quantumushroom
Member Profile
Bio:
WHY MCCAIN OVER B. HUSSEIN?
Obama's got so many hooked on the dope of honey-tongued hope without ever explaining what it means or what he intends to do.
Don't see enough difference between him and a true marxist to matter. He wants only the gummint to have the guns. He has a disdain for private property rights, wants to nationalize everything and boost taxes (of course) on "the rich" as if "the rich" live in a vacuum and won't simply flee and invest elsewhere.
He thinks he can dazzle middle-east nutjobs into peaceful doves, and for crying out loud, even if he was a total phony like Hillary, even if he secretly planned to burn the flag in the Oval Office, he doesn't have the common sense to wear the flag pin while running for the highest office in the land.
The Obamessiah believes people live to serve government, so I'll settle for McCain the half-liberal over the near-total-marxist.
Member Since: 2006-06-22
Homepage: http://newsbusters.org/
Last Power Points used: never • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1
Homepage: http://newsbusters.org/
Last Power Points used: never • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1
Comments
Subscribe
Dark Videos Submitted by quantumushroomNavigation
- profile
- unsifted videos (0)
- personal queue videos (21)
- sifted videos (28)
- promoted published vids
- promoted queued vids
- promoted Sift Talk posts
- promoted blog posts
- blog entries (0)
- Sift Talk posts
- discarded posts
- dead/deadpool videos (5)
- my playlist bookmarks
- my post bookmarks
- playlists bookmarked by others
- posts bookmarked by others
- voted up
- voted down
- playlists
Member Stats
Rank: 231
Rating:
35 star points
Votes Received: 791
Votes Cast: 1589
Comments Posted: 1706 • browse
Comments Applauded: 7
Sifted Videos: 28
Profile Views: 13225
Rating:
35 star pointsVotes Received: 791
Votes Cast: 1589
Comments Posted: 1706 • browse
Comments Applauded: 7
Sifted Videos: 28
Profile Views: 13225
Member's Highest Rated Videos
i don't know what you mean. i used myself as an example of someone who cannot be categorised as either "right" or "left", to show you how retarded it is to try and polarise every debate in an outdated political framework.... a framework which i believe is deliberately designed to be polarising and allow the illusion of debate while the same people keep power behind the scenes. the red and blue wool is pulled over your eyes. it's all wool, regardless of colour.
>>You ASKED for my opinion regarding where *I* thought you stood on the spectrum of political beliefs and I gave it to you.
No, i said (and keep saying) this "spectrum" is retarded and irrelevant. I challenged you (rhetorically) to place me on the right or the left, knowing full well that you cannot place me. You tried, but hey, i am not a drone for someone else's "spectrum" from a different century.
Fuck the spectrum, can't you understand that is my point?
>>If YOU know what you believe, then you shouldn't overly care what others believe.
that's ridiculous, we live in a society. of course i care what other people believe. if they believe that slaughtering iraqis is worth it, then i care about that.
>>>America has the right to protect its interests abroad.
I thought this wasn't about "interests"? I thought this was a charity mission to bring democracy to the lucky winners of the "team america rescue lottery".
Iraq is not "america's" and that is the whole point. You can't just say "i am interested in that place, therefore i have a right to drop bombs on it if i want.
jesus that's so freaking basic, and it's where we started our debate. "protect our interests" is just code for "invade and occupy". if you follow that logic, america's only choice is to invade and occupy the whole world except australia.
>>If you want to take delight in what you consider hypocrisy, that's your right.
who's taking delight? i am disgusted.
>>You're an expatriate, are you not? If you rejected your country of origin, its history and culture, then I'm not going to convince you of America's greatness, or try.
wow. that's a total nonsequitur.
my country of origin is england, austria and wales... which one should i live in?
and it is a family tradition to expatriate. so you're pissing me off now with your definition of "patriotism".
you're american so you're a fucking immigrant anyway, descended from those who committed genocide against the indigenous people and claimed a continent. i shouldn't have to explain to you the irony of an american accusing me of "abandoning" my roots.
