@HadouKen24 - All that you say is very dandy and very well may be true, but you'd be shocked at how widespread it is to cling to 19th century literalist beliefs. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in the US it's remarkably common and even presidential candidates manage to think it despite pursuing the most powerful office in the world. I grew up in a particular Christian denomination, one of hundreds, and we had an official statement of faith that stated the absolute, literal, inerrant nature of the bible. This particular flavor of Christianity has about 3 million adherants, and again, this is only one of hundreds - many of which are even more conservative in their biblical interpretation.

When you say that it has been common for some time to regard sacred texts in a metaphorical sense I think that's definitely true, especially in the case of liberal theologians. However, when you take away the literal interpretations and leave interpretative metaphor all that remains is an interesting and influential piece of literature that has no specific authority. And I think this is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that it lowers it to the same level as Moby Dick, Oedipus, Infinite Jest and Harry Potter - all of which are books that have interesting, moralistic metaphors just like the bible.

Let's face it, religion needs the teeth of absolute truth and the threat of moral superiority to have any privileged relevance over other interesting, moral works. I see neither in any of its texts.

@shinyblurry - Give me a non-macroevolutionary reason that junk mutations in Cytochrome C just happen follow a clear developing and branching pattern that just happens to coincide perfectly with those independently developed by scores of other disciplines (such as embryology, paleontology and so on) as well as those based on hundreds of other non-coding markers (such as viral DNA insertions and transposons, to name a few).

If you can give me an answer that can account for these coincidences, does so without macroevolution, and indicates that you actually took the time to understand the concepts I listed above, then I'll take the time to write a much more exhaustive response as to why you're wrong.

Jesus Christ, the people who make that about Obama supporters just drive me nuts. (Segues into personal anecdote)

I used to work in an office in NYC. Not being from NYC, I was SHOCKED at the amount of people I worked with, smart capable people, who thought that it was so weird that I spent my spare time reading books. I used to have conversations like this about history all the time. I used to tell them stuff they couldn't believe, things that I thought at least a few people might know, but they were never interested, and they certainly could never even care to grasp the concept of history repeating itself. Again, these were capable, hard-working people that I respected. BUT...

They were the same people who were shocked, shocked, to find out that a presidential candidate could have the middle name Hussein. The same people who told me they heard about Obama's "true Muslim beliefs". The same people who questioned Obama's birth certificate when it was still a new idea. The same people who sent me chain e-mails with pictures of the Helix nebula that said things like: "astronomers call this the 'god's eye' and it's the biggest thing we've found in space".

I always though NYC was supposed to be this educated, literate, liberal place and I heard shit there that completely blew my mind (and not in a good way). These people are everywhere, in every age and in all walks of life. Never let yourself believe that they aren't.

And for that matter, never try to explain to them that history moves on, and common anecdotes and interests like the Titanic disaster become irrelevant and inessential to newer generations. Just like the survivors of the Titanic would've been mortified that you don't know the outcome of the Battle of Chancellorsville. I'm not trying to defend them, but I've certainly heard a lot fucking worse.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Here is the chart so far. It's hard to read because of all the names unfortunately, but you can manually take people off the chart if you like. I added a few inactive sifters from the last time this was posted - if you are one of these people and want to retake, let me know and I'll change it. I also added all of the American presidential candidates and Obama. I'll wait for a few more days for others to join, then I'll post.




http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdgraphpng.php?showform=&Newname=0.0%2C0.0&Newname=on&Newec=-3.4%2C0.0&Newec=on&Newsoc=-5.6%2C0.0&Newsoc=on&
Dystopianfuturetoday=-7.9%2C-6.9&Alien+Concept=-4.4%2C-4.6&Ctrlaltbleach=-6.3%2C-5.5&Duckman33=-5.8%2C-4.6&Lucky760=-1.4%2C-2.4&Zifnab=-6.6%2C-5.9&Dag
=-4.0%2C-8.4&Fantomas=-7.1%2C-5.3&Gwiz665=0.5%2C-5.7&Lann=-3.1%2C-5.7&Speechless=-7.6%2C-6.0&Radx=-7.0%2C-7.7&Eric3579=-6.9%2C-7.5&Sarzy=0.5%2C-5.4&Bo
ise+Lib=-7.5%2C-7.3&Thegrimsleeper=-4.1%2C-6.2&Kulpims=-7.5%2C-8.4&Critical+D=-4.9%2C-6.9&Longde+=-3.5%2C-3.2&Norsuelefantti=-7.6%2C-7.4&Crosswords+=-
3.7%2C-4.9&Ron+Paul=9.5%2C-1.0&Obama=6.0%2C6.0&Romney=7.0%2C6.5&Santorum=7.0%2C8.5&Gingrich=8.0%2C7.5&Qualm=-10.0%2C-10.0&Blankfist=3.9%2C-6.2&Farhad2
000=-3.4%2C-5.6&Newname=0.0%2C0.0&Newname=on&Newec=-9.3%2C0.0&Newec=on&Newsoc=-9.8%2C0.0&Newsoc=on&Peggedbea=-9.3%2C-9.8&newname=&newec=&newsoc=

