This concludes today's training.

I haven't read the latest post in detail yet but will respond to it soon.

I often forget in the 'heat of the moment' that everyone's opinions and conclusions stems from their experience. As Abe Lincoln might say, "Were I you I would feel exactly as you do."

There was a time I was more liberal and would've felt the same way you do about many of these issues.

Ultimately I can only offer my viewpoint based on my information and experience. Consider that people can and do change. In 5 or 10 years your political views may completely change, mine as well.

Keep up the good work. You're right to challenge the 'old ways'.

More later.

Now that I think about it, someone else already had this one. It's from "Starblazers" and was chosen for the character's ironic name.



In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
Your new avatar is just great. Where is it from? I swear I remember seeing it.

Your post is peppered with so many logical fallacies that I don't want to validate it as an argument.

It's a fine rant, neither proving nor disproving a God-Force.

I WOULD however like to point out that most of the post makes little sense unless you make huge assumptions about a variety of different topics.

Mayhaps. Faith and reason remain polite opponents, but unfortunately for some, people are not logical or reasonable most of the time.

We can always fall back on what Napoleon said about religion: it has kept the poor from murdering the rich.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
Your post is peppered with so many logical fallacies that I don't want to validate it as an argument. I WOULD however like to point out that most of the post makes little sense unless you make huge assumptions about a variety of different topics.


In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
People are saying it more now, and you're seeing it more
now, because they're just rallying against the stigma of
saying it at all. People are saying it loud and proud because
they don't want it to be considered a BAD thing anymore.

By itself, atheism is not a bad thing. But since the human
heart is infinitely deceptive, atheism solves nothing either.
Religious superstition is replaced by moral relativism and
"rationality" that is masterful at hiding its own emotional
drives. You're in the same boat as everyone else.

I don't think beings who cannot see germs or x-rays with their
plain eyes or past the 13 billion light year "edge" of the
universe with technology have any business announcing with certainty that,
"There is no God." My opinion.

Atheists remain a tiny minority and their bases for
eliminating all traces of religion from American society are
plainly wrong. Whether you accept it or not, religion has
always been a vital force in countries' historical DNA, usually with a surplus of goodness over evil.

As an atheist you must accept that all actions have no bad consequences except when discovered by others.

As an atheist you must accept that Hitler and Mother Teresa
both ended up in a void of nothing.

I don't believe "the gods" condemn anyone for being an atheist
but I do believe all are subject to laws of karma. Again, an
opinion.

Above all, I don't think atheists are necessarily happier than anyone
else. That's probably why there's never been any kind of mass "conversion" to unbelief, except at gunpoint by evil governments.

You guys are full of it. Now how was this inappropriate? He has a different political view than most here..so what? He's not ad hom attacking anyone.

Dive bombing QM all the time is lame. Give a good argument for his comments, not downvotes.

::off soapbox::

I appreciate your sticking up for me. It's beyond sweet, considering you and I probably disagree on most political issues.

I accept my "role" in the community and have had some well-thought-out arguments with other sifters ...they appear at my profile from time to time.

Thanks again.

In reply to this comment by swampgirl:
.

In one or two sentences, what is conservatism to you?

The Individual is the most important figure in a free society. The Individual has rights that are inherited simply by being human (or bestowed by a Creator if you choose to worship one).

The State has no rights, only powers, which are strictly limited by the Constitution. The State exists to protect our rights and the rights of our neighbors and ensure, as best it can, equality of opportunity and justice for all. The State governs with the consent of the People; when it fails, we reserve the right to throw it out and start over.


"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." --Thomas Jefferson

States and local governments can run schools without any federal help, and they did in the past. Most public schools get only a small percentage of their funding from the federal government. Local boards of education are elected locally without much interference by the federal government.

As soon as any school takes so much as a penny from the federal mafia, they are forced to play by the feds' rules. And even if they don't, they are weighted down by edicts from on high, including the NCLB baloney. Local schools boards with electable positions? Sounds like more of the same-o. Compulsory state education means no ingenuity or merit for finding better ways to teach and learn; making sure everyone is doing the exact same thing even when it doesn't work. Schools should be like restaurants...with many trying to make it and the most successful doing so by offering something of measurable quality.

Show me competitive private services that can deliver your letters anywhere in the USA for 41 cents and I'll support your plan to scrap the USPS. There's nothing preventing Fedex and UPS from trying that right now, except that they can't do it that cheap.