>>>Until next time? qm
you made it personal, you'll always get a rise out of me that way.
and don't question my love of america, it's just that i choose to love the music and the landscape and the lunar landings more than the "protecting interests abroad" bit.
In reply to this comment by MINK:
That's it man, you've put one too many words in my mouth, i can't be bothered to discuss with you any more, because it's like you're an artificial intelligence chatbot with a limited number of algorithms and all your answers are now starting to be "does not compute" followed by a change of subject or false accusation....
In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
Too much talking, conceited cows!
If they're too big or heavy, get a spine implant.
Also, T*ts or GTFO.
Like I said, get back to me when your brave troops have liberated Belarussia from her dictator. Then tell me it's nothing to do with the huge gas pipeline under there, or the proximity to Russia. No no, it's just about bringing democracy to Belarussia. And democracy obviously means 2 rich guys lying to the people and then the people choose the one they hate least and vote for him on an electronic box with no papertrail.
In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
Dude, the "left" does NOT EXIST.
I wish that were the case.
you CANNOT group people into two halves.
You mean, like, the "haves" and "have-nots"?
Every time you say "the left" or "liberal" you sound like a fucking twat. Nobody knows what you mean by "left". Apparently to you it means "wrong", as in the opposite of "right". LOL.
Now now, no need to be profane or anti-fane. YOU may not know what a leftist is but a great many people do know what is meant by 'the left', leftist, socialist, etc. Obviously the term differs slightly from country to country. Both major parties in Britain are socialist; one is more conservative than the other.
The paradigm to replace "right" and "left" is "statist" versus "small-l" libertarian. It's not quite there yet, and in the meantime, "onservatism versus liberalism", or "right vs. left" will do.
I ask you this... where do you classify me? I like small government and nationalised healthcare. Yes you can have both. It doesn't
take much governmental apparatus to collect money and give it to hospitals.
You can have "both", but only for a very limited time, then it's over, and government balloons exponentially. Happens every single time it's been tried.
So am i "right" or "left"?
I don't believe gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage. I think abortion should be allowed, but restricted. I think
governments waste huge amounts of money. I think we need a government. I hate evil corporations. I agree with the principle of
property ownership. I love guns but I think they should be banned or at least restricted much more than they are in the USA. I served
in the RAF but I am a pacifist. But I would fight for my family. I opposed the war in Iraq for economic, constitutional and
humanitarian reasons. I hate the BBC, FOX, MOVEON, DISNEY, MTV, TYT, CONSERVAPEDIA, THE NATION, and i find DEMOCRACY
NOW intensely boring and annoying. I am agnostic about god.
SO fucking figure that out. Am I on the right? Or the left?
My interpretation? Generally speaking, I'd say you're left-leaning on most issues. You have an unexamined hostility towards capitalism and corporations, and while you're aware that government is wasteful and corrupt, you'd rather they wield the difference of power rather than 'the people'. You despise the major brands of media influence yet, like all artists, are frustrated because whether you support or oppose The Machine, you're still orbiting its imaginary center.
A pacifist is defined as "a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind." That being the case, you're employing a paradox by stating you'd wound or kill to defend your family. In other words, idealism ends when enemies present viable threats. What I find amusing is, if some wacko outside your window yelled, "I have a gun and I'm going to shoot you!" you wouldn't hesitate to grab your own gun, whether the wacko "proved" he actually had a gun or not. That's not paranoia, it's common sense. But when a wacko like Saddam announces he's got a gun, and he's proven in the past he'll use it indiscriminately, and all your neighbors also believe he will use the gun, the anti-war left would rather you just ignore the situation. WTF.
I think you have a young, unexamined yet comfortable worldview, and though you claim to chortle at "2 opposing sides" you tend to view things in black and white. Iraq good, USA bad. UN good, USA bad. War is always wrong. Torture is always wrong. Corporations are always evil. Those seeking "social justice" are always good and working for the best interest of all and NEVER for self-gain.
