@dystopianfuturetoday:

I see what you're going for, so here's your Yes. Where our opinions diverge is a matter of perspective.

Slavery is not unique to the Black race, nor even Black Americans, it's a worldwide institution with ancient origins that is still practiced in parts of Africa TODAY. Every race on earth has at one time been enslaved, just as every race on earth has also enslaved other races. As horrible as it seems to us, for centuries slavery was accepted as necessary and a part of life. For Black Americans to feel singled out is, to me, just silly.

So enter the Civil War, a complex struggle involving myriad factors that became more about slavery about halfway through. Republicans ended slavery. Not that is was all sugar and poetry: Lincoln said it didn't matter if he had to keep slavery or end it, he would do whichever it took to save the Union. Lincoln did the paperwork but the Abolitionists did the real work.

We had a Civil Rights movement and it was just. (Now we have a Special Rights movement that is unjust, but that's another chapter).

I don't buy this crap about psychic injuries from slavery. And yes, here is the part where I provide the transcript of Bill Cosby's "Poundcake speech". I know you're going to have your reasons for not liking what he had to say (and I'm sure Jesse Jackson, who was right beside him was shocked and pissed) but all the same, please READ IT.


Yes, there was a time in America where lynchings were common, racism was institutional and opportunities for Blacks were severely limited. That time has passed. Yes, there are remnants of the klan out there, but they're not the ones forcing Blacks to drop out of school, disparage reading books and getting an education as "the White Man's Game" or impregnating young girls like it's nothing.

We've had generation after generation of immigrants now, from Vietnam, India, the failed soviet bloc. They came here with nothing and in a generation or two have risen. And if the excuse is, 'Well, they're not Black," here come Blacks from the Caribbean, working hard and doing just as well. All of these immigrant groups have one HUGE advantage: they haven't suffered decades of this American victim mentality.

I trust your sincerity and the sincerity of all the liberals who want to see Black Americans improve their lot (and they have, most are middle class). But there are forces that demand the dependency of Black Americans and use a victim mentality to get their votes. I don't see why anyone would heed voices that say, 'You Can't Do It'.


RE: the "science" article bashing conservatives. In Japan there are "scientists" whose entire output is exceptionalist-nationalist philosophy (nihonjinron) that is to be taken very seriously. This article is on the same level as, "liberals are better lovers".








>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

qm - Imagine if you and the rest of your ethnic heritage were brought to this country as prisoners, to be sold as property to other people. You are bought and sold and expected to do hard labor without protest. Any resistance could mean your life, or your foot, so you quickly learn to submit yourself to the authority of the ruling racial class. Your ethnic heritage, as a whole, is kept in poverty and ignorance for many generations. Old proud traditions are beaten out of you, and new ones are created in secret, out of the watchful eye of your master. You cannot sing your music, but you can sing in the church choir, so you create your own new culture under the restrictions imposed by your masters.
Then a century down the road, it is decided that slavery is wrong and you are set free. Unfortunately for you, you are in your middle age with no money or education in a culture where you are thought of as subhuman. In this hostile environment, you are expected to compete with people who have been free all their lives, and more sinisterly, people who loathe you and are actively against your progress. They even create organizations to make life worse for you and to form lynch mobs to murder you and your kind.
This new generation continues to pass along the legacy of poverty, lack of education, self doubt, fear and shame to further generations. For the next few generations, laws are set up to discriminate against your people, and it is publicly acceptable to insult, attack and even kill your underclass with minimal consequences. There are new freedoms and a desire to rise above, but there are so very many cultural barriers.
Eventually society decides this underclass should have the same rights as everyone else, but at this point, the legacy of slavery has been imprinted on an entire culture for many generations - Hundreds of years of negative cultural conditioning. Although free in law, there is still much animosity aimed at your group. Not only are ou different in color and culture, but you also carry the stigma of being poor and not having access to the same level of education of the ruling racial class.
Eventually steps are taken to reverse this legacy of hate, poverty and slavery through government assistance programs, and while costly, they do yield success as your underclass rises in wealth and social acceptance. The fact that we, the racial ruling class, see them as equal and expect them to do as well as we do speaks greatly to the change in culture over the last half century. But, just are the legacy of slavery lives on in black culture, so does the legacy of hate live on in white culture. Groups of neo-confederate whites are angry that there is an effort to help remedy a problem created by our forefathers. They don't care whether or not these programs have been successful, they just hate the idea of this long hated underclass getting some help.
Just as the legacy of poverty has made it's way from generation to generation, so has the legacy of hate.
Perhaps the neo-confederates should take the log out of their own eye, before cataloging the failings of others. Or at least, they could attempt some understanding of why these stats are the way they are, how much progress has been made, and what could be done to stop these destructive legacies in the future.

