In the interest of full disclosure is this observation from the Washington Times. Notice the quote from one of the Park Rangers.

The Park Service appears to be closing streets on mere whim and caprice. The rangers even closed the parking lot at Mount Vernon, where the plantation home of George Washington is a favorite tourist destination. That was after they barred the new World War II Memorial on the Mall to veterans of World War II. But the government does not own Mount Vernon; it is privately owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association. The ladies bought it years ago to preserve it as a national memorial. The feds closed access to the parking lots this week, even though the lots are jointly owned with the Mount Vernon ladies. The rangers are from the government, and they’re only here to help.
“It’s a cheap way to deal with the situation,” an angry Park Service ranger in Washington says of the harassment. “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.”


Yep. Kinder and gentler.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/3/pruden-the-cheap-tricks-of-the-game/

You need to learn how to read a story. that is not what it said or implied.

The Republican party can only tale a back seat to Democrats on playing the race card.

Your 2005 article indicates:
"Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman apologized to one of the nation's largest black civil rights groups Thursday, saying Republicans had not done enough to court blacks in the past and had exploited racial strife to court white voters, particularly in the South."

Now where did it say Republican party courted racist for their vote. If that was the case They would have gotten Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson to join the Republican.

As you said "appealing to racists to boost their vote" and exploited racial strife are not the same.

The article went on to say:
"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," Mehlman said at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

The root of the Southern Strategy"
"Mehlman's apology to the NAACP at the group's convention in Milwaukee marked the first time a top Republican Party leader has denounced the so-called Southern Strategy employed by Richard Nixon and other Republicans to peel away white voters in what was then the heavily Democratic South. Beginning in the mid-1960s, Republicans encouraged disaffected Southern white voters to vote Republican by blaming pro-civil rights Democrats for racial unrest and other racial problems.



To sum this up: Nixon Blamed Democrats for the racial mess of the mid late 60's in order to pull some white voters to switch from Democrat to Republican in order to gain votes.

And for that you call Republican Raciest??? Don't you really mean Democrats ?

After all Democrats were the south. Democrats kept the plantations. Democrats wanted to keep the salve system in place. Democrats started the KKK to keep blacks and whites from voting Republican.


I am sorry that if for some small amount to years that Republicans used race/ race baiting/ raciest to gain more Republican white votes is it is nothing to what Democrats have done. AT least they did not whip/ chain/ rape/ murder/ or lynch any one to gain or keep their vote.

Its true and YOU know it.

@MilkmanDan-Pretty sure the most effective squelching of the rise of the Nation of Islam and the push for conversion from the slave-master's religion was achieved by the CIA, (insert covertly shadowed organizations within the labyrinth here) pumping high-grade opiates into the ghettos of all major United States cities-Fast-forward to 1980, and crack cocaine takes what's left of a effectual black population on a path to self-actualization down the road leading right back to the master's plantation.

That the black activism of the 60's scared the holy shit outta the control apparatus is best evidenced in the assassination of MLK, Malcolm X, (many, many others) and the string of cocksuckers disguised as presidents to follow Eisenhower, a legacy which continues to become more farcical with each movement of the second-hand on yer grandpa's pocket-watch.

Nice thought. Only it is contra every recent instance of tyranny and makes no sense in a nation of 300+ million with a seemingly endless supply of those to the south of the border wanting entry and willing to literally work in the vegetable plantation.

But, whatever keeps the fear alive I guess. Terrorism has grown so passée.

Good slaves are well-fed and healthy. Keep them alive as long as they're useful to you and your vegetable plantation...
Servilibus Præses!

candy looks tasty. One thing come to mind though:
. I hope they are paying attention to where their palm oil comes from. Palm oil plantations are a major cause of deforestation. This has traditionally been a south east asian problem (of devastating proportions), but now even that beautiful Amazonian forest that they use to advertize their product is being cut down for this purpose as well.