And as for your declaration that "inevitable genocide" is "unacceptable"... wow.
To leave Iraq before it's stabilized delivers it unto chaos. The left (statists) have made it clear they don't give a shit about any resulting genocide. Like spoiled children, they want what they want and that's that, don't care about anything else.
Based on your worldview, were I you I'd reach the exact same conclusions about the Iraq war that you have. The difference then, is that I'm taking into account all possible outcomes, not just the ones I'd like to see happen. Had we not taken out Saddam, he'd probably have died at a ripe old age and his thug sons would've taken over and Iraq would still be a backwards hellhole.
Think of it like this dude, although maybe you can twist words into comebacks, maybe you're not actually making a point, you're just "debating"... the way you have been trained to debate, i.e. with 2 sided arguments.
You and many others on the sift want 'wiggle room' for those times uncomfortable facts and logic make themselves known, and this wiggle room is usually provided by suggesting that "no labels apply" or that their unique views exist outside of categorization.
Liberalism is a starting point, not the finish line.
It's kinda like you live in a dictatorship and you have been brainwashed to think like that.
Once your eyes are opened and knowledge and experience received, you can't go back to being a leftist, because you won't be able to 'unsee' the inherent flaws in what amounts to an unworkable and unjust system even less fair than capitalism.
So you don't like "2-sided arguments"...all right then, have you ever gone beyond your own foregone conclusions and considered Iraq just might benefit in the long run, that the US has given them an opportunity to make their fledgling government work and given their people a real shot at self-determination? It's something the UN has never done for any country.
I'm not upset by opposing points of view, and once again, I never picked up a keyboard to change anyone's mind. We're all working thru the thing.
you CANNOT group people into two halves.
Every time you say "the left" or "liberal" you sound like a fucking twat. Nobody knows what you mean by "left". Apparently to you it means "wrong", as in the opposite of "right". LOL.
I ask you this... where do you classify me? I like small government and nationalised healthcare. Yes you can have both. It doesn't take much governmental apparatus to collect money and give it to hospitals.
So am i "right" or "left"?
I don't believe gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage. I think abortion should be allowed, but restricted. I think governments waste huge amounts of money. I think we need a government. I hate evil corporations. I agree with the principle of property ownership. I love guns but I think they should be banned or at least restricted much more than they are in the USA. I served in the RAF but I am a pacifist. But I would fight for my family. I opposed the war in Iraq for economic, constitutional and humanitarian reasons. I hate the BBC, FOX, MOVEON, DISNEY, MTV, TYT, CONSERVAPEDIA, THE NATION, and i find DEMOCRACY NOW intensely boring and annoying. I am agnostic about god.
SO fucking figure that out. Am I on the right? Or the left?
And as for your declaration that "inevitable genocide" is "unacceptable"... wow.
The USA caused all this by supporting Saddam while he tortured, and then turning against him and blundering into his country, starting chaos which millions of people predicted would be "unacceptable". Killing civilians with your opening "shock and awe" shots... UNACCEPTABLE.
Now you pretend that's all "water under the bridge". UNACCEPTABLE.
You totally ignore the oil thing. UNACCEPTABLE.
I am still waiting for your brave forces of democratic chaos to unleash their "ACCEPTABLENESS" on other dictatorships where there is no oil or cocaine. STILL WAITING.
Think of it like this dude, although maybe you can twist words into comebacks, maybe you're not actually making a point, you're just "debating"... the way you have been trained to debate, i.e. with 2 sided arguments.
It's kinda like you live in a dictatorship and you have been brainwashed to think like that.
In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
dude, you are still on about that "left" bullshit aren't you.
Yes, 'cept it ain't bullshit. The "world citizens" on the left don't care about anything but their own power. They'd risk genocide in Iraq as long as the US leaves. Unacceptable.
go take your "chaos of freedom and self-determination" to every no-oil dictatorship in the world and get back to me with the results.