Do you see what I'm going for here, qm? I'd love a yes, even if it comes with heavy reservations.

>> ^longde:

Now. I do business in Africa, and the Chinese are everywhere. The US is missing prime opportunities because of their bias. Frankly, I think there should be another major player on the continent, so I'm not crying about it.


I think the 'rise' is a misnomer, they have risen... The fact that a large part of their population lives in second or third world conditions is meaningless compared to the power of the country itself.

I don't doubt that one day World War IV will be fought with China.

Dude, stimulus does not immediately kick in. It takes time to take effect. And considering the economic data that suggests that this was the worst economic downturn in since the Great Depression, where unemployment reached 25%, how is it "balderdash" unemployment would have climbed into the teens?

You also failed in your economic analysis. To say that the stimulus jobs created 1 job for every $200,000 is the most absurd thing I've ever read. First off, it assumes that the only jobs created are the jobs of people it directly contributed to hiring without taking into account the residual effects of said hiring, or the results of whatever goods and services produced from the work they did. How many jobs are created or preserved by building infrastructure? How many jobs were created or preserved by providing all workers hired through stimulus programs, which in turn spent that income on goods and services produced by private sector workers? What about workers producing goods and services necessary for these programs that wouldn't immediately show up?

"...the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has '[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points' and '[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.'"

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs/

The economy is cyclical in nature. Stopping the bleeding is a big deal. And most economists believe the stimulus bill wasn't as successful as it should have been is because it wasn't big enough, not because it was too big or was done at all.

Again, I challenge you to show me a recession in modern times that was not ended after a period of deficit spending. You can't name one, can you?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/us_deficit_100.png

So there's completely DUH obvious undeniable, there's no other way to explain it, basic US historical fact that we've ALWAYS ended recessions with deficit spending. How can you possibly argue that "when government steps into the market, it creates an artificial bubble that PROLONGS an economic downturn." So what was WWII?! What were the 1980's?! You have no factual claims to stand on! Explain how in the world deficits prolonged the Great Depression! We deficit spent quite a bit leading up to WWII, still didn't get out of the Great Depression, massive record deficit spent, THEN got out of the Depression. It is undeniable that's what did the trick.

I don't for the life of me understand why people like you will literally argue the sky isn't blue if it fits your ideological narrative.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You can't say it didn't work before because unemployment was skyrocketing and then stopped when the stimulus kicked in.
The facts...
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
Unemployment started going up a bit in May of 2008 (5.4%). By February of 2009 (Stimulus bill passes) the rate was 8.2%. By October of 2009, unemployment was 10.1%. +2%. After. The. Stimulus. Unemployment hit 9%+ in May of 2009 and has stayed in that zone ever since.
Unemployment did spike a total of +4% between May of 2008 and May of 2009. 60% of that spike took place before the stimulus, and 40% of the spike took place AFTER the stimulus. In order for anyone to claim that the stimulus 'stopped' unemployement from rising, they would have to conclusively prove that unemployment WOULD HAVE RISEN to 13.4% by May of 2010, then to 17.4% by May of this year without the passage of the stimulus. Balderdash. Unemployment hit a natural free market peak in late 2009, and it was going to do that with our without the stimulus.
Let's assume the stimulus DID 'create jobs'. Is that backed up by facts?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-usa-campa
ign-stimulus-idUSTRE78C08R20110913
http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf
Economic data is open to debate. On the one side here we have the CBO which gave the stimulus a very generous amount of credit (based on some very questionable interpretations of job 'creation') for 'creating or preserving' 3 million jobs. Then we have an OSU study which uses statistics to prove the stimulus 'created' 450,000 government jobs and KILLED a million private sector jobs.
I personally I think the OSU study hits the nail on the head. "ARRA funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases rather than directly boost private sector employment." That is a statement that reflects reality. The stimulus mostly plugged up budgeting gaps that had nothing to do with employment. In fact, the CBO itself freely admitted, "it is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package.” QUOTE!
But let's be really nice and use the CBO's figures - even though they are highly questionable. 3 million jobs were 'created or preserved' by the stimulus bill. Even in this very rosy scenario, the stimulus made 1 job for every $200,000 dollars. It can be credibly argued that doing NOTHING would have generated a better result in an overall analysis compared to spending $200K for 1 job.
But for the sake of discussion let's take a good hard look at the jobs that were 'created'. After all, 200K a job might make sense if they were GOOD jobs...
http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/11/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs
They weren't. Most of the jobs were government jobs. And most of them were temporary construction jobs or other seasonal gigs for make-work projects scheduled to complete in a year or less (at which point they are fired). The private sector - where jobs are needed most - got virtually NO boost from the stimulus.
I could keep on going for hours, but suffice it to say that the stimulus didn't 'stop' unemployment. There is solid, real, credible evidence that the government's interference in the free market did far more harm than good. That's what happens. When government steps into the market, it creates an artificial bubble that PROLONGS an economic downturn.

