something is produced, is likely to make that thing more expensive rather than less expensive.

Yes, I would assume so, I'm just wondering how much extra we're spending on mercenaries and civil engineers vs. using soldiers and military engineers.

Ajamil
8th September 11, 10:38 AM
Saw a bit of the debates on YT. Every question to Paul seemed to be, "You want to reduce the size of the government, but what about this?" "This," of course being the TSA, federal car safety regulations, the education dept., feeding the hungry, and a number of other things that never seem to be mentioned when other Rep. want to reduce the size of the fed. govt. I applaud him for sticking with fed reduction no matter what they threw at him.

resolve
8th September 11, 11:36 AM
Even if I don't agree with some of Ron's ideas the man has integrity... real integrity over a lifetime. That puts him well above pretty much every other politician.

HappyOldGuy
8th September 11, 11:54 AM
Integrity, Insanity, Tomato, Tomato.


Also, if you weren't paying close attention you might have missed it, but Huntsman finally let the crazy out. He wants to end capital gains taxes. Not end the lowered rates. End the tax completely.

Cullion
8th September 11, 12:11 PM
Who will you be voting for, HOG ?

Hedley LaMarr
8th September 11, 12:17 PM
I love this crap:

The National Defense Council Foundation estimates that Americans pay approximately $10.86 a gallon
for gasoline imported from the Persian Gulf when counting the military costs of defending the sea lanes, oil fields, pipelines, storage depots, and ports.

How much do we pay for milk in real costs because we defend our borders? Bullshit numbers is bullshit.

That's a terrible example, as milk and much of the rest of the agriculture industry in the United States is heavily subsidized. In 2004 dairy crops received over $200 million in federal subsidies.

More importantly your little quip doesn't address the real issue. The US Government does not employ thousands of armed guards for the sole purpose of monitoring the production of distribution of milk. I've never had a Blackwater agent guard me when I'm rubbing a cow's nipples.


I can assure you that starting a war near where something is produced, is likely to make that thing more expensive rather than less expensive.We didn't start a war near where something was produced, the United States started a war in a country where crude oil is drilled for the sole purpose of getting that oil, and then contracted with private security firms with the sole purpose of guarding the production and distribution of it.

Cullion
8th September 11, 12:30 PM
We didn't start a war near where something was produced, the United States started a war in a country where crude oil is drilled for the sole purpose of getting that oil, and then contracted with private security firms with the sole purpose of guarding the production and distribution of it.

And the price of that oil duly increased. Invading a country to take something by force is almost always more expensive than simply haggling over the price in the marketplace.

HappyOldGuy
8th September 11, 12:37 PM
Obama. I was holding out a microscopic sliver of hope for huntsman to push the pubs back into sanity country, but it's pretty gone.

Cullion
8th September 11, 12:54 PM
Well, he's done such a great job so far.

Spade: The Real Snake
8th September 11, 01:11 PM
Ron Paul's greatest asset is his batshit crazy son who will be running for President in 2016. 2020 at the latest.

EvilSteve
8th September 11, 03:07 PM
As I look more into it, more people who vote GOP are excited about Ron Paul than pretty much any other candidate. Enough that I can see why the establishment wants to marginalize him. Saw the same thing from Kucinich, but while the Dems tend to vilify and ignore their liberal base, the GOP has to rely on the wing nuts to get elected, so Paul has a better chance of getting the nod.

Robot Jesus
8th September 11, 03:30 PM
I saw a study that showed while the majority of republicans identified as conservative, the base of the democratic party identifies as moderate. Kucinich is not part of the base.

Phrost
8th September 11, 06:10 PM
Paul will never get the nod because he's not under the thumb of corporate donors... which is why they're doing everything they can to shut him down short of making it so blatantly obvious that that's what's going on that the average voter will take notice and vote him into office out of rage.

EvilSteve
9th September 11, 01:37 PM
I saw a study that showed while the majority of republicans identified as conservative, the base of the democratic party identifies as moderate. Kucinich is not part of the base.