Would you prefer guaranteed outcomes which only a dictator could bring about by killing millions? Unacceptable.
go take your "chaos of freedom and self-determination" to every no-oil dictatorship in the world and get back to me with the results.
In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
Seriously WTF Have We Done to Iraq?
It's a question you're trained never to really ask. All you know is Bush is a bad man who fooled the entire world with lies, and it's all about oil.
Since the left prefers the order of tyranny to the chaos of freedom and self-determination, the UN should just choose another Iraqi dictator to take over.
In reply to this disturbing vision from quantumushroom:
"The ICE...is...gonna BREAK!"
Of course we have something to lose. Look at the electricity price-gouging in California that happened shortly after privatization. An oligopoly of private companies can easily conspire to defraud the public of billions by price-fixing. At least the Post Office tries to provide its service at-cost.
Select groups may be complaining of such things; far as I know, students are free to pray in government schools. They're also not required to stand during the Pledge or be forced to recite it. Conversely, does the "moment of silent meditation" after the Pledge interfere with anybody's atheism?
Students have more than a moment to spend silently between each class period when they're allowed 5 minutes to get to another class that's only 2 minutes away. An additional, official "moment of silence" wastes time. It fails the Lemon test since it serves no secular purpose and the intent of its purveyors is to promote prayer. Atheists don't want their government wasting students' time (and time=money) on that. Students have plenty of time to pray before and after school, and during their own lunchbreaks.
A majority of Americans like the words "under God" in the Pledge. There are lots of things that could be done in the next 24 hours that would make this country safer, stronger and more prosperous, mostly by striking down stupid laws, many of which have their origins in religion or racism. The problem is people.
True, but that has nothing to do with the question I asked. The only reason for theists to be up in arms about the Newdow case is a desire for this government to officially promote monotheism, which is forbidden by the establishment clause.
3. I'll give you several examples of contemporary and successful atheist-majority societies: Iceland,
Norway, Sweden, Japan, Hong Kong, France, Germany, and South Korea.
They were not created as atheist nations, were they?
So what? They were not all created free of slavery/serfdom either. Neither was the United states.
If the only criterion about whether a belief is beneficial is whether it helps build empires, then slavery and fascism are right up there with religion.
One example you mentioned, Japan. Japan's only indigenous religion was Shinto and later Buddhism--an atheist religion--was imported. We can observe the graph and say, "See, they are majority atheist" but they also have centuries of homogenous tradition, culture and values that could only be rejected under penalty of complete ostracization by the members of that society. The average citizen atheist of any of the countries you listed is bound to believe in something, and his belief is likely not entirely rational.
But Japanese on average score much higher than Americans on science literacy tests. Japanese kids don't have parents who will freak out if they're taught in school that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old.
But there's no inherent morality in atheism either, nor a values system, and were one to be developed, it would be extremely difficult to culturally transmit such values.
Yes, people cherry-pick the parts of a religion they like, and some of the injunctions are simply ignored by all but literalists, but that doesn't negate the usefulness of the "agreed upon" parts of the faith or resulting unity.
As an atheist, you too have had to choose, by denying the whole produce section, not just the cherries.
Beliefs about morality are transmitted socially with or without religion. If mankind only refrains from murder because of the hope of heaven and the fear of hell, then mankind is a sorry lot indeed. Religion is neither necessary nor useful for morality, and as proof of that you will find that the proportion of atheists in prison is smaller than the proportion of atheists in the general population.
5. How could the ignorance of the people benefit the society in the long run?
If I'm understanding your view correctly, you assume that religious people are automatically ignorant and atheists automatically wise. I think you're wiser than that. Even in a Star Trek-type world where all the basic needs are met and free for everyone, religion will be with us.
Having a false belief is a point of ignorance, by definition. It does not imply ignorance of other things, but may be correlated with ignorance of other things. Having one true belief does not imply knowledge about other unrelated things or any generalized "wisdom".