Here is the chart so far. It's hard to read because of all the names unfortunately, but you can manually take people off the chart if you like. I added a few inactive sifters from the last time this was posted - if you are one of these people and want to retake, let me know and I'll change it. I also added all of the American presidential candidates and Obama. I'll wait for a few more days for others to join, then I'll post.




http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdgraphpng.php?showform=&Newname=0.0%2C0.0&Newname=on&Newec=-3.4%2C0.0&Newec=on&Newsoc=-5.6%2C0.0&Newsoc=on&
Dystopianfuturetoday=-7.9%2C-6.9&Alien+Concept=-4.4%2C-4.6&Ctrlaltbleach=-6.3%2C-5.5&Duckman33=-5.8%2C-4.6&Lucky760=-1.4%2C-2.4&Zifnab=-6.6%2C-5.9&Dag
=-4.0%2C-8.4&Fantomas=-7.1%2C-5.3&Gwiz665=0.5%2C-5.7&Lann=-3.1%2C-5.7&Speechless=-7.6%2C-6.0&Radx=-7.0%2C-7.7&Eric3579=-6.9%2C-7.5&Sarzy=0.5%2C-5.4&Bo
ise+Lib=-7.5%2C-7.3&Thegrimsleeper=-4.1%2C-6.2&Kulpims=-7.5%2C-8.4&Critical+D=-4.9%2C-6.9&Longde+=-3.5%2C-3.2&Norsuelefantti=-7.6%2C-7.4&Crosswords+=-
3.7%2C-4.9&Ron+Paul=9.5%2C-1.0&Obama=6.0%2C6.0&Romney=7.0%2C6.5&Santorum=7.0%2C8.5&Gingrich=8.0%2C7.5&Qualm=-10.0%2C-10.0&Blankfist=3.9%2C-6.2&Farhad2
000=-3.4%2C-5.6&Newname=0.0%2C0.0&Newname=on&Newec=-9.3%2C0.0&Newec=on&Newsoc=-9.8%2C0.0&Newsoc=on&Peggedbea=-9.3%2C-9.8&newname=&newec=&newsoc=

Hear that?

Thats the sound of a presidential candidate withdrawing from the race.....welcome Newt Gingrich as the next republican candidate....

Absolutely. I believe that Newt's fidelity issues (given their frequency and consistency) are indicative of a larger lack of personal integrity that I don't find desirable in a presidential candidate. Legally it still does not disqualify him, but I'd sure as heck not vote for him, nor do I think he is above scrutiny. It's much like the people protesting abortion clinics getting abortions themselves, a la "The only moral abortion is my abortion", except replace "abortion" with "affair."

My point of replying to QM's rhetoric (of which the 'sift is familiar with) was to remind him that both cases must be treated the same, as it's just another crossover of sexual transgressions with political career. If he vilified Clinton during the Lewinksy scandal then he is obligated to similarly vilify Gingrich; the flip side being that if he supports Gingrich in spite of his flaws, then he must have opposed Clinton's impeachment in 1998.

P.S. I'm of the camp that thinks QM is just a very good troll and doesn't actually believe the stuff he says. But for the sake of the sift we still have to take his comments at face value.

