Hey did I mention that I don't give a damn what BR are is or why he uses whatever title he generates as a justification to treat others so badly?
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
In the agnostic/gnostic spectrum, I fall on the agnostic side. In the theist/atheist arena, I lack belief in deities. The terms describe different things.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
5% of the vote is actually an important benchmark. It would allow a third party access to campaign funding reimbursement and make it easier to get their candidates on the ballot in many states.
Voting for the "lesser of two evils" has not resulted in the changes we need. It fails. Every time.
So, I'm doing something different. You're welcome to join me.
How exactly did that work out for Ross Perot???
I don't know about voting in a two party system failing "every time". I personally think that Reagan was a pretty successful President, and I'll grudgingly admit that Clinton was a pretty successful President. Some parties have been replaced in our history, but America has pretty much always had only two major political parties from which our Presidents have been elected. There have been some really successful Presidents in our history.
I do however agree with the Paul premise that the changes we need are dramatic. However, he seems to view the US as having the maneuverability of a jetski whereas it's more like an aircraft carrier. It take a LOT to stop an aircraft carrier, and I'm afraid that we are going to have to steer this thing slowly in the right direction because there is so much political momentum it's not going to change that drastically in 4 or 8 years. Now if we had a like-minded Congress and President for a solid decade or two I think we could make those dramatic changes, and I hope Romney/Ryan would be the beginning of that.
How exactly did that work out for Ross Perot???
I don't know about voting in a two party system failing "every time". I personally think that Reagan was a pretty successful President, and I'll grudgingly admit that Clinton was a pretty successful President. Some parties have been replaced in our history, but America has pretty much always had only two major political parties from which our Presidents have been elected. There have been some really successful Presidents in our history.
I do however agree with the Paul premise that the changes we need are dramatic. However, he seems to view the US as having the maneuverability of a jetski whereas it's more like an aircraft carrier. It take a LOT to stop an aircraft carrier, and I'm afraid that we are going to have to steer this thing slowly in the right direction because there is so much political momentum it's not going to change that drastically in 4 or 8 years. Now if we had a like-minded Congress and President for a solid decade or two I think we could make those dramatic changes, and I hope Romney/Ryan would be the beginning of that.
Gary Johnson is not Ross Perot. Also, Perot ran as an Independent.
Government grew under Reagan. Government grew under Clinton. Government grew under Bush Sr. and Jr. Government grew under Obama.
See the pattern?
Romney has given me absolutely no reason to believe that he will curb that growth in any meaningful way.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Why? Is your base belief that God exists, therefore he must be responsible, or that you cannot believe that life could have arisen without help from God, therefore God must exist? And do you have any actual evidence for either of those premises, or do you just "believe"?
Bringing a deity into the conversation is an argument from ignorance--god of the gaps.
"Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand] [...]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem."
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
I'm by no means a physicist, though having been a nuclear reactor operator in the US Navy I have studied a bit of physics and obviously nuclear physics. That aside, I've also read a bit about the spontaneous "creation" of electron-positron pairs which has supposedly been detected at the event horizon of black holes. This is one of the arguments an atheist friend used with me, and I honestly had to go figure out what the heck he was talking about. The place where this science falls apart in this particular discussion is that this "creation" event can occur only when external forces such as intense gravity/radiation or something such as a photon under very special conditions disappears leaving behind it a matter/antimatter pair. This does nothing to explain what happened prior to the Big Bang since these "creation" events simply conform to the commonly accepted Law of Conservation of Energy.
To me it's a bigger leap of faith that science can somehow explain where all of the energy/matter in the universe came from as opposed to belief in a diety.
In the agnostic/gnostic spectrum, I fall on the agnostic side. In the theist/atheist arena, I lack belief in deities. The terms describe different things.
I'm puzzled by your use of the term "gnostic", because I have never seen it used as the antonym to agnostic. Could you define what you mean by it?
Why? Is your base belief that God exists, therefore he must be responsible, or that you cannot believe that life could have arisen without help from God, therefore God must exist? And do you have any actual evidence for either of those premises, or do you just "believe"?
Well, I am a Christian and there is plenty of evidence in the Bible and other historical documents for the existence of God and Jesus Christ. However, in my previous post I believe I adequately explained my belief in the requirement of God for the existence of the Universe. I suppose that you feel the Bible is a book of fairy tales and there is no actual historical evidence or proof of various events in the Bible up to and including the resurrection of Christ did not occur.
I do believe that God created the Universe, and I believe that God directed the "evolution" of all life on Earth and anywhere else in the Universe where life may exist. There are not many other things I take purely on faith, but I can think of four off the top of my head. These are my mom, my wife, and my children. I believe that those four individuals love me in the same way that I love them.