I've only been into motogp since the last part of last season. It's an awesome thing to watch for the close racing and all the overtakes and tactics and excitement. Simoncelli was a new gp rider last year and I've watched him change and develop and really start to show his real talent. Despite being far too big for the bikes he had a knack of going fast in a really exciting way. I didn't know him at all, but I did like him as a rider and he was always interesting to watch.

It's often said that people enjoy watching racing for the crashes. That if motor racing is made too safe it sanitises and ruins it. That if there is no risk there is no excitement. Bollox. I watch F1 and MotoGP to see the skill of the riders and drivers. To see the race unfold. To see how they better their rivals on the track. Of course crashes are going to happen, particularly on the bikes. If they aren't crashing it's questionable if they're pushing hard enough. Simoncelli certainly knew about crashing as he was pushing 110% from the start before his skill level had risen to meet his ego. As his time in MotoGP has gone on he's got better and better. He was going to win races and going to win a championship. I'm genuinely saddened by what's happened. 24 is no age to go.

My heart goes out to Colin Edwards and Valentino Rossi. They must be going through hell right now.

You can't say it didn't work before because unemployment was skyrocketing and then stopped when the stimulus kicked in.

The facts...

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Unemployment started going up a bit in May of 2008 (5.4%). By February of 2009 (Stimulus bill passes) the rate was 8.2%. By October of 2009, unemployment was 10.1%. +2%. After. The. Stimulus. Unemployment hit 9%+ in May of 2009 and has stayed in that zone ever since.

Unemployment did spike a total of +4% between May of 2008 and May of 2009. 60% of that spike took place before the stimulus, and 40% of the spike took place AFTER the stimulus. In order for anyone to claim that the stimulus 'stopped' unemployement from rising, they would have to conclusively prove that unemployment WOULD HAVE RISEN to 13.4% by May of 2010, then to 17.4% by May of this year without the passage of the stimulus. Balderdash. Unemployment hit a natural free market peak in late 2009, and it was going to do that with our without the stimulus.

Let's assume the stimulus DID 'create jobs'. Is that backed up by facts?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-usa-campaign-stimulus-idUSTRE78C08R20110913

http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf

Economic data is open to debate. On the one side here we have the CBO which gave the stimulus a very generous amount of credit (based on some very questionable interpretations of job 'creation') for 'creating or preserving' 3 million jobs. Then we have an OSU study which uses statistics to prove the stimulus 'created' 450,000 government jobs and KILLED a million private sector jobs.

I personally I think the OSU study hits the nail on the head. "ARRA funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases rather than directly boost private sector employment." That is a statement that reflects reality. The stimulus mostly plugged up budgeting gaps that had nothing to do with employment. In fact, the CBO itself freely admitted, "it is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package.” QUOTE!