Actually, the post office monopoly prevents FedEx and UPS from delivering any letter-sized envelope for the present rate or less; one of postal inspectors' major tasks is to make sure their monopoly is protected by spying on UPS and FedEx. You wouldn't have to disband the post office, just by ridding its artificial barrier I think it would die out on its own.

Your argument against the infrastructure and such has some merit, I'm sure it was used when FedEx got started. Yet here they are, competing with one of the world's largest government boondoggles. FedEx and UPS either turn a profit or die. The USPS, without any incentive to do better, loses BILLIONS of dollars every year. They would not last a year without the law.

This is the same congress that pays a chaplain tens of thousands of dollars a year to lead a prayer every time Congress is called in to session. This is the same congress that almost unanimously passed a condemnation of Newdow's legal attempt to restore the Pledge of Allegiance to its pre-1954 version (the Pledge didn't say "under God" before 1954). This is the same congress that funds Bush's OFBCI. The supreme court has been very clear that students can pray by themselves as much as they want on their own lunch break but official prayer-times when taxpayer-funded teachers entice students to pray are unconstitutional.

And these are things that truly offend you and depreciate the quality of your life? Freedom FROM religion is a gross distortion of the Founders' intent. Tyranny of the minority. I hate to say it like this, but atheism does not represent something "better" than religion. It doesn't offer any moral foundation or transmit societal values. That's why IMAO, there's never been a successful majority atheist society (I'm aware of). I write this as a former atheist. I know what is to be gained by being free of superstition, but I also know society is extremely fragile, and will die without its delusions. If atheists succeed in "getting rid" of religion, life will be worse for them as well.

We're in far more danger of becoming a socialist state than a theocracy. It may happen peacefully and even "legally" if enough people are convinced (to their detriment) that socialism is the way to go.

Those aren't even mutually exclusive. Jesus Christ was a socialist. Jesus Christ gave all kinds of handouts to the poor and asked something in return. He asked people to give all they could to the church and the poor. That's a taxing-and-spending entitlement system. Huckabee, the Christian fundamentalist, was also in agreement with the Democrats on most economic issues. Iran, which is officially a Theocracy ruled by the Ayatollah, also heavily subsidizes the cost of food, which you might call Socialist.

Jesus gave handouts but did not take them from others by force beforehand. He asked people to give, but did not threaten or curse them for not doing so. Most importantly, Jesus did not ever say that government's role is providing the means to help the poor.

Despite its failures due to humans being imperfect, (moderately regulated) free market capitalism has done more to lift the poor out of poverty than any other system. And I'm speaking from near the bottom of the ladder, my friend. I know times is tight for you too right now...

In reply to this comment by jwray:

#1 was part of Bush's platform and one of the first things he did after his inauguration, and #5 has little to do with the federal government or the commerce clause of the federal constitution. #5 is about local elections being influenced by religious extremists who believe the world is 6000 years old and vote Republican in part because Republican-appointed judges are less likely to see the establishment clause violation in replacing part of the science curriculum with the Old Testament.

It has everything to do with the federal mafia's "education" racket. If education was completely privatized the way it should be, all these activists and do-gooders--including the federal mafia--would be sh't out of luck. All the activists could do is start schools of their own. Wouldn't you like to see if an atheistic academy can compete with a religious one?

The OFBCI has never given a grant to a non-christian religious organization. It's purpose is very clear: to provide federal funding for Bush's version of Christianity.

What can I say, the government creates something and says, "Here are the self-imposed limits" and then crosses the line the next day. Plenty of government entities are unconstitutional by their very existence. You happen to have a problem with the OFBCI, I'm ready to see the NEA scrapped along with the post office monopoly, among others.

3. The "meddling" failed, nor was there any change in the laws.

Republican meddling failed because of public opposition to it, but the public hadn't the consistency to take anti-euthanasia laws off the books.

Schiavo was a confusing, horrific affair. Euthanasia laws are more complex than a religious view versus, what exactly? It's very easy to make the leap to the State deciding to pull plugs on costly coma patients. Even if Republicans instigated the interference, a majority opposed federal intervention which probably included conservatives as well.

#4 and #6 are the result of the values of the majority of the people. I don't necessarily agree with them. There are other reasons besides religious ones for the banning of gay marriage.

The bill of rights exists to prevent tyranny of the majority. More than 80% of US Citizens are christian, therefore we must be very careful not to create a christian theocracy.

I see no immediate danger of that happening with a Congress and Supremes hostile to even the mention of religion in schools and public arenas. We're in far more danger of becoming a socialist state than a theocracy. It may happen peacefully and even "legally" if enough people are convinced (to their detriment) that socialism is the way to go.


