Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Well folks it looks like the conservatives are still stuck in their rhetorical rut. Right off the edge of the cliff!

 

And by cliff I'm not just referring to the fiscal cliff I'm talking about their own image / popularity support cliff.

 

Oh well some things just have to fail and go away ( or shrink into obscurity ) before they can change. I'm sure ( and it sounds like ) the extreme factions of conservatism just don't get that.

 

It won't change what has to happen for the GOP to be viable again. Oh well!  With some things you just have to sit back and let happen.

 

Ps. It's just too bad in the mean time it has to affect the rest of us!

 

 

Dog whistle.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

You guys do realize you were peddling the same kind of stuff just before the last two elections?

Yes, see it's all the GOP's fault.  If they would just cave, they'd start winning elections.  I mean, it's not like Obama wants to go off the cliff or anything.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Well folks it looks like the conservatives are still stuck in their rhetorical rut. Right off the edge of the cliff!

 

And by cliff I'm not just referring to the fiscal cliff I'm talking about their own image / popularity support cliff.

 

Oh well some things just have to fail and go away ( or shrink into obscurity ) before they can change. I'm sure ( and it sounds like ) the extreme factions of conservatism just don't get that.

 

It won't change what has to happen for the GOP to be viable again. Oh well!  With some things you just have to sit back and let happen.

 

Ps. It's just too bad in the mean time it has to affect the rest of us!

 

 

 

Dog whistle.  

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

You guys do realize you were peddling the same kind of stuff just before the last two elections?

 

Yes, see it's all the GOP's fault.  If they would just cave, they'd start winning elections.  I mean, it's not like Obama wants to go off the cliff or anything.  

No SDW. It's " If they would just compromise ".

Boehner's own people won't even let him! The extreme elements ( Tea party types especially ) need to drop their ego, forget that nobody Grover, and man up to the challenge of doing what's right for the American people. Not just what's right for their party and their political future. The irony is they're sealing their fate as far as their political future goes if they keep this up!

And yes SDW it's mostly the Republicans fault but it doesn't matter that I think that. It does matter that the bulk of the voters feel that way.  The polls reflect that SDW.

I certainly don't believe that anyone in their right mind wants to go over the cliff. Which is what makes me wonder about the Republicans. What the hell are they doing? They don't seem to want to budge an inch ( just ask poor Boehner who I really believe would like to compromise ).

I'm also sorry you just don't seem to get what's going on here as you keep repeating the same old tired rhetoric. SDW it's not that things are going to change now. They've already started changing and that's why you're driven to start threads like " I Don't Recognize My Country Anymore ". Yeah I'll bet.

The Republicans need to wake up and smell the coffee. They just can't have everything the way they want anymore. Also smoke and mirrors type spin won't help them now.

Like it or not that's the new reality now. They have to get along now and trying to turn the tables or make it look like someone else is to blame will only hurt them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

...forget that nobody Grover...

It's not about Grover, it's about pledges made and the repercussions of breaking those pledges. Try to keep up here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

...man up to the challenge of doing what's right for the American people...

Maybe they are, it's just that your interpretation of doing what's right for the American people differs. Ever consider that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Not just what's right for their party and their political future.

Yes, only Democrats are allowed to do that and get away with it. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

I certainly don't believe that anyone in their right mind wants to go over the cliff.

Obama said he's willing to. What should we then conclude about him? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

They don't seem to want to budge an inch ( just ask poor Boehner who I really believe would like to compromise ).

This appears to be true of Obama and the Democrats as well. Interesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

The Republicans need to wake up and smell the coffee. They just can't have everything the way they want anymore.

 

They have to get along now and trying to turn the tables or make it look like someone else is to blame will only hurt them.

This is true for both parties. If not, then the Democrats should simply just pass whatever budget and laws they want and be done with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

...forget that nobody Grover...

 

It's not about Grover, it's about pledges made and the repercussions of breaking those pledges. Try to keep up here.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

...man up to the challenge of doing what's right for the American people...

 

Maybe they are, it's just that your interpretation of doing what's right for the American people differs. Ever consider that?

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Not just what's right for their party and their political future.