In reply to this comment by RadHazG:
>> ^HaricotVert:

I had to read the entire Starr Report - yes, all of it (for a class) - and nowhere is it remotely suggested that Lewinsky was coerced into doing what she did (emphasis in your quote below). In fact, quite the opposite: she had very strong feelings for Clinton, who reciprocated much of them.
But that minor detail aside, it sounds like you and I are in agreement on the point of marital infidelity not outright disqualifying someone for the office of the Presidency. Since you're giving Newt a free pass on his moral/ethical scorecard, you must have similarly given Clinton a free pass during the scandal and believed he should have never been impeached in the first place. After all, any other position would just be a double standard, no?
>> ^quantumushroom:
A Republican isn't perfect? SOUND THE ALARM. Suddenly it's time for liberals to pretend to have ethics and morals again! Remember that sociopathic adulterer elected to the White House in the 90s with that whole 'Suck this or lose your job' thing in his past? Yeah, me neither.



marital infidelity is one thing, it's the way in which Newt handled and participated in it that I find reprehensible. Clinton got his dick sucked and lied about it (and more importantly actually went to court about it even if he did get off. no pun intended) and Newt has treated his wives as if they were little more than cars he kept trading off for a newer model after test driving the new one for a while on lease.

My feeling on the matter is that under the presumption of innocence, we should give Paul the benefit of the doubt and attribute the publication of such idiocy to incompetence rather than malice on his part. Now, that's still not a great attribute for a presidential candidate ("Hello, Mr Putin? Hi, I just wanted to say that it wasn't me who sent you that letter declaring war, it was an aide. Hope that clears things up, sorry about the mishap"), but hey, we've all made mistakes, and fair enough Ron Paul's a busy man.

Unfortunately there's still a whole host of other damn good reasons not to vote for him and this is just the straw that broke the camels back.

I very much doubt he'll get the nomination anyway.

@Diogenes, by "whitewash" I mean he's trying to make ugly antipathy towards blacks look like altruistic behavior towards blacks through dishonesty.

And while I largely agree with longde, I do have to point out that a big part of the proper context is that Newt was asked about the criticism he's receiving for saying:

"I’m prepared if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps."

Newt then translates this into being attacked for "citing statistics," which is total hogwash. Specifically, hogwash that he's using to whitewash what he'd really said.

And I'll gladly cop to saying hyperbolic-sounding things, but that's because we're in a situation where outright insanity and hatred from a Presidential candidate gets them a standing ovation from the crowd, and most people think there's nothing to be concerned about.

Oh, and @bobknight33, it's racist to pretend that the NAACP (and black voters generally) are only demanding food stamps, and hadn't even considered the idea of demanding jobs.

Visit the NAACP website, you tell me, does it look like they're just looking for government handouts?

In case you're curious, here's what the NAACP said in response to Newt.

There are two major logical flaws in this guys logic.

1. At the end of a rant against republicans and democrats, he endorses a republican.
2. He gives a list of politicians who have failed to live up to their campaign promises, and then endorses Ron Paul, without considering that he too would also fail to live up to his campaign promises, because he would be subject to the same political realities (congress, the media, big money, etc. all have power to subvert the president) that all of the previous presidents had to face.

I don't believe Ron Paul to be the saint he's made out to be. He's another rich, conservative, white career politician pushing his own questionable agenda on a whole lot of unsuspecting citizens.

More reading:

http://www.geekarmy.com/geekblog/politics/transcript-of-noam-chomsky-on-ron-paul/

http://videosift.com/video/Why-so-many-people-are-endorsing-Ron-Paul-for-President?loadcomm=1#comment-1380333

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/13/1054389/-Of-Broken-Clocks,-Presidential-Candidates-and-the-Confusion-of-Certain-White-Liberals

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
http://videosift.com/video/Unprecedented-wisdom-coming-out-of-Fox
I dont do politics but this got to me a bit fired up. I know this is something you might be interested in and was curious what you and @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://netrunner.videosift.com" title="member since August 5th, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#0000CD">NetRunner thought.

@dystopianfuturetoday: I think a lot of people like Paul because he comes across as the least crazy/greedy/dangerous/moronic/etc. among the major GOP candidates. While being the least bad isn't necessarily the most ideal way gain support, the failings and google problems of the other front runners have me quietly rooting for Paul.

That said, I'm happy Colbert is running. And I've only just heard of smaller candidates like Buddy Roemer. Makes me wonder how many other presidential candidates can only afford to run in one state or another. Are there any lesser-known candidates you like?

Some more info:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/12/watch-when-mitt-romney-came-to-town/

“When Mitt Romney Came to Town,” a film about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s time as CEO of Bain Capital, is without a doubt the most serious attack on the former Massachusetts governor’s campaign.

Produced by a former top Romney strategist, the film focuses on people turned out of their jobs at four of the many companies Bain Capital essentially looted, tapping into the popular discontentment with Wall Street to label Romney a “corporate raider.”