C'mon guys. We have a few newbies here, but evolution has been debated endlessly in threads at PO, and nobody has ever changed their minds.
BR likes to drag everything back into an evolution debate. Don't play that game. Leave this thread for debating the election.
Yes, one of BR's favorite tactics is to throw out ad-hominem attacks and try to get people to defend themselves against those attacks rather than discuss the topics at hand. Don't take the flame bait.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
I have no idea whether it was the purpose - you would have to ask svnipp. I was just following where the conversation led. No doubt it is very confusing when it deviates from the usual political chanting.
I'm puzzled by your use of the term "gnostic", because I have never seen it used as the antonym to agnostic. Could you define what you mean by it?
Gnostic comes from the Greek word "gnosis" meaning knowledge--not to be confused with the separate religious movement of the same name. Gnostic theists and atheists alike claim knowledge exists regarding deities. Agnostic atheists default to a lack of belief but do not attempt to say they have proven a negative--that no god exists. Rather, there is just no evidence for such an extraordinary claim so such claims of the existence of deities are dismissed. Here's a nice diagram from Wikipedia.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
Well, I am a Christian and there is plenty of evidence in the Bible and other historical documents for the existence of God and Jesus Christ.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What evidence are you citing for the existence of your favored deity?
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
I'm by no means a physicist, though having been a nuclear reactor operator in the US Navy I have studied a bit of physics and obviously nuclear physics. That aside, I've also read a bit about the spontaneous "creation" of electron-positron pairs which has supposedly been detected at the event horizon of black holes. This is one of the arguments an atheist friend used with me, and I honestly had to go figure out what the heck he was talking about. The place where this science falls apart in this particular discussion is that this "creation" event can occur only when external forces such as intense gravity/radiation or something such as a photon under very special conditions disappears leaving behind it a matter/antimatter pair. This does nothing to explain what happened prior to the Big Bang since these "creation" events simply conform to the commonly accepted Law of Conservation of Energy.
To me it's a bigger leap of faith that science can somehow explain where all of the energy/matter in the universe came from as opposed to belief in a diety.
Moving from Argument from Ignorance to Argument from Incredulity just doubles down on the logical fallacies.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
False. That would be gnostic atheism. I am an agnostic atheist igtheist. I lack a belief in deities, don't believe that a deity is even knowable, and demand a falsifiable definition of a particular deity before considering that a discussion about said proposed deity is worthwhile.
Oh boy.
Shocking that those who understand one major branch of science understands another branch.
I probably should clarify. I meant "...also believe in the Big Bang Theory in lieu of any deity.
Bringing a deity into the conversation is an argument from ignorance--god of the gaps.
"Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand] [...]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem."
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Neil deGrass Tyson is nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is. That said, whether or not "God did it" is a question each person needs to answer himself (and on each specific issue).
Yes, one of BR's favorite tactics is to throw out ad-hominem attacks and try to get people to defend themselves against those attacks rather than discuss the topics at hand. Don't take the flame bait.
Sorry. Of course the old rule is never to dicuss religion or politics. This being specifically a political discussion forum letting it get off into the area of religion seems to only be throwing fuel on the fire. Back to the topic at hand.
Gary Johnson is not Ross Perot. Also, Perot ran as an Independent.
Government grew under Reagan. Government grew under Clinton. Government grew under Bush Sr. and Jr. Government grew under Obama.
See the pattern?
Romney has given me absolutely no reason to believe that he will curb that growth in any meaningful way.
Believe me, I really do think that Ron Paul would be MUCH better at cutting back not only the growth of government, but the actual current size of government as well. I also agree with Ron Paul on much of his positions surrounding reducing the footprint of the Federal government. A buddy at work has a great idea of cutting, actual reductions in current size not projected growth rate, 10% per year from government to get it down to a more manageable level. I would add to this the elimination of several departments and programs such as the Department of Education, Department of Energy (once nuclear power plant security has been turned over adequately), and the NEA just to name a few. Way to much of what the Federal government does now can and SHOULD be done by the states.
Believe me, I really do think that Ron Paul would be MUCH better at cutting back not only the growth of government, but the actual current size of government as well. I also agree with Ron Paul on much of his positions surrounding reducing the footprint of the Federal government. A buddy at work has a great idea of cutting, actual reductions in current size not projected growth rate, 10% per year from government to get it down to a more manageable level. I would add to this the elimination of several departments and programs such as the Department of Education, Department of Energy (once nuclear power plant security has been turned over adequately), and the NEA just to name a few. Way to much of what the Federal government does now can and SHOULD be done by the states.
Agreed. The problem with Paul is on foreign policy. He goes off the rails there.
I see Noah derailing the thread with a metadiscussion about thread derailment. Unhelpful.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
I have no interest how short or long your memory may be, nor, in fact, whether you approve or disapprove of the conversation - I was pointing out that I was replying to svnipp.