 

Yes, only Democrats are allowed to do that and get away with it. 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

I certainly don't believe that anyone in their right mind wants to go over the cliff.

 

Obama said he's willing to. What should we then conclude about him? 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

They don't seem to want to budge an inch ( just ask poor Boehner who I really believe would like to compromise ).

 

This appears to be true of Obama and the Democrats as well. Interesting.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

The Republicans need to wake up and smell the coffee. They just can't have everything the way they want anymore.

 

They have to get along now and trying to turn the tables or make it look like someone else is to blame will only hurt them.

 

This is true for both parties. If not, then the Democrats should simply just pass whatever budget and laws they want and be done with it.

It is about Grover! They shouldn't have signed those stupid pledges in the first place!

Not when it's not what most of them say they want! I suppose you'd like to take that choice away from them for their own good.

As has been demonstrated so well lately no one does it as completely ( can't even come close to ) as the Republicans. 

That's different than " Wanting to ". Jeez!

That's your take. One that's not shared by the general population of voters.

That's not what the polling says the voters are looking at. Most are looking at the GOP. Even if they could they shouldn't have to be so ham fisted. It wouldn't be looked on well or be the right thing to do. This isn't a monarchy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

It is about Grover! They shouldn't have signed those stupid pledges in the first place!

No it's not about him. Yes it is about the pledges. Whether they should have signed them or not is clearly a matter of opinion. The point is they made a pledge and there is someone that will hold them accountable to their voters if they chose to break this pledge. What I find interesting in this aspect of the debate is that many of the people who complain about politicians not keeping their promises, are now calling for politicians to break their promises.

Granted, this is completely expected from liberals who are well established and well-known as situational ethicists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Not when it's not what most of them say they want!

Well logic dictates that what people want and what is good for them could be two different things. That could even be the case here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

I suppose you'd like to take that choice away from them for their own good.

Actually, I am consistent advocate for liberty which I do believe is the best thing for most people most of the time over the long term.

But that issue aside, to answer your question: No. I'm not a "progressive." That's what "progressives" do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

That's different than " Wanting to ". Jeez!

This is rather subtle distinction that works out to be convenient for you. The simple (and logical) fact is that his willingness is a "want" to because he clearly would want to "go over the cliff" than agree to whatever deal is in front of him now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

That's not what the polling says the voters are looking at. Most are looking at the GOP. Even if they could they shouldn't have to be so ham fisted. It wouldn't be looked on well or be the right thing to do. This isn't a monarchy.

Whatever the polls say, clearly there's something that's preventing Obama and the Democrats from just creating the budget and passing it. What is that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

It is about Grover! They shouldn't have signed those stupid pledges in the first place!

 

No it's not about him. Yes it is about the pledges. Whether they should have signed them or not is clearly a matter of opinion. The point is they made a pledge and there is someone that will hold them accountable to their voters if they chose to break this pledge. What I find interesting in this aspect of the debate is that many of the people who complain about politicians not keeping their promises, are now calling for politicians to break their promises.

 

Granted, this is completely expected from liberals who are well established and well-known as situational ethicists.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Not when it's not what most of them say they want!

 

Well logic dictates that what people want and what is good for them could be two different things. That could even be the case here.

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

I suppose you'd like to take that choice away from them for their own good.

 

Actually, I am consistent advocate for liberty which I do believe is the best thing for most people most of the time over the long term.

 

But that issue aside, to answer your question: No. I'm not a "progressive." That's what "progressives" do.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

That's different than " Wanting to ". Jeez!

 

This is rather subtle distinction that works out to be convenient for you. The simple (and logical) fact is that his willingness is a "want" to because he clearly would want to "go over the cliff" than agree to whatever deal is in front of him now.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

That's not what the polling says the voters are looking at. Most are looking at the GOP. Even if they could they shouldn't have to be so ham fisted. It wouldn't be looked on well or be the right thing to do. This isn't a monarchy.

 

Whatever the polls say, clearly there's something that's preventing Obama and the Democrats from just creating the budget and passing it. What is that?

They would have to turn the government into a monarchy to do that MJ. And you know what's wrong with that!.