The Christian concept of "hell" as a realm of eternal punishment originated in the New Testament. See Matthew 25:31-46, where Jesus threatens with eternal torment those people who refused to give.
The government says, give us money to redistribute it to the poor, or we'll garnish your wages.
Oh no, the government can and will do much more than just garnish your wages.
Nothing any government can do to you in this short life can even come close to the eternal torture of the mythical hell. For tax evasion, At worst they may auction all your property to recover unpaid taxes and throw you in jail for a a few years for tax evasion, but that's nothing compared to Hell.
Government's sole purpose is the same as any organism: survive. It doesn't give a rat's patoot about you or me individually or even what the mob claims to want...it just wants the mob mollified enough so that it can continue to grow.
A government is composed of a variety of individual people not unlike you and me, with their own biases, their own consciences, their own ethics, etc, and their own interpretations of the law.
The entire purpose of the Constitution/Bill of Rights is to limit government power, nothing more.
That's one of its purposes, but it doesn't go far. The ultimate limitation on government power is anarchy. It has many things that don't fit that scheme. It creates 3 branches of government (why not 2 or 4?) and includes the general welfare clause, the copyright clause, etc.
Jesus says, give to the needy or burn in hell for eternity.
If simply accepting Christ is enough to be "forgiven" for any and all sins, then hell as punishment for denying the needy is moot.
This just gets us back to the centuries-long holy war of "faith alone" christians vs. "faith and acts" christians. The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches have always been on the "faith and acts" camp, but protestants started the "faith alone" business by cherry-picking John 3:16 instead of Matthew 25:31-46.
This article addresses why Jesus is not a socialist.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52402
Nowhere in the Bible does any figure say that government programs are a solution to poverty.
Of course Jesus wouldn't suggest that as a means to his end, because there was no chance in hell that the Roman Empire, as occupiers of Israel, would agree to that. But you're confusing the ideal with the means of its enactment. Ironically, the author of the pledge of allegiance was a Christian Socialist. So was Martin Luther King.
Among the first Christian communities was a commune:
"All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."
(Acts 2:44-45)
"There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet."
(Acts 4:34-37)
Is it possible that Marx's famous line "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" took its inspiration directly from the New Testament? Immediately following this second passage is a very interesting story about a couple, Ananias and Sapphira, who sold a piece of property but only gave the community a portion of the proceeds, keeping some of it for themselves. When Peter confronts them with this, they both fall down and die - leaving the impression (for many people) that they were struck dead.
Killing bourgeoisie land owners who fail to give all of their money to the community? That’s not merely communism, that’s Stalinism.
Jesus' exortation towards charity, carried out as if the entire country were one family, is essentially a welfare state.
And I suppose even if Jesus or another biblical figure did exhort government wealth distribution, it would still fall under the "good works are not enough" clause; one would still have to accept Christ as the ONLY Savior to avoid the flames (for this reason I'm technically not a Christian).
Belief in Hell is far less prevalent than belief in Heaven. The only reason to believe in Hell is the Bible, which has been proven wrong on so many other subjects. At least in the case of Heaven there's a wishful thinking factor.
Obama's platform is the same moderately-regulated free market capitalism we have now plus a few more redistribution payments in the form of Healthcare.
Realize it's Congress who holds the purse strings, so an Obama win guarantees nothing on its own.
The geniuses in the House just recently voted to privatize their food services racket, which so far just this year lost 2 million dollars (the Senate privatized theirs in the 80s). If these idiots can't run a few restaurants at a profit, how the hell are they going to provide "free" health care or anything else?
Look at the gross incompetence and FAIL at the old Walter Reed Hospital; please consider that was a total government operation.
The purpose of those restaurants was the culinary convenience of the representatives, not making a profit.