But let's be really nice and use the CBO's figures - even though they are highly questionable. 3 million jobs were 'created or preserved' by the stimulus bill. Even in this very rosy scenario, the stimulus made 1 job for every $200,000 dollars. It can be credibly argued that doing NOTHING would have generated a better result in an overall analysis compared to spending $200K for 1 job.

But for the sake of discussion let's take a good hard look at the jobs that were 'created'. After all, 200K a job might make sense if they were GOOD jobs...

http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/11/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs

They weren't. Most of the jobs were government jobs. And most of them were temporary construction jobs or other seasonal gigs for make-work projects scheduled to complete in a year or less (at which point they are fired). The private sector - where jobs are needed most - got virtually NO boost from the stimulus.

I could keep on going for hours, but suffice it to say that the stimulus didn't 'stop' unemployment. There is solid, real, credible evidence that the government's interference in the free market did far more harm than good. That's what happens. When government steps into the market, it creates an artificial bubble that PROLONGS an economic downturn.

Something many people forget is that urbanisation leads to more damage by natural disasters. I once heard about one theory in a geography lecture that the number or intensity of natural disasters and storms has not risen significantly, but the damage and therefore the perception has.

In the year mentioned in the video, 1900, the world-population was under 2 billion, today it is almost 7 billion.

In the U.S, the number has gone up from 76 million in 1900 to 312 million today (4,1 times more).

And most importantly, the areas at the gulf got more populated: Florida's population rank rose more than that of any other state, from 33rd to 4th place in state rankings from 1900 to 2000.

The denser you populate, the more effect it will have on more people and more houses when natural disasters happen.

1900-America's need for disaster-relief and today's America's disaster relief is not comparable without scientifically balancing a lot of factors first.

Again, I understand from your perspective that it seems we can know nothing about God. However, it is not unreasonable to think that if there is a God, He is perfectly capable of revealing Himself to us. In fact, a Deist type God who doesn't get involved I would say is immoral.

Now you seem to think that, as per the popular argument, that the Christian God is simply a reflection of man. I can tell you that in answer to that, God did reveal Himself as a man in the person of Jesus Christ. Really, it comes down to the facts about Christianity. Was Jesus who He said He was? Is He risen? If He did and He is still alive, then everything He said was true. Although I have personal revelation, I think the evidence is very convincing. We could discuss that if you like.

>> ^criticalthud:
@shinyblurry
ok, you've avoided the question. I do admire your spunk tho.
if you follow the logical conclusion of the question, you will find that your conception of god that you have been worshiping is really a projection of the self.
the arrogance of an atheist who says that there is absolutely no god is equaled by the arrogance of religious folk who claim they "know" god.
And the truth is that we don't know shit about shit. let alone "know" god.
there might be some god stuff out there...we're barely touching into the collective intelligence of this planet. but to stick a human name and face on it and endow it with your own values is jerking off at its finest. It is a self-centered activity, and it's is crippling to non-self centered activity.
and thinking that some old mythology book has all the answers is a cop out, plain and simple.
good luck!

1. alex is not a hustler
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming says temperature has risen by 1.3 degrees, ok. Where's the proof that humans are responsible?
3. Is there even 1 fact that supports global warming due to civilization?

>> ^VoodooV:

Sorry, but reality disagrees with you.
Demand for health care is not unlimited, it is finite. Sure it is a large demand, but it is quite finite. You're making a strawman argument because no one is advocating the absurd prolonging of life you're accusing others of.
News flash, we don't exist in a vacuum. We don't live in a universe where our decisions only affect us alone so your Ayn Rand fantasy utopia of everyone taking care of themselves and fuck the other guy doesn't exist..it never will.
It benefits everyone to give quality healthcare to all. We are more productive and contribute more when we don't have to bankrupt ourselves paying medical costs. We pay large amounts of money already because people don't have proper health care and don't do anything about it until they show up at the emergency room at death's door. Taxpayers foot that bill when they can't pay. So the question is simple: Do you want to pay for it now while it's cheap and easy to treat, or do you want to pay more later when it's a LOT worse and a hell of a lot more expensive.
Besides, you don't seem to mind spending other people's money and taking their lives when it comes to defense spending and invading other countries. And as the video already pointed out. We don't see Republicans sticking to their conservative "principles" and refusing Medicare/Medicaid when they need it....only when other people need it. So stop being such a hypocrite.