Why is someone who doesn't believe in any taxes relevant to this conversation? You also advocate anarchy so I'd imagine going over the cliff doesn't bother you. Also I really don't see the need for me to answer questions to someone who simply refuses to acknowledge the answers to those same questions that I've already given.

So all in all a big waste of time to someone who doesn't want to see any other side and finds it convenient to sit on the side lines and hope for government failure on both sides ( well maybe a little less on the GOP side  )  so he might see the anarchy he's been waiting for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

They would have to turn the government into a monarchy to do that MJ. And you know what's wrong with that!.

Exactly! So it seems they don't have all the power and they have to negotiate and compromise. They have to work with the other power bases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Why is someone who doesn't believe in any taxes relevant to this conversation?

I believe in taxes, I simply don't approve of them and find them to be immoral. As for my relevancy to this discussion, well, because I pay taxes. But even if I didn't, your attempts to exclude me from the discussion are a lame and hypocritical tactic. Why not exclude tonton (for example)? He doesn't pay US income taxes but is free to advocate for higher taxes he don't be paying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

You also advocate anarchy so I'd imagine going over the cliff doesn't bother you.

Actually it does bother me. I'm very concerned about the misfortunes that may be visited upon many innocent people due the actions taken by the United States government. It will be an unfortunate (but probably only delay able) consequence of a lot of bad actions taken over the past 100 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Also I really don't see the need for me to answer questions to someone who simply refuses to acknowledge the answers to those same questions that I've already given. 

Fine. Don't. Or do. Or tell me you don't feel the need to. Or whatever. Doesn't bother me at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

So all in all a big waste of time to someone who doesn't want to see any other side and finds it convenient to sit on the side lines and hope for government failure on both sides ( well maybe a little less on the GOP side  )  so he might see the anarchy he's been waiting for.

Apparently not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

They would have to turn the government into a monarchy to do that MJ. And you know what's wrong with that!.

 

Exactly! So it seems they don't have all the power and they have to negotiate and compromise. They have to work with the other power bases.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Why is someone who doesn't believe in any taxes relevant to this conversation?

 

I believe in taxes, I simply don't approve of them and find them to be immoral. As for my relevancy to this discussion, well, because I pay taxes. But even if I didn't, your attempts to exclude me from the discussion are a lame and hypocritical tactic. Why not exclude tonton (for example)? He doesn't pay US income taxes but is free to advocate for higher taxes he don't be paying.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

You also advocate anarchy so I'd imagine going over the cliff doesn't bother you.

 

Actually it does bother me. I'm very concerned about the misfortunes that may be visited upon many innocent people due the actions taken by the United States government. It will be an unfortunate (but probably only delay able) consequence of a lot of bad actions taken over the past 100 years.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Also I really don't see the need for me to answer questions to someone who simply refuses to acknowledge the answers to those same questions that I've already given. 

 

Fine. Don't. Or do. Or tell me you don't feel the need to. Or whatever. Doesn't bother me at all.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

So all in all a big waste of time to someone who doesn't want to see any other side and finds it convenient to sit on the side lines and hope for government failure on both sides ( well maybe a little less on the GOP side  )  so he might see the anarchy he's been waiting for.

 

Apparently not.

Yeah like the Tea party.

Hope springs eternal. I'm glad that the cliff bothers you as it should bother everyone. Believe me if I thought there was another way to run things without taxes I'd be for that. However I really think that kind of fundimental change will take a big restructuring of society. More than we're capable of right now. Say if someone really invented something like the replicator on Star Trek there'd be no need for money anymore and greed wouldn't be the driving force in our lives. I think it would take something like that. Where money wouldn't be the driving force and we'd have to find something else to motivate ourselves. That would be a healthy change however I think something like that is a long while off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Yeah like the Tea party.

Yes, possibly. This is how the political system you so adore works. Multiple political factions have varying degrees of political power, all of which need to be accommodated in various ways. It's ugly. It's how the sausage is made. And we're not even seeing the worst of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Believe me if I thought there was another way to run things without taxes I'd be for that. However I really think that kind of fundimental change will take a big restructuring of society.

Of course. It will require, first, an intellectual and attitude and mindset revolution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

More than we're capable of right now.