Global warming has been steadily taking place since the last Ice Age. Nothing so far is outside the normal range of expected activity. Even the scientists who believe GW is man-made or influenced admit the effects of wrecking the world's economies with Kyoto and other protocols would not make a significant difference in the warming trend, nor do they predict seas rising more than a foot by 2100. What other logical conclusion could one reach then, except those foisting the hysteria on the world are seeking power?


In reply to this comment by jwray:
Well, #'s 1. and 5. I have to dismiss out-of-hand...

Sorry I haven't responded to your latest message. I have read it a few times over and am processing...

In reply to this comment by jwray:
In reply to this comment by quantumushroom
NO, but curiously "by law", public tv is supposed to be "balanced." It is not, but that's government. I don't mind liberal viewpoints on PBS or anywhere else, but there's no debate if there's no one speaking for the other side.

Yes, but should it be balanced between creationism and evolution, or balanced between flat-earth theory and round-earth theory? Should it be balanced between astrology and astronomy?

I don't see evangelicals as having the kind of impact or posing the kind of threat liberals credit them with being. The so-called Religious Right has no legislation out there that's getting anywhere

These are some things the Religious Right has helped do lately:

1. Abstinence-only sex education that wastes billions of federal dollars while preserving ignorance about sex.
2. The creation of the OFBCI for the sole purpose of funneling federal dollars into Evangelical Christian organizations.
3. Meddling in the Schaivo family.
4. Many successful ballot initiatives in states, prohibiting gay marriage.
5. Electing a few boards of education that want to teach creationism instead of evolution
6. Keeping anti-sodomy laws on the books, including seldom-enforced laws against oral sex.



Both sides accuse the others' scientists of being paid shills. 'Denial of global warming' implies there's solid proof of anthropogenic global warming. So far that's not the case; there is only a consensus among a portion of scientists. The thing I'm not keen on is the GW proponents, after suggesting the price tage for a "cleanup" of water vapor would be 45 trillion worldwide, also admit the positive effects of a Kyoto would be minimal at best.

Which "GW proponent" suggested removing water vapor from the atmosphere to combat global warming? That's daft. Do you at least agree that the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1800 is anthropogenic?
graph

The ice core records show that CO2 levels never exceeded 305ppm during the ice age cycles of the previous million years.

I suspect that if you actually put it to referendum, most of the public would not support kicking Bill Moyers out of PBS.

I don't know if enough people would care either way. That's not a dig on Moyers, it's just the way things are.

PBS is not required to stay silent on politics, especially now that most important facts about the world are in some way politicized.

NO, but curiously "by law", public tv is supposed to be "balanced." It is not, but that's government. I don't mind liberal viewpoints on PBS or anywhere else, but there's no debate if there's no one speaking for the other side.

Biology is politicized (creation vs. evolution), meteorology is politicized (denial of global warming), geology is politicized (young-earth evangelical right-wingers vs. scientists), medicine is politicized (why are certain diseases thousands of times more common in developed countries than in wilderness -- pollution and industry, or lifestyle?), math is politicized (Bush disdains the study of math beyond calculus, as he implied in the 2000 debate). It's virtually impossible to do any kind of reporting without tainting it with your own knowledge of the world, which could be perceived by anybody who disagrees as political bias.

Well, it is said everything is political. I don't see evangelicals as having the kind of impact or posing the kind of threat liberals credit them with being. The so-called Religious Right has no legislation out there that's getting anywhere, while on the other side of the aisle the legislating is nonstop, and when that flops, activist judges simply change the laws to suit their needs. Six of the judges that "legalized" gay marriage in CA were supposedly R's.

Both sides accuse the others' scientists of being paid shills. 'Denial of global warming' implies there's solid proof of anthropogenic global warming. So far that's not the case; there is only a consensus among a portion of scientists. The thing I'm not keen on is the GW proponents, after suggesting the price tage for a "cleanup" of water vapor would be 45 trillion worldwide, also admit the positive effects of a Kyoto would be minimal at best.

In reply to this comment by jwray:
I suspect that if you actually put it to referendum, most of the public would not support kicking Bill Moyers out of PBS....

Of course he's liberal, but nothing he said in those links was wrong.

The 2nd link had it right...

"Bill Moyers is, as Dan Rather would say - a partisan political operative, cloaked in the auspices of a journalist taking tax money from the public against the will of the majority."

...my point all along.