When you look at what they actually have done (rather than how they are portrayed in the media), Kucinich is probably more moderate than Obama, who rather quickly morphed into a DLC wet dream.


Also, is it me or do Perry and Romney look like varying shades of the same Ken doll?

7783

EPIC HAIR HELMETS AT 12:00 SARGE! FIRE THE BLOWOUT COMBS!

resolve
9th September 11, 01:43 PM
They look like your avatar... making that post triple creepy.

EvilSteve
9th September 11, 02:10 PM
Yes! This pleases chest-stroking-cartoon George Hamilton!

Robot Jesus
9th September 11, 02:54 PM
When you look at what they actually have done (rather than how they are portrayed in the media), Kucinich is probably more moderate than Obama, who rather quickly morphed into a DLC wet dream.





my point is that the Democratic party views it's self as a moderate organization and looks down on it's fringes as practically communist. a DLC wet dream is a moderate candidate, overly beholden to special interests. when moderate is defined by likes the idea of government solving problems but not a complete command economy.

The Republicans see their fringes largely as good people.

EvilSteve
12th September 11, 08:14 AM
my point is that the Democratic party views it's self as a moderate organization and looks down on it's fringes as practically communist. a DLC wet dream is a moderate candidate, overly beholden to special interests. when moderate is defined by likes the idea of government solving problems but not a complete command economy.

The Republicans see their fringes largely as good people.

That's what I was saying to begin with.

Spade: The Real Snake
12th September 11, 10:00 AM
my point is that the Democratic party views it's self as a moderate organization and looks down on it's fringes as practically communist. a DLC wet dream is a moderate candidate, overly beholden to special interests. when moderate is defined by likes the idea of government solving problems but not a complete command economy.

The Republicans see their fringes largely as good people.
the hypocrisy of this post is positively dripping and telling.
your bias, much like your ass, is showing.

HappyOldGuy
12th September 11, 11:53 AM
the hypocrisy of this post is positively dripping and telling.
your bias, much like your ass, is showing.

Possibly, however it is a simple fact that the policies that Obama is pursuing would have been considered right wing under Nixon or even Reagan. It is also a simple fact that what used to be the party of fiscal responsibility is now the party of "math is too hard" that is not even capable of presenting a budget with numbers that add up.

Spade: The Real Snake
12th September 11, 12:09 PM
Possibly, however it is a simple fact that the policies that Obama is pursuing would have been considered right wing under Nixon or even Reagan. It is also a simple fact that what used to be the party of fiscal responsibility is now the party of "math is too hard" that is not even capable of presenting a budget with numbers that add up.

Individuals aside and policy debate withheld, his comment:

my point is that the Democratic party views it's self as a moderate organization and looks down on it's fringes as practically communist.
contrasted with

The Republicans see their fringes largely as good people.
from a Canadian is fucking laughable and his breath stinks of Donkey Dick.

Feryk
12th September 11, 12:21 PM
I kind of with Snake on this one. Unless RJ has political resources I don't know about, his knowledge of the GOP's positions on their fringe element is probably from CNN.

However, if he wants to talk about Jack Layton's communist agenda, I'd be happy to discuss that one with him all day.

Spade: The Real Snake
12th September 11, 12:28 PM
I kind of with Snake on this one. Unless RJ has political resources I don't know about, his knowledge of the GOP's positions on their fringe element is probably from CNN.
I think we should have a roundtable discussion with Keith Olbermann, Rachael Maddow, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

HappyOldGuy
12th September 11, 12:29 PM
from a Canadian is fucking laughable and his breath stinks of Donkey Dick.

I dunno. I'm up in BC at the moment, and I've gotta say, they seem to have their act together pretty well.

Makes me want to smush their smug little polite faces.

Feryk
12th September 11, 02:42 PM
HOG the Left Coast is called that for a reason. You shouldn't hate, that's as close to Heaven as you will ever see.