If Mitt wins this election, it is only because objective reality was murdered.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
If Mitt wins this election, it is only because objective reality was murdered.
What mythical world do you live in? There is no such thing as objective reality, it's a myth, or at least it is a myth that a human being can actually view the world as such. From the moment we are born, and even months before that, we are bombarded with sensory information. The most mundane thinds in the world are subjective in nature. It's simply not possible to view a political contest in a purely objective manner. Even if you were to rigorously sift all of the "facts" from numerous sources on the issues being discussed in this particular election cycle, which would be a full time job, you are going to have predispositions be they conscious or subconscious.
I would say that if Mitt Romney wins this election, then the country has a chance to recover from a horrible path that the current administration has placed us on. You seem to think that if Obama wins a second term then he will be able to create a utopian paradise where the rich foot the bill for a level of government dependency which would make our founding fathers weep. Oops, sorry I kind of slipped up there with my own perception of the results of a second Obama term. Some individual things can be measured objectively, and these are almost entirely limited to scientific measurements such as temperature, mass, velocity, etc. To think that politics can actually be analyzed objectively is incredibly naive.
If Mitt wins this election, it is only because objective reality was murdered.
What mythical world do you live in? There is no such thing as objective reality, it's a myth, or at least it is a myth that a human being can actually view the world as such. From the moment we are born, and even months before that, we are bombarded with sensory information. The most mundane thinds in the world are subjective in nature. It's simply not possible to view a political contest in a purely objective manner. Even if you were to rigorously sift all of the "facts" from numerous sources on the issues being discussed in this particular election cycle, which would be a full time job, you are going to have predispositions be they conscious or subconscious.
I would say that if Mitt Romney wins this election, then the country has a chance to recover from a horrible path that the current administration has placed us on. You seem to think that if Obama wins a second term then he will be able to create a utopian paradise where the rich foot the bill for a level of government dependency which would make our founding fathers weep. Oops, sorry I kind of slipped up there with my own perception of the results of a second Obama term. Some individual things can be measured objectively, and these are almost entirely limited to scientific measurements such as temperature, mass, velocity, etc. To think that politics can actually be analyzed objectively is incredibly naive.
Well put. I wish predispositions could be suspended a bit more for the sake of these discussions, but that hope is probably naive as well.
Well put. I wish predispositions could be suspended a bit more for the sake of these discussions, but that hope is probably naive as well.
We all have our views, so that's tough to do. Nothing wrong with a predisposition so long as one recognizes it and doesn't let it fly in the face of the facts.
By the way: Dems don't seem to be talking about the large, enthusiastic Romney crowds that are coming to rallies.
9,500 at Ohio Rally, comprised 50% of the town.
Well put. I wish predispositions could be suspended a bit more for the sake of these discussions, but that hope is probably naive as well.
We all have our views, so that's tough to do. Nothing wrong with a predisposition so long as one recognizes it and doesn't let it fly in the face of the facts.
I agree, but so much of what gets posted as argument is just rhetoric - it doesn't engender discussion of the actual issues. And facts alone don't make a discussion if the two sides insist on discussing different and unrelated facts.
By the way: Dems don't seem to be talking about the large, enthusiastic Romney crowds that are coming to rallies.
9,500 at Ohio Rally, comprised 50% of the town.
Why would they? Are Republicans talking about the Democrat rallies?
Why would they? Are Republicans talking about the Democrat rallies?
Why yes they are.
I remember reading numerous stories these past few months that were mocking how poorly some of Obama's recent rallies were attended, and how he was having trouble filling venues.
Maybe there weren't enough buses available to shuttle the lower class Obama supporters to and from the rallies.
Mittens is going to win!
Yep, with T-shirts like these:
Is this is the image of the Republicans (in addition to Bush and a love of war) held around the world?
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Mittens is going to win!
Yep, with T-shirts like these:
Is this is the image of the Republicans (in addition to Bush and a love of war) held around the world?
There are idiots in every crowd. Obviously it's not like this is representative of Romney/Ryan supporters, though the Huffington Post would love for people to make that assumption. That said, this sounds like the kind of tactic that the Dems use to demonize their opposition. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this was a SEIU member. Nor would I be surprised if this was a PhotoShop'd image. Seems like a pretty weird angle on the shot.
Mittens is going to win!
Yep, with T-shirts like these:
Is this is the image of the Republicans (in addition to Bush and a love of war) held around the world?
Pathetic and desperate. First, the Romney/Ryan logo appears to be a sticker. Secondly, the campaign immediately and strongly denounced it. Last...given that we know there were "racist" plants at Tea Party rallies, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the same thing.
Voting for the "lesser of two evils" has not resulted in the changes we need. It fails. Every time.