So it appears, yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Say if someone really invented something like the replicator on Star Trek there'd be no need for money anymore and greed wouldn't be the driving force in our lives.

First, yes if someone magically eliminated scarcity, the world would indeed be able (and have to) operate in a different way than it does not. But, alas, scarcity is a reality.

Second, I disagree that greed is the "driving force of our lives." It's not of mine, nor 90% of the people I know.

Third, it isn't only greed for material things we ought to be concerned with. Greed for other things is far more concerning, like greed for power.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

I think it would take something like that.

Or a final evolution to and realization of totalitarian socialism+fascism to break people out of their "funk."

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Where money wouldn't be the driving force...

Again, I strongly disagree that money is the "driving force."

Ladies and gentlemen here's who we're talking about :

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/12/outgoing_congressmen_steven_latourette_brad_miller_and_hansen_clarke_explain.html

A Good read about the state of things in congress and it ain't pretty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Yeah like the Tea party.

 

Yes, possibly. This is how the political system you so adore works. Multiple political factions have varying degrees of political power, all of which need to be accommodated in various ways. It's ugly. It's how the sausage is made. And we're not even seeing the worst of it.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Believe me if I thought there was another way to run things without taxes I'd be for that. However I really think that kind of fundimental change will take a big restructuring of society.

 

Of course. It will require, first, an intellectual and attitude and mindset revolution.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

More than we're capable of right now.

 

So it appears, yes.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Say if someone really invented something like the replicator on Star Trek there'd be no need for money anymore and greed wouldn't be the driving force in our lives.

 

First, yes if someone magically eliminated scarcity, the world would indeed be able (and have to) operate in a different way than it does not. But, alas, scarcity is a reality.

 

Second, I disagree that greed is the "driving force of our lives." It's not of mine, nor 90% of the people I know.

 

Third, it isn't only greed for material things we ought to be concerned with. Greed for other things is far more concerning, like greed for power.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

I think it would take something like that.

 

Or a final evolution to and realization of totalitarian socialism+fascism to break people out of their "funk."

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Where money wouldn't be the driving force...

 

Again, I strongly disagree that money is the "driving force."

Yes well with the people in control of most of it it is greed ( money power in some cases money is power etc. ). If someone can't see that they need a different eye doctor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

How can you ask for an intellectual revolution when you are still stuck in the Pre-Enlightenment?

Well you do have a point here that these things have a great deal of evidence to back them up. Enough to know at least they're the right direction. And politicians make their decisions based on what they think is real. If they're wrong about that then their decisions are wrong. Like I've said there is a great deal evidence to support these items as " Real ". Much more than there is against therm. Enough that there isn't a question in most people's minds anymore.

Well, we have one babbling incoherently and one trolling with fallacies. Is it New Year's Eve already?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

When religious ideology is more important than mountains of scientific evidence, an intellectual revolution is the last thing to consider feasible.  

Agreed. I do not consider it feasible at the present time due to the many folks like you clinging to political and economic ideology in the face of economic reality, evidence and logic.

All that can be done is a consistent effort to demonstrate the proper logic, show the reality and expose the fallacy of your thinking and hope some will get it even if you don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Given the absolute lack of evidence in favor of libertarian anarchocapitalist utopias and the wealth of evidence for evolution, what hope do we have when someone clings to the former but refuses the latter?

Oh dear, poor, confused BR.

Good luck in the new year tilting against reality and logic.

I also hope you get that anger and bitterness under control. You'll be a better person for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Well, we have one babbling incoherently and one trolling with fallacies. Is it New Year's Eve already?

You know you base all of your other ideas on theory. These ideas ( evolution and GW ) are all but absolutely proven so how can you be ignoring that?

You don't sound clever or believable when you do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

When religious ideology is more important than mountains of scientific evidence, an intellectual revolution is the last thing to consider feasible.  

 

Agreed. I do not consider it feasible at the present time due to the many folks like you clinging to political and economic ideology in the face of economic reality, evidence and logic.

 

All that can be done is a consistent effort to demonstrate the proper logic, show the reality and expose the fallacy of your thinking and hope some will get it even if you don't.

This would seem to be babbling incoherently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

These ideas ( evolution and GW ) are all but absolutely proven so how can you be ignoring that?