Most of the costs are borne by people who are retired, so I fail to see how borrowing trillions we don't have on life prolongation does anything but doom the future to crushing taxes and inflation for something the present desired but weren't productive enough to pay for. You can't do that, it's not fair, and many young people are waking up to the fact that this essentially a generational ponzi scheme with nothing in it for them. The first SS recipient contributed well below what she received and the final one will have paid in far more than they will receive in benefits. SS and Medicare, by their end, will have impoverished more people than any government programs in the history of mankind. Every naive socialist program is a sentimental black hole that accomplishes the opposite of what it intends. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example, made it easier to get a loan, but in doing so increased the price of homes and thus the size of the loan. Because suddenly you've got this "magic bottomless guarantee" to print up a loan, and now you've got damn near everyone seemingly capable of bidding up the prices. Of course, now we realize it wasn't bottomless after all, it just seemed that way for a while.

You've successfully convinced me that you really, really want health care at some future untold person's expense. The populace as a whole is resisting taxes. Their money has been devalued so thoroughly that they can't budget in broad tax increases today, so what makes you think the future can? It's also true that employers are not poor people. We've had nothing but more and more government involvement in this sector and, just like education, the costs have risen with how much the government is able to tax and borrow. I used to work for an online college called Kaplan. Kaplan's price IS what the government takes and loans. Why would they price below that? You just don't seem to understand how markets work. Look at something like LASIK and PRK aren't covered by private or public insurers. It's had nothing but price declines and quality improvements. Look at computers, constant price declines and quality improvements. When people are forced to spend their own money, the fear and greed offset works. When they're spending a pool of forcibly appropriated funds, they lose sight of its true cost to them and the future and become reckless.

Oh, and I'm not a Republican in favor of military adventures. I sympathize less with that nonsense than I do with you. I understand that public roads are of lower quality than toll roads, but I'd rather we bear that cost for the simplicity of not having to dick with toll booths. Everything governmental has that dynamic, but I say the government should be completely disallowed from borrowing in excess of revenue. If you want something now, pay for it now, the end. If you can't raise the revenue, don't cry about it and don't steal from the future.

And yes, demands are infinite. Austrian economics 101. You offer someone everything on earth for $100, they'll probably take it. Problem is, supply ISNT infinite, so the price will never be that low. If you found some way of making planets full of shit cheap and abundant, you'd see that demand is indeed infinite.

>> ^quantumushroom:

It's coincidental that the "evidence" for global warming coincides with worldwide tax hikes, draconian regulations and One-World 'benevolent' socialist tyranny. Completely.
Considering there is scientific consensus on global climate change, you'd have to discredit all of them. Alternately, you could try trusting people who do science for a living over the people who do politics for a living.
Why do you assume scientists are apolitical when their funding depends on taxpayer money and growing the size of government? There is nothing close to a consensus among scientists that global warming is man-made, and even if there was, a consensus does not equal scientific proof.


except in the US, taxes are the lowest they've been HISTORICALLY
and my taxes here in Canada haven't risen... I'd honestly like to see more substantiating on this point

and scientists, both PUBLIC and PRIVATELY funded have come to the same conclusion... no matter WHAT country they live in... so this conspiracy can't be based on funding, can't be based on politics, etc

what you are saying is that it would have to be some CLANDESTINE meeting of 10s of 1000s of scientists, who don't all speak the same language mind you, and who don't have the same political views (capitalism/socialism/etc), and are geographically seperated by vast distances...

and yes a consensus doesn't = fact... but if there are 10s of 1000s of people who devote their studies/life work to a topic, who submit their findings to peer review and follow the scientific method... who all agree on the subject VS a few pseudo science cracks, with no published/peer reviewed articles, who do science out of their garage and a couple 100 oil company pay roll scientists (again, with no peer reviewed/published articles) who try to debunk it...

well i'm going with the 10s of 1000s

crackpot or inbed with oil companies strikes me as a MUCH more plausible misinterpreting of the facts than the GLOBAL SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

alot of the problem is, there are some people out there, who just won't believe that a WUGGABOO exists, unless you put it into their hand and go... "Look, that's a WUGGABOO"

the next problem is, that they usually then call it "THE DEVIL'S WORK" and try to burn you and the WUGGABOO as witches

that comment was in regards to the time frame of climate change (global warming confuses too many mouth breathers with the whole "This winter was the coldest on record" schtick)