I'm sure there is a better site, but this is the first thing that google spit out:
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0709-amazon_palm_oil.html

@shinyblurry

The facts are simple: the existence of God explains everything that you feel about wanting to do good, and the love that you have for people and life, and your atheism denies it. Yet you embrace what is contrary to your own experience.

AND from farther down

… your atheistic presuppositions about reality. You say no one has come back but one man has, but of course you dismiss the account as fantasy (again because of your atheistic presuppositions).

Those aren't facts though. Those are your opinions and conjectures. Your theory of God may explain a greater number of things around me than science, but it also raises more questions than it answers, which makes it a horrible theory. "My atheism" doesn't exist as a concept. I don't subscribe to any belief about Gods any more than a monkey does. Are monkeys atheistic? I'm like a monkey. I have no "-ism" that "denies" anything. I happen to lack belief in any supernatural deity. *This lack of belief defines my atheism, rather than atheism defining my lack of beliefs.* I can't believe you still don't understand my position (or lack thereof). I have no idea what you mean by embrace. Nothing about my experience with "meaningfulness" requires me to believe in any gods, particularly not Yahweh.

So if it makes you feel good its okay to be a slave? You don't mind being enslaved to a mindless irrational process because you get rewarded for it like a rat activating a feeder?

Chemicals in my brain cause me to feel hunger and crave food. I follow them because doing so makes me feel good. I don't consider myself weak for being driven by those chemicals in my brain. To really feel like a slave, I'd have to be compelled to follow the commands of a sentient being, like a plantation owner with a whip, or a god of love threatening me with eternal torture, for instance, not chemicals in my own brain. Can there be shame in being a slave to yourself?

So I will modify this and say that you're living like a theist does but denying it with your atheism.

You changed one word, but missed the point of mine, so I've changed the same word: So I would turn it around and say instead that it's Christians *theists* who go about their lives living like normal humans, but thinking they're being good because their religion tells them to.

Now what?

Therefore what you're talking about is a herd morality.

Yep. Pretty much.

The entire point of my example was to show that if we simply have a herd morality where the majority tells us what is good and evil, then if the majority ever said child rape is good it would be.

If your whole final end goal is to prove your child rape hypothetical is internally consistent, and not to extend it into the real world, then yep, that's logically quite true. However, if you want to use it make any point about proving my beliefs to be somehow wrong, then you'll have to give me reason to believe it could ever possibly happen in a sustainable way.

My point was that we all come pre-programmed with a need for worship, which you apparently agree with. That is what is natural to us … It is actually more natural for us to rebel against God because of our corrupt nature.

Are we programmed to worship, or to rebel against God? Which is it? I propose that we're genetically designed to do exactly what makes us happy. Being good to others makes us (non-psychos) happy. Worship also makes many of us happy. Cognitive dissonance does not. I don't believe in any god, so I can't possibly worship one with a straight face. That would be cognitively dissonant and make me unhappy. I see no need to introduce the concept of "corruption".

The sense we agreed upon and have been discussing is that that life without God is meaningless … Therefore the meaning you derive from your feelings is only an illusion created by chemical reactions in your brain.

All cognition, from self-awareness, to thought, to the senses, to desires, to emotions, to numinous experiences, all of it is 100% chemical reactions. It's only fair to call my conscience an "illusion" if I also consider everything else that I perceive to be an illusion created by the chemicals in my mind. My feelings are as subjectively real as my senses.

There are other causes of depression but you see my point. Hope is the solution to depression.

That can be true. It's human nature to want to worship, and worshipping something can give hope. So for some people, if they can convince themselves to believe it, worshipping a god can lift them out of depression.

On what basis do you say your belief is more likely?

Occam's razor.

You say there is no reason to speculate (ever); now that is an interesting statement from someone who believes in open inquiry. What you've said is actually the death of inquiry. And let's be clear about this; you have speculated.