The WRAMC scandal began during the Bush administration. In general, Bush did what he could to fulfil his own prophecy that government doesn't work. He appointed corporate lobbyists to head regulatory agencies, for christ's sake, as if there was no conflict of interest. Also the enormous quantity of people coming home maimed from Iraq might have had something to do with straining the system.
There are serious differences between Obama and McCain. Obama is trying to be all things to all people, his latest effort being a "centrism" ploy. Whatever that is, it's not leadership. Flawed McCain is nobody's first choice, but he's a leader.
Nearly every politician engages in dishonest pandering as a means of getting elected. McCain does it blatantly. If Obama were guilty as charged on that count, he would still be better than McCain.
If Obama's dispicable recent vote for the new FISA was a carefully calculated ploy to distance himself from the left, and that helps him get elected and undo most of the damage Bush has done to the constitution, it's worth it. But I suspect that it will backfire by converting some of his supporters to Nader supporters.
The vast majority of public school funding comes from local property taxes. So areas with expensive houses tend to have better public schools and areas with cheap housing tend to have worse public schools. I don't know what public school district you're from, but the one I went to routinely scored higher on standardized tests than all the nearby private schools and over 90% of its graduates went to 4-year colleges, such as harvard, yale, caltech, oxford, etc.
Whatever the problem with public schools is, it's a local problem, not the federal government corrupting the whole public school system.
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.
But you can't even send a 1-ounce box via fedex or UPS ground for less than 10 times the price of a first-class stamp. Also, Priority mail is in some circumstances a lot cheaper than equivalent services offered by UPS and Fedex The reason it runs at a loss is because it offers low prices.
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.
A few points here:
1. How does the lack of government-sponsored official prayer times in schools interfere with anybody's religious freedom?
2. How would the lack of the words "under god" on the pledge of allegiance interfere with anybody's religious freedom?
3. I'll give you several examples of contemporary and successful atheist-majority societies: Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Japan, Hong Kong, France, Germany, and South Korea.
4. Morality doesn't come from religion either -- from among all the mass murders and silly injunctions of the Old Testament people cherry-pick whatever they were raised to agree with. They have their own sense of morality and use that to cherry pick the parts of the bible to "follow". The injunction against homosexuality is in the same chapter as the injunctions against eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics.
5. How could the ignorance of the people benefit the society in the long run?
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.
The Christian concept of "hell" as a realm of eternal punishment originated in the New Testament. See Matthew 25:31-46, where Jesus threatens with eternal torment those people who refused to give.
The government says, give us money to redistribute it to the poor, or we'll garnish your wages.
Jesus says, give to the needy or burn in hell for eternity.
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...
Obama's platform is the same moderately-regulated free market capitalism we have now plus a few more redistribution payments in the form of Healthcare.
so why not prosecute the war in iraq justly if justice is your cause?
well... because the United Nations tend not to allow invasions for oil. The US had to make up some bullshit and it still didn't fly.
SO perhaps we can agree that there is such thing as a justifiable war, but this is not it, and this has fucked things up bigtime.
I served in the RAF cadets by the way. Hardly pacifist. But i didn't join the regulars because I was nervous about politicians sending me to my grave in a fucking corrupt oil war, pretending i am defending liberty while cynically profiting from my death.
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.
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.
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. The overhead cost of market entry requires duplicating a lot of the infrastructure, which is prohibitively expensive. If you have two or three separate services running daily pickup and dropoff everywhere in the USA that extra overhead is going to make it impossible to deliver letters that cheap. A private monopoly might be able to run as efficiently as the USPS but then it would gouge everybody for obscene prices. Any non-monopoly free market mail delivery would have higher costs than USPS because of duplicating infrastructure.
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.
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.
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.
We're all annoyed by those we perceive as getting a free pass. As a believer that the earth's climate is what it's always been and no danger to humans, I'm angry Algore gets away with bad, distorted science with no rebuttals from anyone.
Yes, well, the difference is that if you describe Al Gore as "a lying fucking moron" or deem all his conclusions to be "A bunch of retarded shit" or lets say you use even stronger language, thats just uttering an opinion, and people have all the right to counter your arguments, and disagree with you, but they cant say you've committed a "hate crime" or "been offensive"
And lets say someone start raising their kids to worship Al Gore as if he was god, and lets say they call their kid a "Climate activist and proud liberal, aged 2"
Replace the name of Al Gore in the first paragraph with "Prophet Muhammed" and replace "Climate activist liberal" with "Roman Catholic" and you see my point.
Al Gore's ideas are fair game, besides they are not his ideas, there is actually and overwhelming scientific consensus about them. The point is that if he says "CO2 levels have gone up dramatically the last 15 years" the LEAST we can do is to say "Provide the fucking evidence" and when he says things like that he usually have the data to back it up. There may be exceptions, and some of the data may be disputed, but at least he makes a fucking effort to get it right..
Now compare that to the Pope who suddenly declared that dead, unbaptized babies didnt have to go to "limbo" after all, after the Catholic church had said for hundreds of years it was so. Wheres the fucking evidence? Is there ANY data available? No. he GETS AWAY with such nonsense. Easy as that. Its faith. No evidence is ever needed. Bullshit. Real parents are suffering because they believe in such shit.
Religious Ideas should be scrutinized the same way as everything else, these fucking charlatans and wacko's with their "send Money" shows, the creationist dolts without a single thread of evidence pushing their ideas on public schools, islamic scholars wining "hatecrime" whenever I tell them what I think of their pedophile, homophobic, bigoted, ignorant, racist warmongering hero, and the stupdid fucking ideas he came up with. No . We demand a free fucking pass. its faith. Beyond all criticism and scrutiny. And we demand to program our kids by washing their brains with this shit. Noone is to question that.
If you believe the creator of the universe takes an interest in your english exams or your sex-life or listens to your prayers then go right ahead, noones gonna stop you. But try pushing those ideas on others, or try to get laws changed in accordance with them, then I'm sorry: Personal conviction means fuck all, you need to provide some goddamn evidence.
With Al Gores ideas, the least you can say is that there is actually quite alot of evidence in favor of his case. Of course he may STILL be wrong, but he does have some data, at the very least. And thats the least we can demand, if Al Gore wants us to change our lifestyle, and new policies to be implemented by the government, then I say the same thing as I say to the pope: Provide the fucking evidence!
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.
In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
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!
I am an atheist because I am skeptical by nature, and I want the same skepticism to apply to all ideas, whether its Islam, Christianity, communism or any ideas that I agree with. My biggest problem with religious "faith" is that people who profess it are getting away with outright idiotic statements and actions, simply because its faith. when McCain or Bush or some politician exclaims that "God talks to them" it is to me as absurd as saying that the tooth fairy is to blame for the high oil prices. Yet they get away with it as if it was a completely normal thing to say for a grown man.
They should be met with contempt and ridicule for such statements, not because of the crusades or 9/11, but simply because the statements themselves are ridiculous. There is enough bullshit as it is, and if we dont add an equal opportunity bullshit filter, bullshit is gonna sift through the holes, and we are raising the next generations of people lying to themselves and eachother. Right now there is a 6-lane highway tunnel through the bullshit filter, and that hole is called faith, where ridiculous ideas can march freely without questions, and when we allow that tunnel to be there, anything goes. That means you can have the means and knowhow it takes to design a nuclear bomb, and still believe you get the 72 virgins in paradise, because whatever else youve learned about the world, you've been taught from you were born not to question certain types of claims.
In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
I understand what you're saying. Do you see anything wrong with lumping all religious peoples with fanatics and rapture nuts?
In reply to this comment by BicycleRepairMan:
Dont forget the atheist crusaders that killed thousands of true muslims, or the hundreds of unbaptised, un-christian suicide bomber atheists that kills true believers in iraq every day. Goddamn atheist scum!
In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
No, Henning. Atheistic communists alone are responsible for 100 million murdered worldwide.
In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
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.