@NetRunner: agreed that it's not the worst, nor is my anecdote...

and certainly odd changes in policy and illogical requirements do increase bureaucracy... but i'm not certain that i can agree that there isn't any valid reason for change...

think back through the last 11 years of us elections, in particular the previous three presidential elections... claims of voter fraud, hanging chad, dead rolls, acorn, etc -- now, i don't know if or what impact wisconsin's regulatory changes have on that... but that's the nature of government: we expect incompetence, and success is generally just a fortunate coincidence

from my tale, our overseas missions weren't always as i described... they changed, radically so, post 9-11 -- i used to be able to phone my nation's consular services and be shown respect and have my questions answered... help was given freely and easily, as one should expect

not so anymore - now we're herded in like infected cattle and treated as a possible terrorist - the 'help' has morphed into a hindrance... but are the reasons for such valid? how can we say...

and no, i wasn't dealing with the department of immigration... just my embassy in filing a consular report of birth abroad (CRBA), and those policies have changed recently too... for no apparent reason

i'm an american citizen, not an immigrant - there wasn't one iota of reason to suspect my not being a citizen... and soooo many reasons to accept that i was...

my family came to north america in the early 18th century... i'm tall, blond, and blue-eyed... i speak perfect american english with a non-regional accent... i served my country for six years in the usmc and am a veteran of the persian gulf war... and this is in addition to all the documentation i presented...

instead, i was treated as 'suspect' by a foreign- and indifferent-looking woman speaking to me in broken english... quite rudely questioning ME regarding something i have always assumed was fundamental: my being a us citizen

i guess my point is that videos like this present the particular situation as being 'scandalous' ... when in fact it's commonplace... and while annoying, it's not really insulting -- try visiting a us consular mission abroad and then complain about the bureaucracy, invasion of privacy, and being treated in a demeaning way

honestly, watching the domestic situation in my home country from overseas for the last 15-odd years is amazing... the partisanship is ridiculous, and so are most of their claims -- it's like having your body (the nation) infested with two distinct groups of intestinal parasites--like an old-south, grangerford-shepherdson blood-feud--the attacks from both left- and right-leaning tapeworms have risen to the level of threatening the very health and life of the host

videos and other seeming vitriol like this appear to me as symptomatic of such an unhealthy bent: a bloody feces-laden discharge

I have heard a really smart person bark about something like this before. One of the main reasons that banks and foreign investors have a hard time in the third world is less clear establishment of ownership rights. For instance, a deed to a house is a great way to procure a loan in the US. Some third world nations have no such institution for claiming ownership of property. It is an interesting problem that I never considered before. The systems of ownership that have risen in the west don't exist in other parts of the world.

Perhaps I can be more clear. Christ existing is obviously a necessary condition for Christianity to be true - but it's not sufficient. I suppose some people might say "Oh, Christ never existed so Christianity isn't true", but I don't think anyone's doing that here - and that's why I thought it was an odd thing to bring up. I think most non-Christian people here would say something more like "Jesus probably existed, and probably said more or less the same stuff that's in the Bible - but he didn't do miracles, isn't the Son of God, and didn't come back from the dead".

The belief that Jesus is a myth seems to be more prevelent, actually, and many of the people I have debated here have claimed this. I think only a very unthoughtful and intellectually incurious person could actually believe it, as you'd be hard pressed to even find a secular historian who does. He is by far the most influential person in history, which continues to this day. That in itself speaks to His claims. Our great land was founded on judeo-christian values, and the freedom that we enjoy today was predcated upon those values of personal liberty.. Even the pursuit of science was founded upon Christian understaniding; It was thought we could determine the operation of the cosmos because the Universe is orderly and has regularity due to Gods oversight. Yet, even with all this some people close their eyes to the simple truth that Jesus Christ even existed. Yet, these are the same people who champion their own rationality as being superior.