Of course that's not true. Don't say silly things like that and you might be taken seriously more often.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

You don't sound clever or believable when you do that.

You don't ever sound clever or believable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

This would seem to be babbling incoherently.

To you I'm sure it does because it consists of grammatically correct sentences with proper word usage (and spelling) and clearly directly addresses a point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

While you may quibble with Jimmac's terminology, the essence of what he is saying remains unchallenged--the scientific theory of evolution has mountains of evidence in its favor and has been refined more and more as each year goes by, leading asymptotically to a fuller understanding of the history of life on this planet.  You deny all of that in favor of the ravings of ancient desert dwellers.  You further add insult to injury by claiming we are the ones ignoring reason and logic.  

 

No, MJ, don't commit the fallacy of fallacies--just because Jimmac didn't use the best words to defend the point doesn't mean the point doesn't stand.  You have won nothing in that exchange. 

Terminology quibbles aside, you still fail to recognize the fallacies in your thinking surrounding the factors of evolution, creation, design, the origins of life and species and yet you pontificate and dismiss and deride and insult with hubris of the (bitter and angry) drunken know-it-all braggart at the corner tavern who appears to be trying to convince himself more than anyone else.

Anyway...good luck in the new year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Go on.  Not with the ironically bitter and angry ad-hom portion of your rant

I'm not angry at all. You, however, have demonstrated your bitterness and anger frequently and loudly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Oh the adult version of "I'm rubber and you're glue..." defense. You crack me up. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

While being so angry and bitter it's quite easy for you to skip over a word here or there.

I'm not bitter or angry at all. I'm perfectly at peace actually.

The primary and deepest fallacy should be obvious. But I'll explain it anyway.

You unquestionably assume a single specific process from the evidence AND absolutely, unquestionably reject even the possibility of other processes including any that would involve a higher-order being (e.g., a "god").

Let me put it another way:

1. The evidence could be described by a process unguided by any higher-order intelligent life-form (e.g., "god")...but the evidence does not prove this and actually leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
2. The evidence could be interpreted as the work of a higher-order intelligent life-form (e.g., designer)

You assume #1 and absolutely, unquestionably, vehemently (and usually smugly and arrogantly also) exclude #2. You don't even allow this as a possibility. Yet the evidence itself doesn't prove (or disprove) either. It is a matter of the interpretation of the evidence.

Now that we have that out of the way, we should probably get back to the thread topic.

If you chose to start a thread (in civilized manner) on the subject of evolution, I might chose to contribute to that thread.

P.S. Good luck getting that anger and bitterness under control in the new year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Show me evidence of your deity (presuming you can even adequately define it) and I'll consider it.

You're not getting it. Open your mind a bit here and we might be able to move forward with this. Until then, it's pointless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

There's no fallacy here at all.

Yes there is. Your unwillingness or inability to see it, doesn't change that fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

I reject your god hypothesis because it isn't defined and there is no evidence for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

There is no evidence of it existing.  There is no evidence of it interfering with the evolutionary process.  There is no fucking reason to give it another thought.

Of course you reject it and this is the point. The evidence is there but you refuse, a priori, any interpretation that would allow it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Why do I favor the scientific theory of evolution over your desert-dweller ravings?  There's evidence that supports the former.  There's no evidence that supports the latter.

Again you fail to get it. That "whoosh" you just heard is the point flying over your head.

You are basically doubling-down on your fallacious thinking and appear to believe that by obstinately repeating it (along with your rejection of other interpretations of the evidence) it makes all that you say true. This is yet another fallacy of course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Yet, you insist that I take the latter seriously regardless and become quite butt-hurt when I dismiss it.

"Butt-hurt"? WTF?!  If this is what you mean:

Wow. Your perceptions are quite odd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Only problem--your worldview is bankrupt.

Thanks so much for sharing your opinion. It means so much coming from you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

PS: Your future use of the line in your postscript will be reported as the personal attack that it is.

I have no doubt. In your morality, personal attacks are only allowed coming from you.

Create another thread.

I haven't dodged. You're not listening. That much is clear.

When you're actually interested in listening, let me know.