The companies — laundry equipment maker UniMac, electronics maker DDI, toy store chain KayBee Toys and office supplier AmPad — were all purchased by Bain and liquidated, “killing jobs for big financial rewards,” the film explains.

“They could care less about us, the way I see it,” one of the film’s subjects explains. “Who am I? Mitt Romney and them guys, they don’t care about who I am.”

The pro-Gingrich PAC Winning Our Future placed a top-dollar bid on the 27-minute film after pro-Romney PACs essentially destroyed Gingrich’s chances in Iowa with a flood of negative advertising that blanketed the airwaves.

“It’s puzzling to see Speaker Gingrich and his supporters continue their attacks on free enterprise,” the Romney campaign said of the Gingrich PAC’s new film. “This is the type of criticism we’ve come to expect from President Obama and his left-wing allies at Moveon.org. Unlike President Obama and Speaker Gingrich, Mitt Romney spent his career in business and knows what it will take to turn around our nation’s bad economy.”

The film comes at just the right time for Gingrich, too: a poll published Wednesday (PDF) found the former House Speaker trailing the former governor in the crucial South Carolina primary by just two percent.

But whether it will be enough to help President Barack Obama in the general election remains to be seen.

This video was published to YouTube on Jan. 11, 2012.

Every presidential candidate bullshits. I don't have a problem with that. It comes with the job. Americans can't understand simple truth, and most don't want to hear it anyway. Until that changes, being a bullshitter comes part and parcel with the job of an elected official.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

>> ^shagen454:
The important point is still relevant: Mitt Romney is a semantic liar. But, what - do we expect American politicians to not actually lie to our face and not get angry / and put on a huge dramatic show when it is pointed out?

Semantic liar or fundamental bullshitter? I find him to be worse than a liar and I have something that you might be interested in reading. It's from Harry G. Frankfurt from his essay "On Bullshit".
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off; he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.


Yeah, there are enough nuts out there like you to sway gun sales figures for fear that Obama or some other Democrat is gonna take yer guns! Meanwhile, Obama's most significant legislation pertaining to gun control is ALLOWING people to take guns into national parks. While bullshitting is an unfortunately necessary part of life, it actually has to be believable.

>> ^quantumushroom:

There's a reason gun sales soared last xmas. Stay tuned...

>> ^jmzero:

Yeah... the problem here isn't that he "has to think about it" or something. Thinking is fine. Not being able to call every detail to mind is fine. It's probably a good thing if someone actually tries to respond to a specific question rather than just brain-dumping talking points generally associated with an issue.
But his visible train of thought here calls to question his ability to do the job (which will require the ability to state himself clearly in high pressure situations), his knowledge, his preparation, and - generally - his commitment.
Surely he knows this specific question is coming; how, at this point, can he not be ready? If you had a list of likely questions, I'd say a question on Libya would be at least in the top 20. Questions on your specific health care plan would be top 5 (and he flubbed that one last week).
He doesn't seem serious about this, and that just doesn't work.


Yep.

He starts off with a hesitant: "President Obama supported the uprising..." And then he has to actually pause to ask "Correct?". He then says I need to clarify to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

What????

How can anyone know so little about a major and current military campaign expect to be taken seriously as a Presidential candidate? A team of well trained experts around you can not overcome that level of ignorance and apathy. If you know that little, how can you tell an actual expert from some backwater nutter in a suit who's urging you to bomb Brazil before it invades it's Liberian neighbors.

More importantly, how does he manage to survive drinking while thinking at the same time, it would seem a significant challenge.

You mean current presidential candidate Herbert Cain?! OH nooooes, Heeerb!

>> ^bareboards2:

Herbert! Run for it!!!!

I'm not sure it's already been stated and I don't feel like reading all the comments right now, but I feel like people are really missing the point. It's not that he forgot the word, or fumbled trying to remember it, people do that all the time -- yes even presidential candidates. Presidents/candidates give a LOT of speeches and talks so its really not that hard to find or cherry pick moments when they misspeak. The problem here is that this exposes the fact that Rick Perry is a candidate who can only memorize talking points and has no real concreate understanding of the the actual policies he's talking about. He had no Idea what the third department actually did, just memorizes and spouts the names of the departments because reducing government size by eliminating those departments sounds good to his base.

I'm not saying either way whether axing those department IS indeed a GOOD or BAD thing, just that a candidate who has no understanding of what he's talking about but is only talking about it to get elected is probably NOT a GOOD thing.