If there's no way to establish the truth of something, then there's no sense in trying to do so. There are no reliable records of the afterlife, so hoping to reach a conclusion is a vain pursuit. You can imagine hypotheticals, but you can't give any rationale for preferring one over another. Except by Occam's razor. What you consider "speculation" is just me saying, "nothing disproves anything about the afterlife".

Of course anything is possible when you summon your magic genie of evolution. "Time itself performs the miracles for you."

It's scientific fact, not mine, not anyone's. It's yours too, if you want it. You just have to go and learn about it from an unbiased source, not from uninformed people with pre-conceived ideas about what it is and isn't.

So no one is really bad?

In the relative non-objective morality sense, no, nobody is inherently bad or "evil" apart from our judgement of their actions. We often call people "bad", but that's just shorthand for what I said, or for having difficulty accepting that another person can do something so contrary to our concept of good.

Well, I'm fairly sure you've told me before that you hate the idea of God telling you what to do.

True, I would resent anybody giving me free will, then giving me a choice of doing what they say or accepting the worst conceivable torture for eternity. Did I misunderstand something?

[me:]Does the bible that say that rape is wrong? Does it say you cannot marry a child?

[you:]I've covered this above, but I will also add that if we had evolved differently, then in your worldview, all of this would be moot. We are only in this particular configuration because of circumstance, and not design. It could just as easily be 1000 different other ways. There could easily be scenarios where we evolved to exploit children instead of nuture them.

For a species to evolve to exploit children rather than nurture them is nearly impossible. That gene would get weeded out of the gene pool very quickly. Maybe I'm missing your point, and what you're really trying to say is that according to me, human feelings about right and wrong are, at their essence, random, because humans could have developed different feelings about right and wrong. I agree.

Back to my question: Does the Bible say that rape is wrong? Does it say that you cannot marry a child? To save time, could you point me to a neat summary of all the biblical rules that still stand? The Commandments were given in the Old Testament. I thought that law was struck down and there was a new covenant now, no? No sex before marriage is one, I'm assuming. Do you have to attend mass on Sundays? What are the others? I'm surprised to hear that you don't think the Bible suggests any position on condom usage. Is that just a Catholic hang-up then?

[me:]In both cases, you didn't address my point. 1) I'm stating that Yahweh's laws are far, far more complex than secular morality. You countered that Yahweh's laws were as simple as Jesus' two rules.

[you:]Romans 13:9-10

I agree that the rules in that verse are clearly derived from "love your neighbour", except maybe coveting, but that's not the point. Once I see the summary of biblical edicts, I'm sure I'll be able to point out that "Love your neighbour" isn't enough, that there are rules you would only follow because they're stated in the Bible, not because they obviously flow from the concept of neighbourly love.

So, when we think about doing unto others, we would think about it in the context of how Jesus taught us to behave.

So you're saying that we have to adjust our conscience first to align with the Bible, and then follow it. I'm saying we can just follow it according to what is bad for people.

abortion statistics

Good point. Foetal rights/women's rights is the moral debate of our times, IMO, maybe of all history. I haven't found any solid position on that issue. I've thought a lot about it, but this isn't the place to debate it. Suffice it to say I don't see abortion as a good thing, but not equal to infanticide either.

So your answer is yes? You think that without religion, society may decide torturing babies is good because it decided that killing Jews was good?

Yes, I think an entire society could end up agreeing on something that depraved, just like the ancient Greek society approved of paedophilia.

You know Germans were 94% Christian during WWII, right? And that the Greeks had those relations consensually? I'm against legalizing sex with children because it would be abused and children would be victimized, not because I think it's impossible for a child to enjoy and benefit from sex. I did it when I was underage and it was nothing but good.

You also act as if I am trying to defend all religion, which I'm not.

The thing is, you regularly invoke the 85% of humans who are theist when having a large number bolsters your argument, yet you disassociate yourself from most of them when their behaviour weakens your argument. I can never tell who you're talking about. Clearly identify the people you're talking about at all times, and we won't have this problem.

In any case, there are many examples of non-believing societies doing sick and depraved things to their populations.

And many Christian societies too, but I'm sure you'll disassociate yourselves from *those* Christians.

Tortured for Christ

According to Jesus, the Romanian government was appointed by God, so those Christians must have been doing something wrong, perhaps rebelling:

Romans 13:1-5

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.

That passage, BTW, makes my stomach turn for all the people (Christian or otherwise) who have been tortured and killed at the hands of immoral rulers. And Jesus says might makes right. Go Jesus go. Prick.

[you:]… logic, rationality, morality, uniformity in nature …

[me:]You're slipping back into solipsism. We agreed not to go there. I'm not going to answer any of those things.

[you:]Now you're just trying to duck the issue, and perhaps you don't understand what solipsism is, because this is not solipsism. Solipsism is the belief that only your mind is sure to exist.

What I am talking about is right in line with the video. Without God you don't have any ultimate justification not just for any kind of value, but even for your own reasoning. It is a direct implication of a meaningless existence. This is what I mean about a justifies b justifies c justifies d into infinity. You have nowhere to stake a claim which can justify anything which you experience, or even your own rationality. If you feel you do, please demonstrate why you believe your reasoning is actually valid.

Then you've entirely missed the point of me making those rules back at Qualiasoup v. Craig.

We agreed not to question the validity of our senses. If I can trust my senses, then I am self-aware. I must assume I'm a rational agent, since it was my own rational awareness that defined my self. If I'm a rational agent, then I can trust logic, which Craig tells us in the same video is a rational thing to do.

If your whole argument is, "a god must exist for you to be able to use logic" then I put it to you to show me logically (and not tautologically) why that must be true. To me, there's no connection.

I still don't see the infinite regression. Give me a real example of it in the form a justifies b which justifies c....

Also, what's "uniformity in nature" and when do I ever appeal to it?

Oh Bob. Seriously, you need to improve those reading comprehension skills. My post just went right over your head, didn't it.

>> ^bobknight33:

Republicans are the party of Lincoln. Vodoov, You are correct. For once.
Democrats are the party of KKK.
One party wanted to free the slaves and the other wanted to keep them on the plantation.
Why would a Black man vote Democrat or be Democrat is beyond me.

>> ^VoodooV:
Republicans are fiscally responsible.
Another myth....BUSTED!
Republicans are the party of Lincoln.
Another myth....BUSTED!
Republican have lots of ideas
Another myth....BUSTED!

Republicans are the party of Lincoln. Vodoov, You are correct. For once.
Democrats are the party of KKK.

One party wanted to free the slaves and the other wanted to keep them on the plantation.

Why would a Black man vote Democrat or be Democrat is beyond me.



>> ^VoodooV:

Republicans are fiscally responsible.
Another myth....BUSTED!
Republicans are the party of Lincoln.
Another myth....BUSTED!
Republican have lots of ideas
Another myth....BUSTED!

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Mr. Lif - Live From The Plantation (anti-work music video). Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

I didnt say everything was right what critics say. Thats science. However, you can start by "debunking those 450+ studies one by one, because that article you linked didnt debunk one of them but instead just tried to personally discredit 3 people who they think are too dangerous to their cause.

How about you start by debunking the thousands of studies supporting anthropogenic climate change? More importantly, what makes you think those 450+ studies are more reliable than the pro-climate change studies? Usually, when I see a debate with a vast majority of scientists on one side and a tiny minority on the other, I believe the majority. This isn't a perfect heuristic, but it's a pretty good one. Do you have any good reason to believe the heuristic fails in this instance? What is it that has convinced you the majority is wrong?

Its very easy to say what you are saying. Just like creationists. You cant debunk it. "God told me so, prove me wrong!".

What? This is the stupidest analogy ever. Saying "Look at all this peer reviewed scientific research" is somehow equivalent to "God told me so"?

And studies that try to explain this partly (Svensmarks), and thus attack the "consensus" of the corrupt, get dismissed like its some atheist in a church trying to explain how resurrection is impossible.

This is only true if atheists in church are usually dismissed using careful peer-reviewed scientific research, along the lines of this or this.

There are enough facts plus satellite data, but as long as people like you prefer to get their money taken from them (thats what this is all about, if you still havent noticed), there is nothing objective science can do about it. You have no idea how many billions the global warming market is already. Not only the "scientists" that get paid for every mention of AGW in their studies and articles by the IPCC, but also normal people who make a living by selling stuff that is supposed to decrease CO2 emissions and levels.

And of course there's no money at all to be made in debunking climate change. Dude, the oil industry pumps millions of dollars into research that criticizes the consensus. After the last IPCC report came out, the American Enterprise Institute (funded by Exxon) offered $10,000 to anyone who published an article criticizing the report. If you think money is skewing incentives on the pro-AGW side, why don't you apply the same standards to the denialist side?

Science is falsifiable, but people like you just are saying the Al Gore bullshit "The debate is over" and are bringing old and already debunked arguments (even not used anymore by IPCC).

Care to point out where ChaosEngine made an old and already debunked argument? And just because science is falsifiable doesn't mean that science can never be settled on an issue. The debate about the chemical composition of the sun is over. That doesn't mean that those claims are not falsifiable.

I didnt even know theres actually a site like this that promotes discrimination of scientists by putting their own bullshit on it and claiming their are wrong and calling them childish names like Christy Crocks. Reminds me of those republican kids that invent stuff like "libtard" or "obamallama". Very objective and scientific. It gets sadder and sadder each day.

I know. Very sad. Let me play you the world's saddest song on the world's tiniest violin. Especially after you called ChaosEngine ignorant and stupid and then complained about how sad rhetoric like "Christy Crocks" is.

That you think climate science is a science that is even known well by humankind and thus can be easily proven, proves alone that you dont have a clue... Oh and btw, we are experiencing a cooling now it and will last until about 2020 to 2040. Lets see what new "scientific facts" will pop up to support your religious opinion until then.

Climate science is not a science that is known well be humankind, but it is apparently known well by coolhund-kind. Please tell us how you came up with this forecast, and why you think it is more reliable than the forecasts of, you know, actual experts.

The IPCC is an organization, that has no need to exist, if there is no AGW.

True, but irrelevant, since there is AGW.

You want to keep your job, or you want to get a better paid job... you just have to get rid of a few minor ideologies and then you have a good life for the rest of your life.

OK, so the thousands of climate scientists who claim to believe in AGW are lying to keep their jobs. Confusingly, a number of global warming skeptics are able to keep their jobs without pretending to believe in AGW. Someone needs to figure out how they managed to beat the corrupt system. Maybe they have compromising pictures of Al Gore?

Oh and btw, I think America is very easy to fool with things like this. Take the biofuel for example. It is nowhere near being actual "biofuel". It actually harms our eco-system. Palm oil, clearing of the rain forest to make space for more plantations, high food prices, waste of water, etc come to mind. Other countries like Germany are more skeptical about things like this and have proven once again, that they are right, even though your country (and many other who benefit from it) are still claiming there is also a "consensus" on this matter. How ironic.

What a pointless digression. America is not the only country in the world where scientists believe in AGW. The national science academy in Germany, your paragon for a skeptical country, has also endorsed the IPCC report. So whether or not Americans are easy to fool is completely irrelevant here. Incidentally, 59% of German people believe that global warming is due to human activity. Only 49% of Americans believe this. So maybe you're right -- Americans are easy to fool. You're just wrong about who's fooling them.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^coolhund:

The consensus is non-existent. There are hundreds of scientists who oppose it. There are over 450 studies which oppose it.
There might be hundreds of scientists and 450 studies that oppose it, but there are thousands of scientists and countless studies for it.
There's no consensus? yeah, right....
>> ^coolhund:
Oh and just btw: A consensus doesnt mean anything, because physics are not democracy, as Einstein said very nicely once:
"If I was wrong, one would be enough."
This is correct, and if Einstein was wrong, one good parsimonious hypothesis backed by experimental evidence would absolutely prove him wrong. Same with AGW.
But every competing hypothesis describes the reality less accurately.

>> ^coolhund:
This AGW hype is no science. As climate scientist and former IPCC lead author Prof. John Christy of UAH put straight:
For example, we were told by the IPCC that „milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” (TAR WG2, 15.2.4.1.2.4).
After the winters of 2009-10 and 2010-11, we are told the opposite by advocates of the IPCC position, „Climate Change Makes Major Snowstorms More Likely” (http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/climate-
change-makes-snowstormsmore-likely-0506.html)
The non-falsifiable hypotheses works this way, “„whatever happens is consistent with my hypothesis.” In other words, there is no event that would „falsify” the hypothesis. As such, these assertions cannot be considered science or in anyway informative since the hypothesis' fundamental prediction is „anything may happen.”

The full quote is "Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point. It is difficult to predict where ice storms will occur and identify vulnerable populations. "
The potential effects of climate change are certainly an unknown. The fact that it is happening? not so much. And Christys skpeticism has been pretty soundly debunked, although at least he's one of the few that's actually qualified to speak on the matter.
You still haven't addressed my other point about why you believe the scientific community is making this up.


And that doesnt change a thing.

Of course, nobody is denying that climate change isnt happening, because climate has always changed.

I didnt say everything was right what critics say. Thats science. However, you can start by "debunking those 450+ studies one by one, because that article you linked didnt debunk one of them but instead just tried to personally discredit 3 people who they think are too dangerous to their cause.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Its very easy to say what you are saying. Just like creationists. You cant debunk it. "God told me so, prove me wrong!". That you think climate science is a science that is even known well by humankind and thus can be easily proven, proves alone that you dont have a clue. Again: Climate science doesnt even know properly how clouds are created. And studies that try to explain this partly (Svensmarks), and thus attack the "consensus" of the corrupt, get dismissed like its some atheist in a church trying to explain how resurrection is impossible.

There are enough facts plus satellite data, but as long as people like you prefer to get their money taken from them (thats what this is all about, if you still havent noticed), there is nothing objective science can do about it. You have no idea how many billions the global warming market is already. Not only the "scientists" that get paid for every mention of AGW in their studies and articles by the IPCC, but also normal people who make a living by selling stuff that is supposed to decrease CO2 emissions and levels.

This is so thick of an political and economical part of our society already, that, even if you had 100% undeniable facts, people would still not believe you. Its sad that youre one of them. Again: This is not science anymore. Science is falsifiable, but people like you just are saying the Al Gore bullshit "The debate is over" and are bringing old and already debunked arguments (even not used anymore by IPCC). I dont know why you are so ignorant and and stupid to support a new religion, but it makes me very sad every time I am confronted with so much ignorance. I know this last part has nothing to do with the issue, its just my own feelings, since ignorance has been the sole cause of problems on this earth. I didnt even know theres actually a site like this that promotes discrimination of scientists by putting their own bullshit on it and claiming their are wrong and calling them childish names like Christy Crocks. Reminds me of those republican kids that invent stuff like "libtard" or "obamallama". Very objective and scientific. It gets sadder and sadder each day.

Oh and btw, we are experiencing a cooling now it and will last until about 2020 to 2040. Lets see what new "scientific facts" will pop up to support your religious opinion until then. I am seriously excited.

Oh yeah about your last link:
It proves that you dont understand how things work: The IPCC is an organization, that has no need to exist, if there is no AGW. Thats like me putting up an organization that claims that computers, like they are right now, kill us all and I'm getting paid by several governments to say that. I have enough money to buy people and studies that support my claims. But not only that, my idea is that good, I will get support from the economy, because my view is opening MANY new ways to make new profit, because many things will have to change. I will also get the mass media on my side, because being a friend of the bad computers that kill cant be good. People who criticize my views will be bad people and part of the bad computer industry that only wants money. Perfect propaganda material.

However, its prolly funny for you (worth to ignore I mean) to see that the bad oil companies are part of the climate change lobbies. They make lots of money off the AGW hype too. The high energy prices alone, that are part caused by this hype, lets them laugh themselves into sleep every night.

As I said, the system is far more complicated than the simple picture you posted there. And thats why it is so easy to keep the true agenda hidden. And no, its no conspiracy. Its the way this system works. You want to keep your job, or you want to get a better paid job... you just have to get rid of a few minor ideologies and then you have a good life for the rest of your life. No more need to scrounge up supporters every month to get your fundings for your studies. Its what everyone wants. And if youre one of those guys who actually believes in AGW, which is quite common these days due to Al Gores indoctrination movie and the mass media following it, its even more straight forward.

Oh and btw, I think America is very easy to fool with things like this. Take the biofuel for example. It is nowhere near being actual "biofuel". It actually harms our eco-system. Palm oil, clearing of the rain forest to make space for more plantations, high food prices, waste of water, etc come to mind. Other countries like Germany are more skeptical about things like this and have proven once again, that they are right, even though your country (and many other who benefit from it) are still claiming there is also a "consensus" on this matter. How ironic.

@NetRunner

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.

Some criticism of "Black Liberation Theology"


I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.

>>> Well, aren't you claiming Dr. Paul is a racist? The man is not a fool, and knows that the libmedia is against him. Yet he continues to run for office and suffer what is assuredly unfair scrutiny.

>>> What's truly in Obama's heart no one knows. I see either a closet racist--more concerned with accruing power than skin color--or a crafty politician--more concerned with accruing power than anything else.

As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.

>>> You may very well be making a fair statement about a majority of "self-identified American white supremacists", to which I reply, "So what?" Don't those people have a right to vote for whomever they wish? It's obvious they are not a large or serious base. Those people wear shoes, right? If they favor Keds, is everyone who wears Keds a racist?

Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.

>>> Rather far-fetched. I can't seriously believe you're worried about this. You think the only thing holding the system together--guiding the economic, religious and moral decisions of 300 million people--are a few recent laws on the books?

So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.

Ooops.

It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.

It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.

IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.

>>> The Civil War was far more complex than "slavery". For at least the first 18 months of the war, slavery was not THE issue, and the South had every right to secede.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement.

Lincoln on the floor of Congress, 13 January 1848
Congressional Globe, Appendix
1st Session 30th Congress, page 94

>>> Lincoln made the war primarily about slavery, but slavery was already on the way out before the War even began. Slavery had been abolished in most of Europe. Only wealthy Southerners owned slaves, and industrialization made plantations less and less able to compete with the North.

>>> I have to take this moment to remind that it was Republicans who ended slavery, and Democrats who donned the white sheets.

>>> The alternative to a proper balance of power between States' Rights and the feds is what we have now: an all-powerful federal mafia, ruling without the rule of law, made all the more dangerous when Democrats are in power due to their mainstream media media lackeys.

>>> There's plenty of valid criticism of Dr. Paul out there without the non-issue of some 20-year-old newsletters. Because our time and interests are finite, I assume this charge of racism is just an easy way for the left to refute the libertarian message, though it be simple, neat and wrong.


>> ^NetRunner:

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.
I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.
As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.
Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.
So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.
Ooops.
It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.
It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.
IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.
>> ^quantumushroom:


@NetRunner and others, I question your collective "concern" over this non-issue, which is comical considering Dr. Paul has no chance of wining the nomination (or does he)?
I don't know if you voted for Chicago Jesus, but if the facts that he spent 20 years in the Church of Hate Whitey under the tutelage of the deranged Jeremiah Wright, got married in said church and also gave it 20Gs doesn't bother you, then your problem with Dr. Paul isn't "racism", it's libertarianism.

These guys want the plantation slave system back so bad, they can taste it.