I disagree. The issue is not whether voting for the lesser of evils results in the changes we need. What matters is whether voting for the better of two evils makes any difference, not whether they accomplish the ideal. No one will ever accomplish the ideal in our system of government. I believe voting for the lesser of evils most certainly does make a difference. Back in 1968, the left did not want to vote for Hubert Humphrey because he refused to publicly oppose Johnson's war in Vietnam. So the left stayed home for the election and Richard Nixon became President. No matter how lame Humphrey would have been as President, he would have made a better President than Tricky Dick.
If just a few more people had voted for Gore, especially in Florida, he would have been President instead of Bush. Think we would have invaded Iraq if Gore had been President? We probably still would have had the bank failures, but we would have recovered faster because we wouldn't have been spending so much on that ridiculous war.
From the perspective of the left, Obama may be the equivalent of what we used to call a liberal Republican - a Republican of the Jacob Javits, Nelson Rockefeller ilk, but he's still better (from the left's perspective) than the alternative. If the left stays home this election because of their frustration with Obama and Romney wins, that would be a huge mistake.
Likewise, if you're a tea-party conservative and you stay home because you don't feel that Romney is conservative enough or you don't trust him or you're unhappy that he's Mormon and Obama wins, that would be a huge mistake on your part.
Voting for third party candidates (or not voting at all) may satisfy one's ego, but it's a total waste of a vote. It's shameful how many Americans don't vote.
I disagree. The issue is not whether voting for the lesser of evils results in the changes we need. What matters is whether voting for the better of two evils makes any difference, not whether they accomplish the ideal. No one will ever accomplish the ideal in our system of government. I believe voting for the lesser of evils most certainly does make a difference. Back in 1968, the left did not want to vote for Hubert Humphrey because he refused to publicly oppose Johnson's war in Vietnam. So the left stayed home for the election and Richard Nixon became President. No matter how lame Humphrey would have been as President, he would have made a better President than Tricky Dick.
If just a few more people had voted for Gore, especially in Florida, he would have been President instead of Bush. Think we would have invaded Iraq if Gore had been President? We probably still would have had the bank failures, but we would have recovered faster because we wouldn't have been spending so much on that ridiculous war.
From the perspective of the left, Obama may be the equivalent of what we used to call a liberal Republican - a Republican of the Jacob Javits, Nelson Rockefeller ilk, but he's still better (from the left's perspective) than the alternative. If the left stays home this election because of their frustration with Obama and Romney wins, that would be a huge mistake.
Likewise, if you're a tea-party conservative and you stay home because you don't feel that Romney is conservative enough or you don't trust him or you're unhappy that he's Mormon and Obama wins, that would be a huge mistake on your part.
Voting for third party candidates (or not voting at all) may satisfy one's ego, but it's a total waste of a vote. It's shameful how many Americans don't vote.
Agreed in principle, but your examples are flawed.
That's a suspect statement. First, you don't know that to be the case. It's nothing but unsupported opinion. Secondly, Nixon was corrupt, but he was also a very good President in many ways. Nixon was an amazing politician despite his off-putting personality. He was brilliant. He essentially ended the Vietnam war and used triangular diplomacy to great avail. The economy was relatively strong. So I'd disagree with this statement fully.
I hate to re-litigate the 2000 election, but it would have taken a lot more than few votes had the process run as it was supposed to (especially had the state not been called early). Your second statement is misleading. There is no evidence to suggest that our Iraq war spending impacted our recovery from the Great Recession. In fact, it wasn't even a major driver of our deficit and debt.
From the perspective of the left, Obama may be the equivalent of what we used to call a liberal Republican - a Republican of the Jacob Javits, Nelson Rockefeller ilk, but he's still better (from the left's perspective) than the alternative. If the left stays home this election because of their frustration with Obama and Romney wins, that would be a huge mistake.
Likewise, if you're a tea-party conservative and you stay home because you don't feel that Romney is conservative enough or you don't trust him or you're unhappy that he's Mormon and Obama wins, that would be a huge mistake on your part.
Agreed, though take it a bit further. Anyone who opposes Obama, be they libertarian, conservative, moderate or what have you should be looking at the most conservative (or most libertarian, etc) candidate who can win.
Voting for third party candidates (or not voting at all) may satisfy one's ego, but it's a total waste of a vote. It's shameful how many Americans don't vote.
In Jazz's defense, it depends. If this were a Ross Perot kind of year, I'd say go for it (keep in mind, Perot may have won had he not suspended his campaign and made a poor VP choice). But it's not Johnson isn't even on the map polling-wise, and has absolutely no shot of winning. This is where Jazz and I differ, because he refuses to consider circumstances. Voting for a third party makes sense at times, but not this time. All it does is increase the likelihood that we are stuck with another four years of the worst President in history.