This martyr argument is another one you come back to, but surely with any reflection you understand why it isn't convincing. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on martyrs - there's been plenty of, for example, Muslims who've chosen to die for their beliefs in a great variety of circumstances, sometimes very pro-active ones. But even if Christianity has the most (or most spectacular martyrs), certainly there are many people who've died for all sorts of causes: religious, secular, or personal.

While it certainly says Christianity is a powerful idea that so many have died for it, I don't think an idea has to be true to prompt this level of conviction.

I think the martyr argument is very powerful when you consider the original disciples. They were the ones who truly knew if Jesus was in fact risen. If Jesus was not raised from the dead, there isn't any plausible explanation as to why they would all willingly die for something they knew to be a lie, when all they had to do was recant their testimony. It is also powerful for the early church because it was formed in the times of the living witnesses of Christ, and it was under very heavy persecuation. It was to a persons great disadvantage to follow Christ, socially, economically, and was often putting your life on the line. Being a Christian then was like being a Christian in Iran today. There is no good reason why the church should have ever survived under those conditions, but it did more than; it thrived and expanded expodentially. Yes, people martyr themselves today..most notably members of Islam. Islam isn't under persecution though..people are indoctrinated from birth and told if they even think one bad thought about Allah they will face eternal torment. There is no atonement in Islam, so if you screw up once you're done for. Under these conditions, and considering that Islam advocates exterminating all other religions and people, it isn't surprising it creates conditions in which people willingly martyr themselves. These situations however are night and day in regards to motivation.

First off, I should say that I appreciate the effort you're putting into legitimate debate here. I do. While I disagree with your recent points, I also accept them as honest reasoning and I think we're discussing things on a better level than we have in the past. So thanks, and I'll try to rein in my own douchebag forum persona.

Anyways, I'll (hopefully) explain what I was trying to get at better. It is my belief that religions often effectively "poison the well" for detractors by saying that the detractors are doing so for alternative motives, or that those detractors cannot understand the truth because of some flaw. To illustrate this, I was saying that Scientologists are quick to call out detractors (who are, to be fair, usually former members with a grievance) for their character flaws or crimes. Facetiously (because I don't actually know Scientologist beliefs), I was suggesting that they might also blame detractors' disagreements on confusing Thetans.

I was attempting to illustrate how awkward this attack is to refute for the detractor. The detractor certainly does have "crimes" (because, as I think we all agree, people all do things they aren't proud of). And he certainly can't be convincing if he says he has no Thetans. How can he make the case for that, when he doesn't even believe in Thetans anymore, and is definitely no longer being cleared of them?
From a perspective of a non-believer, a Christian detractor is in a similar position. Many (or even most) will have personal grievances that make their arguments sound suspect. And all will have sins. Many will have sins associated with their departure. Given that it's common Christian thought that sin clouds thought (or bars revelation or conscience or similar), we're left with a tidy way to undermine almost all detractors.

The most common objection I hear from someone is not that they haven't done evil, or that they aren't guilty of crimes against God. It's not even that they would disagree that they deserve to be punished. It's that they just defacto reject Gods authority over them because they don't want to stop living the way they do. In a very real way, they reject God over their preference to sin as they wish. This is exactly what the bible means in John 3:19-21 when it says:

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil

Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.

Even Christopher Hitchens outright admits it. Skip to 6:26 for his confession.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AX1CswHCkA

A person who is railing against Christianity due to personal grievances is not only not rational, but is completely disingenuous. Such a person willfully avoids the truth, because their objection isn't based on rational grounds, but emotional ones. I have yet to meet a single person who has a legitimate gripe against Christianity as it is described in the bible. It is all due to the failings of men who didn't live up to Gods word. Yet, to the world you're a Christian if you say you are, and every evil thing man has done in the name of Christianity is ascribed to it, ignoring the fact Christ specifically taught against it.

I understand your argument..but you're basically saying it's unfair because the bible accurately describes the condition of man. That it's easy for a Christian to pigeonhole unbelievers because man is in fact habitually evil and hypocritical as the bible describes.. Man has a sin problem, but how is it any different when one might reference a scientific worldview. To blame the wickedness of human beings on animal instincts, or the "reptile brain" (serpent consciousness), or chemical reactions. Survival of the fittest. Science even says that people who believe in God have it in their DNA to do so, and even associate it to a certain area of the brain. There is no real empirical evidence for any of this, so how is it much different than saying man is corrupted by sin? It really isn't. They are competing worldviews. Science says it's a physical issue, but the bible says it is spiritual. Only one can be right.