And last time I checked, Fox news and the reactionary "new media" aren't taking over. Huffington Post, CrooksAndLiars.com, and Daily Kos each have more hits per day than Free Republic, National Review, or Michelle Malkin. Huffington Post gets more hits than MM, NR, and Freep combined times 3. Slate.com, which is definitely to the left of Fox, gets more hits than MM, NR, and Freep combined, but half as much as Huffington Post. TheDailyShow.com gets 10 times as many hits as billoreilly.com. This is all from Alexa.

The miracle is there's any center/right-of-center content at all. Coming full circle, 20 years ago Moyers wouldn't have to deal with any resistance. The ratings/numbers aren't a big deal, sensationalism versus truth.

Thanks for writing. I appreciate your willingness to debate and/or offer an alternative point of view to my alternative point of view. haha!

Depends how you define "false." I'm not saying he's a "liar", I'm saying he's a "liberal" and his number is up, thanks to the new media.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/009475.php

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mithridate-ombud/2007/08/24/moyers-spanked-again-pbs-ombud

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/05/14/moyers-tavis-smiley-discuss-fall-american-empire-pbs

I really don't mind Moyers, except for his on/off denial of his own bias and his using taxpaid PBS as his pulpit.


In reply to this comment by jwray:
Give three actual examples of false statements Bill Moyers has publicly made in the last 10 years, if you can.

1. Gun Grabber? Are you a member of a well regulated militia? Do you have guns at home for personal home defense or recreation? Then you're fine. Is trading foreign-made assault rifles at gun shows or concealing pistols something you enjoy? Only a chance of a problem. This is a non-issue that the old conservatives use to drum up votes.

Divide and conquer. "That's right, we're only going after gun show people." (Next year) "Don't worry rifle owners/hunters, we're only going after handguns." And so on.
During Katrina, armed "good guys" arrived at less-damaged homes and confiscated all firearms from private citizens without any lawful reason. While some years are more intense than others, there will never be a time to relax vigilance on this issue.

The easiest thing, unfortunately, is to try to place restrictions on who can buy guns, who can buy ammo, what kinds of guns can be sold, etc.

All the 50.000 gun laws we have on the books now do is keep honest people honest, make it harder for them to defend themselves and, of course, squeeze a few dollars more out of them via licensing. The criminals, obviously, don't care about gun control laws.

I did look at the Barack firearms page. There's nothing there that he can do that hasn't already been tried or isn't being done. Very little of it has an impact, and even if Barack put a personalized stamp on each idea, no one could reasonably hold any single politician accountable for such vague, general measures.

2. Oh Jesus, capital gains tax... are we talking long-term capital gains? 5% is less than 20%? ... my ears are open as to how that works. Keep in mind I don't listen to O'Reilly or Limbaugh.

Lower taxes = higher government revenue, as in revenue for your government funding, etc. Whether it comes from Limbaugh or Franken, a fact is a fact. Raising taxes as a way to demonstrably "punish the rich" satisfies the so-called little guys' illusions while hurting them all the more. "You may lose a hand, but we're going to make those evil rich people lose an arm!" (No, I'm not wealthy, but I don't want to drive wealthy people away with higher taxes and more regulations).

.3. Heh, lol on this one. At least you didn't say the ex-Marine was anti-American.

Lee Harvey Oswald was also an ex-Marine. We needn't go there.

Wright remains a crank. Barack took too long to disassociate himself, and even if he hadn't, he's been aligned with Wright's political church for 20+ years.

We can agree on this: Obama's supporters are willing to overlook anything they find wrong with Wright, and to his non-supporters, there's no positive angle to the Obama/Wright association.

Not to cut this short, but our differences are philosophical about the purpose of government:

You're a scientist in a field that either earns most of its bread from government funding (or has limited opportunities in the private sector). Concurrent with that, you see government as a tool to balance natural inequities in economics and social dynamics. Were I you, I'd vote for Obama or Hillary.

Generally, I view government as a water-stream of good intentions sprayed onto an oil fire of problemos. I believe in what Patrick Moynihan called, "Benign neglect", letting natural consequences and the free market shape society. Government is at its best when enforcing the few laws that make sense, and killing barbarians at the gate. But on its best day, it's still nothing more than raw force, a good servant but terrible master.

Every time the government is given power, it's power we the people never get back again. Therefore I'm wary.

Who knows how McLame (or McShamnesty or McNasty, take your pick) might 'lead' as President, but even at his most liberal he won't be as liberal as O-bam or Hillary. That might not bring you much comfort, but odds are you'll have your funding and employment regardless of who makes it in. Although the mainstream media denies it, Bush is a liberal about everything but Iraq.

For fun: if I had to choose only between Barack and Hillary, I'd choose Barack.