So my overall point is an analogy. Both the Scientologist and the Christian believer have similar reasons to doubt the detractor. However, I think we'd both agree that the Scientologist detractor is right despite those reasons. So while I understand that you still would not accept the Christian detractor, my point would be that we can't completely refute him on these grounds because he could (in principle) be the same as the Scientologist detractor. The differences between the Christian and the Scientologist detractor (with regards to these ideas) are generally only differences from the perspective of someone who already believes Christianity and not Scientology (and certainly I think we'd agree that believing Christianity is more rational than believing Scientology - I'm just using it as a convenient analogy).

My point was that instead of looking at him (the detractor) in terms of his grievances, or in terms of factors (like sin or Thetans) that could cloud his judgement - it's safer to just consider his arguments, which will stand or fall on their own qualities regardless of the speaker.

Yes, I do understand your analogy. Yes, a scientologist might reject a detractor because they think he has thetans, but we know those are made up. There is a similarity in that basic approach, but since Scientology is easily disproven, there aren't any arguments to consider. In that case, people are rejecting his truth because its clearly not true, not because it isn't possible that people reject truth because they are corrupted by evil. It's still a strawman any way you look at it. The point here is, what is the best explanation for reality and the human condition. If it is true that everyone sins, and that people are hypocrites, then that is something you as an unbeliever have to come to terms with. If I can accurately portray the human condition better than you can, and give reasonable explanations for human behavior according to biblical truth, those are obviously points in favor of the bible and not some cheap tact. It's perfectly legimate to point out that the objective stance people claim to take (and the claim they lay to reason itself) is mostly just smoke and mirrors for their personal prejudices and very real rebellion against Gods authority.

Her intellect is... just revolting... She is an absolute embarrassment... not just to Republicans... or even Politicians... or even Women... that she has risen to the point where she can even be seriously discussed as a presidential candidate is humiliating to all of us.

You said it perfectly Blank... to not do... just the tiniest margin of prep work... Her stupidity exists on so many levels.

Wait, wait, wait.

This guy is discharged. Then, after he's out of the armed forces, he does something or other to piss off the military. So they waste god knows how much government money to hold a trial to retroactively change what they call the conditions of his discharge?

You're fucking with me, right?>> ^d3n4l1:

Here is a little education about the borderless idiot running the show:
"Kokesh enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in 1999, while still in high school in New Mexico.[3] In 2004, he served in Fallujah.[4] Working a checkpoint was a responsibility while in Iraq.[5] He brought home a pistol from Iraq in 2004,[3] violating military rules, and preventing him from returning on a second Iraq tour.[5] Kokesh "had risen to the rank of sergeant after three-and-a-half years in the Reserves" and "was demoted to corporal and soon thereafter discharged honorably with a re-enlistment code that basically said, 'you can't re-enlist.'"[5] Having experienced combat in Fallujah, Kokesh received the Combat Action Ribbon and the Navy Commendation Medal after his honorable discharge from active duty.[6]
...
After his discharge, and during a March 19, 2007, protest he attended, Kokesh was in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR);[5] a superior officer identified him in a photo caption in the Washington Post.[7] On "March 29, a Marine major sent him an e-mail to tell him he was being investigated for misconduct by appearing at a political event in uniform. Kokesh responded, telling the major what he thought" and used an expletive in his reply, resulting in an additional misconduct charge.[5] The charges were "brought under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which applies only to service members", confusing some veterans and lawyers.[5]
[edit] Hearing
In May 2007, a hearing was convened to consider changing Kokesh's military discharge from "honorable" to "other than honorable" on two points: "Disrespect toward a Superior Commissioned Officer", and violating "Wearing of the uniform" regulation.[8][9] The panel recommended Kokesh be given a "general discharge under honorable conditions",[10] a discharge status below "honorable", and above "other than honorable".[11] Kokesh appealed the decision, and was denied."
Would the soldiers at Valley Forge appreciate your "victims" cries of "Foul" [language]?