In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
1. Gun Grabber? Are you a member of a well regulated militia? Do you have guns at home for personal home defense or recreation? Then you're fine. Is trading foreign-made assault rifles at gun shows or concealing pistols something you enjoy?....

Why I would never vote for Barack Obama (or Hillary)

1. Gun grabber. Any government official who thinks the people cannot be trusted with a firearms cannot be trusted with government power. I'm appalled a Constitutional lawyer wouldn't recognize the 2nd Amendment.

2. Anti-capitalist. When explained point blank that lowering/keeping capital gains tax low brings more revenue to government, he dismissed it outright.

3. Close alliance with anti-Semitic, anti-White pastor and former Weathermen terrorists. Yes, you will be judged by the company you keep.

4. the lack of experience he brings to the job

Doesn't have a distinguished record (could be argued he's too new) and the guy can't even go one-on-one in a debate with Hillary...how is he supposed to deal with nutjobs like Ahmadinejad? Will not reveal his plans for the military, budgetary or otherwise.

5. Gives good speeches that fall short on substance and specifics. The "impartial" mainstream media has let this guy have a free pass and will continue to do so. Also, he seems to take offense when pressured to answer difficult or unpopular questions. That's the opposite of transparency.

I don't think socialized medicine is a good idea, but for those who do, what specifics has he laid out already to achieve his stated goals?

I wouldn't think you'd be incredibly supportive of McCain as candidate, are you? I thought McCain would be okay until his last year and a half of pandering, dumbing down his message and watering down his ideals to get the anti-liberal side of the conservative party onboard.

No, I'm not supportive of McLame, and the proof is, the only way I'd vote for him is if the other guys ran Barack or Hillary against him.

I know why Barack is popular, he appeals to the imagination and engages emotions (just like religion does). But from my POV, the people looking to him for salvation are reacting to a (not) surprisingly false and negative presentation of reality, courtesy of the monolithic media (no, not Fox).











In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
Basics of why I'm voting for Barack Obama.

1. he's an grounded idealist; identifies goals and outlines realistic paths to achieving them in the ridiculous environment of Washington D.C.
-(maximize transparency in federal government! have all parties (including health care providers) involved while moving in stages to universal healthcare! get out of Iraq by pressuring their government to make hard decisions! increase community service with college scholarships! etc.)

2. the experience he brings to the job
-(Constitutional Law professor from a middle-lower class family, raised by single mom and grandparents, attracted to community service literally through the joy of helping others, history of reaching across the aisle and not only respecting but understanding opposing views, etc.)

3. is not a "good" politician; refuses to bullshit for votes
-(treats American citizens like intelligent people, doesn't change his message to suit the audience, directly challenges parties to understand one another and find compromise, etc.etc.etc.)

I wouldn't think you'd be incredibly supportive of McCain as candidate, are you? I thought McCain would be okay until his last year and a half of pandering, dumbing down his message and watering down his ideals to get the anti-liberal side of the conservative party onboard.

Actually I still think Obama as Pres/McCain as Vice would be cool, as long as nothing happened to Obama.


In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
America can take all the criticism dopes like Dan can churn out and a whole lot more. It's just when these empty shirts (or in this case, hoodies) are called on their bullsh*t by presentations of facts, they backpedal while throwing out the same old, same old: "America bad. Life unfair. Racism."

How about some new material? This poor-me victim crap is plenty stale. Last time I checked, Whites were paying the same $4-a-gallon for gas as everyone else.

Nowhere on earth have Whites done so much for a Black minority than America, spending over a trillion dollars in 50 years on what amounts to 13% of the population. How about a little gratitude? Just a little? They're still practicing slavery in North Africa and tribes (Hutus/Tutsis) are still pointlessly killing each other over there; any White colonial remnants left decades ago, can't blame them.

Voting for Obama and his odious doof of a pastor? As long as you're not doing so out of White guilt or Black entitlement...and if not those what do you got? O-Bam's "principles" are socialist, ultra-left-wing to the left of Ted Stumblebum Kennedy. There's nothing else there in the way of plans or leadership, except to raise taxes. I don't think I'm being unfair here, if you know something I don't about Obama's experience and quals, do tell.

The White House is the absolute last reward anyone should receive for having a victim mentality.

Read the updates today. Your commentary was excellent.

My response at that sift:

I have to be careful whom I praise, it can be bad for their rep, but bamdrew has done an exemplary job in this sift explaining another facet of this debate, and many other responses were excellent as well.



In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
hey guy, i wrote something of a reply that i'd like your opinion on.

In reply to this comment by quantumushroom: