Slashdot Mirror
Mitt Romney Answers Tech Questions
DesScorp sends a link to a TechCrunch interview in which GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney answers questions of interest to techies. Included are questions on H-1B visas, Internet taxation, venture capital taxation, alternative energy, and carbon emissions. Finally, we learn that Romney is a PC guy, and get a summary of what's on his iPod.
"Who Let The Dogs Out" ...and whatever else he thinks might be popular with the electorate.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
The man's opinions on any matter are irrelevant, because he will consult opinion polls and follow them.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Seems a little dated, article written November 1st, maybe we as techies could form our own special interest group and force every politician to under stand what effect us and tell us how they will make it better.
burnt toast!
Who cares if he uses a PC? Mitt Romney may be well organized, smart, and have a great telepresence...but middle America will never get around his being a Mormon. Of course, Middle America is never going to vote for Hillary or Barack for that matter, so whomever gets the Republican nod will be a shoe-in for the Presidency. God/Allah/Buddha/RMS help us all.
http://www.htcherocentral.com
What's on his iPod: "Who Let The Dogs Out" ...and whatever else he thinks might be popular with the electorate.
That's not what's on his ipod. That's a question he really wants the answer to. Mitt Romney wants to know who let the dogs out, because Mitt Romney believes the dog(s) should be firmly locked on top of his station wagon, and covered in feces.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Submitter seems to be a "PC guy" too since he can't seem to spell iPod correctly.
- just sayin'
And we know that Romney's answers aren't just microtailored to his Slashdot audience, because he never does that. He isn't just another CEO who'll say anything, anytime, for power. He's honest.
Hell, we don't even know that it's really Romney answering, and not some minimum wage nerd he's to phoning in the answers.
In fact, if I built a slick robot with perfect hair, I think "Romney" would be a good name. Welcome to the Romney 101.
--
make install -not war
He's basically saying that *if* there are skill shortages, then H1B's are fine. But the problem is that there is no real burden for companies to show a skills shortage: the loopholes are huge. Government inspectors (the very few of them that exist) don't know a software engineer from locomotive engineer.
A more relevant question would be: "Are you for more stringent verification by employers of alleged skills shortages before H1B's are brought in?"
Table-ized A.I.
I still can't figure out why slashdot never posted my submission for Ron Paul's article at http://www.news.com/Technology-Voters-Guide-Ron-Paul/2100-1028_3-6224161.html?tag=st.num which is much more interesting.
There is no 'i' in Electoral, just like there is no truth in your big penis.
3...2...1...
JFK was Catholic and that was a big thing back then.
What is Mitt's position on net neutrality, online privacy, stuff that matters? I couldn't care less if he's a PC guy or what music he listens to.
I know that Ron Paul is against illegal monitoring, and that's why he has my vote, and should have yours too.
Vote Ron Paul 2008. ^_^
At least we would get a democratic filter between McMobileDisneySoft and questions of war and peace. As it is, the corporate world drafts a Project for the New American Century and it gets implemented regardless of public opinion. Romney's answers gave no indication of any departure from that scheme. Instead all the worst of the Bush administration would go on at top speed: H1Bs slavery instead of real immigration help, "Open" markets that are bound by US Patent and Copyright ownership, corporate bail outs and other predatory policies designed to make the US "Powerful" instead of Free.
Wealth, influence and power come from freedom and justice not the other way around. Countries that waste their efforts on raw power end up like North Korea.
(That's odd, why did the above message get treed to the wrong topic? Slashbug?)
Table-ized A.I.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
As an automaton yourself, what rights do you think our constitution grants to humanoid robots?
We were not able to cover net neutrality, the digital divide, mobile spectrum allocation issues, identity theft, China censorship or intellectual property issues on this call. They missed the really good ones! If the congress vote on internet tax was 402-0 I think it's pretty obvious where that issue is going to go, and is a pretty dumb question. Net Neutrality, IP, censorship - those are all things that are very easy to feel one way or the other, or the myriad ways in between, especially since he already hinted at imposing trade sanctions or the like on China for IP problems. Poor choices on the editors, IMHO, but H1B was a good question as were the follow-ups. Here's hoping for round two!
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
There he was, Steve Ballmer, the Secretary of Homeland Security, up on stage in all his resplendent glory, skipping around...
"I...love...this...country...yessssssss!"
It's impressive how slow those pitches were. There wasn't a single hard question among them, and the interviewer clearly spelled out the answers he wanted to hear (and knew Romney was going to give).
On another note, his idea of alternate and sustainable energy seems to be coal liquefaction and "maybe even" nuclear. Forward thinking guy much?
He lost my potential vote when he hired Dick Cheney's daughter to work on his middle east policy. We don't need another corrupt neocon agenda... granted she is his daughter, he still has an incredible amount of influence over her....
Ron Paul is our only hope.
Yes, Ron Paul will "revolutionize" this country...but...he's just not going to make it at all. Please accept this simple truth.
Mitt Romney runs attack ad about self
Because people hate Ron Paul supporters?
That is all.
I don't even buy the "I'd prefer him on our side than against us" argument - you just can't trust someone that unethical and focussed FTW, who eyes FUD with more hunger than a hobo does a ham sandwich.
Loosely related to this political thread, here is Obama's technology policy page which is very exciting because it is reasonably in line with general nerd opinion. So here I am, shilling for Obama during a Romney thread. I might be Offtopic but I hope I'm Informative! Here are some exceprts:
Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet. Users must be free to access content, to use applications, and to attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and honest information about service plans.
Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Federal Communications Commission has promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity. As president, he will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum.
Obama supports updating surveillance laws and ensuring that law enforcement investigations and intelligence-gathering relating to U.S. citizens are done only under the rule of law.
Making government data available online in universally accessible formats to allow citizens to make use of that data to comment, derive value, and take action in their own communities.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Woo! Go USA! Thousand year empire!
I hope you notice that candidates in other countries just don't talk in such belligerent terms about their nations position in the world.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Am I the only one who noticed this interview is from Nov. 1st? In political terms it might as well be from 5 years ago. Seriously. With the softball questions and archaic date on a little publicized blog this looks to be pretty blatant attempt at courting the tech vote through slashdot.
wtf, how do you get modded +5 for that? Mitt may be looser but all that video shows is someone asking loaded question. While your at it why don't you post the video of Hillary crying, some of the race wars crap, or Mitt hearing whispers. Stop watching the 24 hour news channels!
Where are the questions on copyright and patent reform, open standards and open source software, investment into maths and sciences, net neutrality and telecoms industry regulation, etc...
I think this is a better (less biased) illustration of a lapse in basic ethics. I don't claim to know much about him or what he really truly believes, but I don't think that anyone who claims to be opposed to torture but is unwilling to identify waterboarding as torture (when it clearly is) ought to be president.
You wouldn't believe how small that looks on an iPhone.
Netcraft confirms: Bill Hicks is dead.
Really? I'm trying real hard, but I don't see how "freedom requires religion" could in any way be considered secular.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Right, and I'll bet the two different parties actually had differences in their policies, and didn't hate each other irrationally for holding a different set of morals, neither of which can be shown to be more or less correct than the other one. What do you call this dream land?
That guy's no Democrat, and sadly I don't remember when racism wasn't ever present at the -1 level on /.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Irrelevant. Does he run Linux?
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
Well, no it wasn't pie utopia. But back in the day the left wasn't welcoming antisemites - that was a right wing thing. But no more, now, in the US, we're seeing antisemites everywhere in the left. It used to be that the only Democrat racists were southern Dixiecrats.
Could it be that he *gasp* ripped one of his CDs and loaded the songs onto his iPod?
Creative Demolition
Finally, we learn that Romney is a PC guy
All politicians are PC guys! duh!
I can't even imagine what Rolling Stones songs a Mormon presidential candidate would enjoy, much less profess to liking in full public... Under My Thumb? Shattered?? Bitch!!?? Undercover?? Let It Bleed???
My guess is it would be the always reliable Wild Horses because the Stones were so damn sensitive.
I sure hope someone told Mitt that if he didn't buy all of that music from an online music store and instead ripped a few CDs he purchased, he is guilty of making unauthorized copies -- according to the RIAA.
Opinion poll leadership has more than its fair share of additional faults:
1) Who is conducting these polls? Who is collecting the numbers to call? Who does the calling? Who gets to design the questions?
2) Do we really want people who are too lazy to get off the couch every 2 years and vote to have that much of a say in government?
3) How are we to know if the people polled are of eligible voting age? Or that they are even permitted by law to vote (they could be convicted felons, incompetent, etc.)? Or even citizens of the U.S.?
4) How much public policy do we want to actually entrust in the hands of a highly opinionated but entirely ignorant populace? Should foreign affairs with Burkina Faso be a subject of polling? Or how about complex economic matters? Again, who decides on what issues we poll on? Does the public's knowledge - or complete lack thereof - play a role in what we ask? How do we determine public knowledge? I can't go a day without hearing a Ron Paul supporter, for example, inventing from whole cloth some magical constitutional requirement for this or that. (All while inexplicably shouting "THE CONSTITUTION!")
5) As to questions of "war and peace", do keep in mind that public opinion polls tend to support war at the moment - and it's not all because the evil corporations you demonize so much are responsible for it, either.
6) Countries need to depend on each other in the long-run: how will this work if a country is commanded at its core by a very, very fickle public?
Clearly, the present republican form of government suffers from all of the above to lesser degrees.
As to the rest of your fascinating arguments, *YAWN*. If you honestly believe - as you clearly imply - that the U.S. is heading down the path to becoming like North Korea, then you either lack knowledge of the U.S., North Korea, or both - or you choose to engage in the same sort of hyperbolic, poorly-reasoned thinking that steers me away from rule by public opinion poll in the first place.
As for wealth and power coming from freedom, I couldn't agree more. I'm an American. My wife and I both come from lower-class to very lower-class backgrounds. My mom (single divorced parent, 4 kids) was a frequently unemployed elementary school teacher. My wife's father has held a variety of odd jobs. We both worked hard, and we're both now in law school. Within a few years - practically upon graduation - our combined income will be well over six times what either of our parents brings home right now. There are very, very few places in the world where a person can make that kind of socioeconomic jump in one generation without criminal/political connections. America is one of those places.
If you're unhappy where you're at, here's a tip - work harder and work smarter. Whining will get you nowhere.
The article says a part two of the interview is coming. I hope that the reporter asks more insightful follow-ups - for example, regarding the internet tax ban, the guy came out and said he has a specific stand on that, but the simple question, "What would that be?" wasnt' asked.
(Although, maybe the questions had to be vetted, I wouldn't know.)
And nothing about DMCA or DRM or the FCC.
So, I guess it was a step in the right direction.
On the TV show, House, the main character made a reference to the interweb - not ignorantly. A candidate doing that would probably win a few hearts around here for that alone.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
94% to 79% - Willing to vote for an African American
92% to 72% - Willing to vote for a woman
72% to 38% - Willing to vote for a Morman
I am sure Mr Ballmer paid for that seat. Fair and square.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Aside from the usual "don't believe a politician", you might as well just ask this guy. They seem to care very little about national sovereignty, and would gladly hand the whole nation over to hostile countries such as China and India.
No thank you, we have enough as it is from environmentalists wanting to batter the Midwest into compliance. Now if he were to ditch Mankiw the Ivy, and put in someone who has an actual idea of re-establishing our national sovereignty (yes, that means pulling hostile country SWF money in line as well) where Reagan killed it in the 1980s.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Really? I'm trying real hard, but I don't see how "freedom requires religion" could in any way be considered secular.
Its easy, just re-define secular until it suits what the religious people want. Either that or he doesn't actually know what secular means.
After all, I have no idea what the point of Mormonism is, unless it means 'get rich by bugging people until they give us money', we can't all know everything.
And 45% willing to vote for an atheist...
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
That's kind of sad actually. I know more atheists that are accepting of different religious beliefs than I do religious people who are accepting of other beliefs. I guess that says it all.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Post the numbers for willingness to vote on an athiest too.
From where I am outside the USA the media really only gives me a view of Mormons that is as simplistic as cartoon parody which makes it look as if there is no chance - but there has to be more to it. It really doesn't help that the small colony of Mormons in the small Australian city I live in is a very ornate and expensive building with a very large gilded angel on top that can be seen from a long distance, looking like a temple to wealth more than anything else. Are Mormons portayed in a better way once you get away from the exported media like CNN? Are there Mormon charities that help the homeless etc like the Christian and Hindu charities do?
I'd still vote for him.
"If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
I, for one, welcome our Sympathy for the Devil Listener Mormon Overlord
How you like that captain informative?
Often US citizens, that I speak with on the internets, apologize for their president. But it's not their president I fear, it's the dense 60% of the population that can hardly write.
It's time you people start forming an intellectual elite that has some leverage over this critical mass.
You forgot "Sympathy For The Devil".
He shoulda just said "I have every record the Osmonds ever made"...
You mean like China, Russia, Cuba or Venezuela?
Some folks in the US prize economic and political self-determination over having things run by an 'enlightened' few. That's a principle of the Federal system, believe it or not. A little idealistic? Maybe. But that's how we roll.
The opposite of progress is congress
That's kind of sad actually. I know more atheists that are accepting of different religious beliefs than I do religious people who are accepting of other beliefs. I guess that says it all.
I don't believe you. Agnostics, maybe, but although I certainly concede that what you are saying is technically possible, my experiece doesn't jibe at all with your statement. As an agnostic, I am regularly ridiculed by atheists for adopting an agnostic point of view, while most religious people I talk to seem more interested in convincing me than disparaging my beliefs. Again, however, I am not saying that you can't possibly be right. I suppose, at the least, I can say that my experience is completely opposite from yours.
http://xkcd.com/386/
Romney is just another rich guy looking for the cheapest labor no matter what. This guy is no friend to the United States' tech industry. No thank you.
We have a few in the UK but they don't seem to *do* anything but wander around in suits on hot days (when everyone else is in t-shirts), carrying bibles the size of house bricks and shouting at the tops of their voices at anyone who wanders too close.
I can't imagine anyone actually giving them money, but then someone has to pay for all those suits...
What's on it - Orrin Hatch's greatest hits?
What?
But a lot of my fellow Mormons don't seem to really listen to the lyrics, so who knows?
I think you're confused. A temple is not where Mormons live, or even where most of us spend a lot of time, relatively speaking. Weekly meetings are held in relatively ordinary chapels. Also, temples usually serve between 60,000 and 150,000 members of the church.
I know you're asking how others portray us, but here are one or two sources of how we want others to perceive us. From my perspective, it's more or less accurate, depending on the members in question and other issues of context.
We aren't really all exactly the same, you know.
Some folks in the US prize economic and political self-determination over having things run by an 'enlightened' few.
Hmm, I would not necessarily call them "enlightened", mostly demigogs or illuminatis.
As "Boss" Tweed said so many years ago, "I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating."
Sounds like the current state of affairs to me.
As a Mormon, one of the worst political possibilities I can think of is voting for someone just because he is Mormon.
I understand your confusion, but I'm afraid if we slide any further toward theocracy, those of us who are not believers are going to learn exactly what "freedom requires religion" means.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I have nothing against Mormons. I know more than a few. In fact, I was raised as a Mormon.
But I do have something against Mitt Romney. Yeah, he took credit for "saving the Utah olympics". Yeah, he's made a billion dollars as a VC (from whom?) Yeah, he is for "this" and against "that" (today).
This guy is bent on becoming president just to fulfill his own ego. He has no intention of making the world a better place. The Utah olympics was a three week event. It's over, there is no other investment required. Unlike a national government, or even a VC'd company.
I know more atheists that are completely intolerant of ANY religion to the point of rage filled rantings and crazed indignation when the subject arises. Aren't generalizations and anecdotal evidence just super fun? Doesn't it contribute SO MUCH to the conversation?
The fact of the matter is that there are zealots from every camp. Zealots tend to be loud and want to get your attention and you tend to remember them because they say a bunch of stupid shit. For what it's worth, I'm an atheist that hasn't had my coffee this morning and is annoyed with the whole argument. It's just more stupid shit.
He may happen to own a PC, but if he owns an iPod, or even bought one for someone he knows, he is not a "PC Guy".
about revoking corporate personhood. And I was really looking forward to him spitting up his coffee.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
I was not talking about an aristocracy but rather an intellectual beacon that has earned it's respect and where people get their rational guidance from. Right now they get dictated what they should vote by the churches and the media. I don't think that is a very "idealistic" situation.
Google is your friend, and Romney is a theocrat
Less than 10% of the US is illiterate.
About 200,000, actually.
but they don't seem to *do* anything but wander around in suits on hot days (when everyone else is in t-shirts), carrying bibles the size of house bricks and shouting at the tops of their voices at anyone who wanders too close. I can't imagine anyone actually giving them money, but then someone has to pay for all those suits...You're talking about missionaries, not regular members of the church, and they are unpaid volunteers who pay all of their own travel and living expenses -- including buying their own suits.
And as for what the church does, it does quite a bit to help people who need assistance, but doesn't advertise the fact. There was a time about 10-15 years ago where the LDS church began issuing press releases about some of the larger welfare projects, but accusations of self-aggrandizement made that short-lived. Now, some highlights are on the church web sites for those who care to look (I notice on lds.org.uk that the church apparently did quite a bit to help with some flooding last fall in Sheffield).
Some numbers for you: the church welfare program collects about $50M per *month* in charitable donations and distributes about $60M per month to needy people around the world. They can distribute more than they collect because much of the food they distribute is grown on church-owned farms worked by volunteers and packaged in church-owned factories worked by volunteers. There is zero administrative overhead, because most of the administration is done by volunteers (many of whom are full-time "welfare missionaries") and the small paid staff is funded from other sources. I know people who are not Mormon but donate to the LDS Church because it's one of the most effective charities in existence.
This, of course, is in addition to all the church does for members, who tend to live longer, happier lives than average and be more educated and wealthier than average. Then there's also the whole issue of salvation which is the real point, but probably of less interest to you.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
He's likely changed at least half of these positions since then...
"Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
It depends on your definitions. Personally, I agree with you; however, some people lump atheists (i.e. people who have certain faith in the non-existence of god(s)) and agnostics (i.e., skeptics; people who think that there's not enough information to prove or disprove the existence of god(s)) into the same group and just call them all atheists. If that's what he's talking about, then it could be that the tolerant atheists he mentions are actually agnostic instead.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
So he downloads music, but he doesn't mention paying for it. Is he a dirty, rotten music pirate? Perhaps the RIAA should sue him to find out!
Just kidding, of course, though I'd love to see one of the Presidential candidates wind up somehow accidentally involved in a RIAA lawsuit just to see the RIAA squirm.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
The most obvious is, what percentage of those who said they wouldn't vote for a black ALSO said that they wouldn't vote for a woman (or for that matter a Mormon). That person isn't going to affect the election at all, since they won't vote for any of the major candidates! Without this kind of information, the poll isn't all that useful.
Second, the poll just asks everyone and reflects results of the population at large. Polls of "likely voters" are better, but still not that useful. The reason is that roughly 1/3 of voters just pull the "Republican" lever and another 1/3 just pull the "Democrat" lever. The remaining 1/3 is what usually decides the election, and the poll does not necessarily reflect these people's opinion.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I don't think thats the ideal moderation for your first post. I'd of picked "Horrible grammatical structure with ambiguous statements", but since that doesn't exist, troll is the closest.
You refer to the war. But there are two wars, the war on terror and the war on drugs. I'm unable to work out which your talking about.
"One affects hundreds of millions of people, the other affects very few people"
Another vague expression, both wars affect millions, as does marijuana.
Finally, you end your post with what i can only call trollbait
"Who is your candidate that meets your standard? I can find something inhuman about them if I really wanna."
You've willingly or otherwise, started fishing for a response which will inherently lead to negative feedback. Thats the definition of trolling.
I'll also add about this post of yours...
"Romney's embracing of technology is seen as an invitation to attack"
No, its just that a discussion of a politician, for whatever reason, is reason to gossip, because it seems gossip is human nature.
If you want official information about a politician, go to some informative website. Not very many people care about researching what a politician stands for and don't find it interesting. Gossip can go everywhere else however
You can rebuke this post and its author all you want, but keep in mind this post is to point out why you got troll, and preferably, to stop mods voting up your original post out of sympathy.
To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
"I hope you notice that candidates in other countries just don't talk in such belligerent terms about their nations position in the world."
He is talking about science and innovation, while acknowledging the obvious - the US is the most powerful nation in the world. Wouldn't call that "belligerent". In the Republican race, I much prefer him over "100 years in Iraq" McCain.
Mandatory preemptive strike: And no, Ron Paul won't get the Repub nomination.
There have also been studies that show while people say they will vote for an African American but when they get inside the booth they don't. Also it's not a woman people would be voting for it is Hillary. Finally a person's religion has been played up before (Kennedy Catholic, Ellison Muslim) without success, the attacks can easily be viewed as attacks on the religion which will have the opposite effect by making people feel guilty for not voting for them.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Atheists usually take religion less seriously. That make a lot of us look like we are intolerant. Apparently one cannot talk about religion in the same way you would talk about Lord of the Ring.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Mormons are just regular people. One of my good friends in high school was a Mormon, and aside from us teasing him occasionally, it never came up. Some of my in-laws have converted and they are pretty much the same as they were before becoming Mormon, minus the alcohol and caffine. I would not characterize it as a cult.
I'll grant you that the origin of the religion is pretty hokey, but is that really such a big difference between that and other major religions? Christianity involves a woman getting knocked-up by an angel, Hindu involves gods with multiple limbs and faces incorporating animal features, etc. Give it 2000 years and it won't seem much stranger than Christianity.
As an aside, I like those Mormon missionaries - I can always count on an American being around to talk to when I'm homesick and in a strange country. They tend to be glad to have an American to talk to as well.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
"Listen Karl, only 10 or so of these people can't read"
I'd be more concerned about studies that show the degree of literacy of the US population. To quote Wikipedia, "This government study showed that 21% to 23% of adult Americans were not "able to locate information in text", could not "make low-level inferences using printed materials", and were unable to "integrate easily identifiable pieces of information.".
23% is not enough to win an election outright, but if if the educated electorate is split, they will be the king-makers.
I doubt Romney has ever even SEEN an iPod. His "this is what's on my iPod" answer is written by some speechwriter and/or campaign director.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Where are you meeting these people?
I agree it depends on the definitions used for agnosticism and atheism. That's why it's important to use the correct ones.
Agnosticism is the belief that the existence/non-existence of god(s) is unknowable. It has nothing to do with insufficent evidence. The point to the agnostic is that claims about god(s) are metaphysical, and therefore no amount of evidence will be of any value for determining the truth of the claims.
An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in any gods. An atheist does NOT have to be someone who feels they can prove that no gods exist.
I can't tell you how many people get these definitons wrong.
Happy people make bad consumers.
That's just an inefficient bonding ritual, rather like walk-a-thons. It would be far more efficient for them to go out working their normal jobs on overtime during the time they would have spent farming. Considering that Mormons are, statistically speaking, richer than the general population, the overtime pay could pay for the wages of 3 or 4 full-time agricultural workers.
These workers would not only be more efficient, but they would raise far more food.
But sorry, the Volunteers wouldn't feel as good about themselves.
Remember, Mitt Romney is currently trying to win the Republican nomination, not the presidential election. As such, he has to out-Republican all the other Republicans. If he wins, then he will change his strategy (and rhetoric) and try to appeal to a broader audience as he tries to win the presidency. This implies flip-flopping. Unfortunately, it seems to be a very effective campaign strategy (perhaps because people have short memories?) and about the only way to win a presidency these days. The question is, what will he say after he wins the nomination?
I've been in a fair sized warehouse with a railroad siding that the Mormons have in Atlanta. The warehouse was filled to the ceiling with shrink wrapped pallets containing a variety of goods going to overseas missions for charity, tools, foods, farming equipment, stuff like that that one might expect some villager in the developing world might need. A huge amount.
That's not flamebait, that's correct.
My friend whose a black, a woman, and a morman is screwed....
The LDS temples aren't regular meeting houses, which are much smaller and simpler. Temples serve a large area, anywhere from 10,000 to 150,000 church members, depending on size and location. If you're in Sydney, the Sydney temple was once the only temple serving Australia and much of the Asia Pacific, so it's rather large (2850 m^2). To reduce the travel burden on members in Australia, four smaller temples have been built in Adelaide, Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane. Each of these smaller temples is 990 m^2 and serves 10,000-20,000 members.
I'm kind of curious how it will work if Romney is elected. Normally, only devout church members are permitted to enter temples (unlike meeting houses, which are open to everyone), so I wonder how the secret service will handle security if the Romneys wish to attend the temple. Simply not attending might be an option for the duration of the presidency, but secret service protection is for life. Also, at some point there will undoubtedly be some grandchildren who get married in the temple, and I doubt the Romneys will want to miss that.
Are Mormons portayed in a better way once you get away from the exported media like CNN?Not really.
Are there Mormon charities that help the homeless etc like the Christian and Hindu charities do?Absolutely. See my other post in this thread for more information.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Sir, you're assuming that all Mormons are equally likely to volunteer to help out with every project, and not taking into account how many volunteers may be youth, retired, or unemployed. You're also assuming that choosing to donate or volunteer is an either/or proposition, i.e. that those who choose to volunteer do not donate, and vice-versa.
I apologize, but the "Flamebait" tag may be justified, as your post seems more eager to criticize than to find out the underlying causes of things.
We want Condy! If we gotta choose between a bitch or a nigger, let's get both out of the way at once!
Assuming that would actually happen -- and assuming that members could easily make more money by working a few more hours. Most educated people end up in salaried positions, exempt from overtime.
But yes, you're very correct that part of the purpose of the volunteer work is not just to stretch the effectiveness of the donations. However, it's not about bonding as much as it is about stepping out of everyday life and giving *time* to help people. Emotionally and spiritually, it's a lot different to take a few hours and get your hands dirty rather than just writing a slightly larger check.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
"Same with cocaine - the thing that makes your nose fall off isn't the drug it's the other crap."
Actualy no, it's the cocaine.
More importantly, cocaine itself causes a process called "up regulation" which causes permanent changes in brain chemistry. Bad changes in case you're wondering.
I'd say with a few exceptions, most recreational drugs are pretty safe. Coke is not. It, by far, has the most severe effects, and is not something anyone should be messing around with.
"Line upon line, precept on precept" is an LDS (Mormon) doctrine which says that people learn truths a little at a time. Perhaps the church members were not ready until then? When did other leading religions admit blacks into their priesthoods?
As an aside, each new revelation (and appointment of Church leadership) must be approved by the membership. I'm given to understand that the one admitting blacks into the priesthood was affirmed unanimously.
Your examples:
http://www.jacksonville.com/apnews/stories/040502/D7IMSS901.html
Pot found on his person and in his system.
http://www.nola.com/speced/buscrash/index.ssf?/buscrash/9908040090.html
Charter bus driver smokes the morning of his trip.
Took me about two minutes to find those.
And if you're seriously going to try and question whether anyone has ever died while driving on pot, you're a moron. It seems like you DID try so...
Ah caffeine =) Sorry for the cranky post above.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Please forgive me if I've obviously misread. While atheists may not believe, they will have probably given the idea some strong evaluation at some point in their life. It is, after all, a pretty pervasive concept. Many atheists are born into religious households, and more likely raised in communities where are large portion of the population is religious.
Neither party presents themselves as intolerant when they follow what is true in their mind. That line comes when they become incensed when they encounter someone else doesn't agree with them. That's a pretty general statement, but I think it should get my point across without covering every eventuality. Religion can be discussed politely and in great and interesting detail between people of differing beliefs if those involved are reasonable and rational.
It's about spreading the word and getting more people excited about the idea of Constitutional government. Ron Paul already broke fundraising records, and practically became an Internet meme.
Voting for Ron Paul shows that you're sick of the lesser of two evils, and sends a message to the people in charge. How many people are listening? Who's to say what won't happen in 2012?
Agricultural workers are extremely cheap. If the guy did a part time stint at Walmart or washed cars, he would be far more productive.
"Emotionally and spiritually, it's a lot different to take a few hours and get your hands dirty rather than just writing a slightly larger check."
Yes, it is. But he/she helps the world more by cutting a larger check. It's a personal fault on their part that they preferred the illusion of making a difference at the expense of the cause they are trying to promote.
But I realize that charitable giving has some deranged incentives behind it, and that we need to stoke people's ego's to make them give money. But it bothered me when the grandparent trumpeted this farm, not as a marketing gimmick, but as an efficiency measure.
As to the exact number in my view that would follow a review of a number of things. Number 1: What's the overall economy doing? What's happening to the size of our workforce. Number 2: What's happening to our own capacity in the jobs that are being requested. Number 3: What are the demands from our employers? How many additional folks do they need? You'd have to do an assessment of that on a regular basis, but my overall view is we need more H1B visas, not less.
He's not wishy-washy, he's pandering to corporate America. Not once did he mention the plight of the worker or the effect that H1B visas have on the American family. So, you can count on him introducing enough H1B visa holders into the US until it reaches a point where programmers and engineers can no longer make a decent living. Today, to pay off your house in Silicon Valley, you need about $200,000 a year of family income. That means that stay-at-home moms have to live elsewhere. That means that engineers like me aren't going to move there. Does it surprise anyone that people won't move to an area where they can't make a living?
There is no so-called shortage of high-tech workers in this country. There are plenty. The problem is that we are worth more than our employers wish to pay us, and that is a problem from the perspective of the elite class, who depend on the labor of others to finance their million-dollar estates and summer homes.
I never thought I'd see the day when I made 4 times what my father did, and yet, am still unable to buy a house. There is something *really* wrong with this country when a person who spent 4 years in the military to pay for 4 years of college still can't afford a house after becoming a "senior" in his profession.
My dad bought his first house when he was 21. I know people pushing 40, married, with no children, who still can't afford a house.
I do believe in many of the principles espoused by the Republican party. But I'm having a real hard time with their feigned ignorance of what unrestrained capitalism does to the American family. I think the fundamental disconnect comes when they believe that money can solve every problem. Our government should remain focused on the family, and yes, while more money would help out most families, we have to recognize that money is not the object; it is the means. We can't make a more family-friendly place to live simply by increasing the flow of money!
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
How about for an atheist? I hear about all this talk about how religion shouldn't matter from the Romney supporters -- but could they vote for a satanist? That's a religion that ranges from just love of hedonism to actual devil worship depending who you ask.
Or is it any religion shouldn't matter (unspoken: as long as it's Christian?)
I have to call bullshit on those people. Religion matters to me -- but in determining the worldview of certain people which is very important. Other people may cite critical thinking skills and base their choice on that.
For instance, I could never vote for a scientologist. (Yeah, it's a cult but all religions started out that way, whether they want to admit it or not). If people conclude they can't vote for a mormon, so be it. It was Romney's choice to be with his church.
It isn't hard to find them. Just look around slashdot for any theme on Creation, evolution, intelligent design, religion or anything else that hints to religion. they mass up and start with religion being nothing more then fairytales and then push into science being the one true way and usually mix a little of the bible being a book of fables while misinterpreting it all along.
These comments aren't limited to the religion either, they go directly to calling anyone who wishes to believe in them as inferior, deranged, or some other derogatory terms. The comments aren't all from the same users either, it seems that when ever the opportunity presents itself, they inject their beliefs and comments as if they held the one true path to enlightenment.
Don't take my word for it, just look and you will find it happening yourself.
Part of the Mormon faith is to personally do the charity work and become missionaries themselves. This work overtime and pay for your way into heaven might be more efficient but it just isn't their way of doing things.
Their missionary thing is probably one of the reasons they seem so annoying but I have know many Mormons who aren't that way or get past it and move on to more acceptable attitudes. But the personal in the middle of it is part of their interpretations on how Jesus sent the apostles out to spread the word and how the apostles did more then preach and demand payments. They were told to leave everything behind so they can move fast and not stay where they weren't welcome. But a side of this was that they had to work for their food and shelter and so on when they got to places so they often exchange better ways of doing things for this stuff. It goes something into their sacrifices in comfort were made up with labor and imparting knowledge.
Now I understand this as a third part who knows Mormon people. I can't tell you for sure if I represented it correctly but I can tell you that is how it was explained to me. Mormons, BTW, are basically Christians who discovered additional books to the bible. This is where the polygamy came from and some of the things they are criticized over. They are often not considered Christians because of this extra book by traditional Christians but they believe in Christ as their savior so it fits the raw definition.
the farming and volunteering is an efficiency thing when you look at producing more output then require investments but it isn't as efficient as it could be like you mentioned. But, it serves more then just being an efficient charity, it is sort of a fundemental way of belief to serve in this way.
Bertrand Russell's pretty famous. (though dead)
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
A Cult is the birth of a religion, which if moderately successful gains general acceptance as a religion when it has been around for about 30 years.
Mormons have been reproducing like mad to gain size and have been around for a long time so now they are a "religion" despite their founding being just as BS as Scientology is today. Scientology aggressively defends itself and people are fearful of saying they are a cult founded on BS, but in less time than it took the Mormons you will see Scientology generally accepted as a legitimate religion.
I think it only highlights how poor a religion is that they have to exploit their youth for increasing membership. Face it, most people are not curious enough or honest enough to deviate from their upbringing (other than perhaps a denomination change when married.)
Prejudice is everywhere. If you think the current candidates have it bad, consider if any of the following were applicable,
1. Willing to vote for atheist
2. Willing to vote for Muslim
3. Willing to vote for "Latino"
4. Willing to vote for a gay man
5. Willing to vote for a gay woman
In democratic party they may get into double digit approval, but not in the republican crowd. Most current nations are still very much prejudicial and discriminatory.
Aside: Your numbers are backwards - you write them in ascending order like '79 to 94 percent' not the other way around.
Of course the world is packed full of militant, proselytizing atheists. That's why you see this going on all the time, right? ;)
(Hint: What you've been observing is a phenomenon called selection bias)
"Is Donald Trump a racist? I'll let you decide 'Yes' for yourself."
Ron Paul and his pseudo libertarianism is just as bad as any theocracy.
Hiding his anti-abortion and anti-gay rights views behind a smoke screen of "states' rights" is just as disingenuous as those who used the same rallying cry to defend Jim Crow laws.
No, a true libertarian, a true anti-theocrat would swallow his personal beliefs on such moral issues and use the power of the federal government to ensure that human rights were not able to be infringed by any state. Unjust laws based upon religious moral beliefs do not become just simply because "the states decide."
Seperation of Church and State is not the same thing as saying that freedom doesn't require religion. The Founders apparently believed that a wholly secular society is incapable of maintaining a free and secular government. I'm inclined to agree.
Sir, you're accusing the Mormons of letting others die because, with all that they give, they did not give as much as you think they could have. I don't see how you've any right to do that unless you're giving your all as it is.
... but if they're qualified for harder work, then why would we make them grow things for us instead of helping them learn and get better jobs, like the LDS Perpetual Education Fund does? And who's going to ship them around the world to help with our service projects? It's not just food that we export.
That should be the end of the discussion, but I will address your other points just in case.
You mentioned your experiences with volunteering before. I've personally volunteered on some very hard service projects with many Latter-Day Saints, including working at the Bishop's Storehouse (where food from the welfare farms gets distributed) and helping rebuild homes that were damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
Maybe we could have spent the day working (assuming we are able to turn that time into money) and hired people to do the job, but I don't think that that would have been efficient. I don't feel that hired workers would've been as compelled or as motivated, and I do feel that blessings come to those who work hard to serve others. Somebody had to do the work -- why not people who want to help, instead of those who are doing it for the money? We've been counseled to grow our own gardens too, which is a poor idea from an efficiency standpoint but which brings blessings beyond simple money.
You say that "If they are able to do farm work and warehouse stocking, they are physically qualified for more productive jobs." But wouldn't that mean that no one should do these things, since everyone's physically qualified to do better? Maybe we could hire people in third-world countries
Sir, I understand that you may be expressing your honest concerns, but it seems to me that your concerns do not take real human considerations into account. It's not as simple as making things most efficient. As MightyYar points out, people are often sacrificing their free time to do these things. Not everyone is able to trade time for money with 100% efficiency, whenever they like. And some jobs, like serving in leadership positions (our clergy is made up of unpaid volunteers) and helping to rebuild houses, require skilled labor or human connections. These aren't things we can outsource.
I've seen that before. I think it is funny as hell. But that wasn't the point of the post. I answered the question "Where are you meeting these people?" where the GP said he has never observed the behavior personally.
This also isn't a case of selection bias since the point wasn't to present anything as a representation to the problem or issue, just that the people exists and how to find them. I would agree if I was making the statement all atheist are X. But I was only saying you can Find X type Atheist looking here and in this way. X was already defined, I was pointing to where X exists.
I don't know about wishy-washy, but I am glad you pointed the topic of H1-Bs out. The thread is hijacked by stupid comments about Mormonism, the war on Iraq, drugs, etc, all of which have limited relevance to TFA -- so this important topic doesn't even get any mention until half-way down. It bears discussion and I don't like Romney's position.
If H1-Bs were implemented and enforced as designed, they'd be great. But they generally aren't. There are few actual shortages, and the H1-B was not designed to be a financial measure as many companies now use it. I know a Sr. Java Dev that started on an H1-B. Why? Is there some shortage of java devs in the US I am unaware of? Yes - this is anecdotal, but it's a good example in my mind. Whatever your opinion, I'd prefer discussing this than whether or not someone blowing a fat cloud of weed smoke for their "glaucoma" is a constitutional right.
On a side note, the H1-B is funny because it is for "specialty occupations" which (I guess) includes "a fashion model of distinguished merit and ability." Funny how these laws come to be.
Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
Oh wait... Christians too? Well shoot dang! Basing who I am going to vote for off religion and what I deem to be CRAAAZZZYYY pretty much rules out EVERYONE! Guess I won't vote, does that make me a Democrat?
Slashdot is too nerdy for me.
Agnosticism is the belief that the existence/non-existence of god(s) is unknowable. Well, there are the correct definitions, and the ones people use when describing themselves. The vast majority of self described agnostics I know are theists. In their view the existence of one or more gods is a given, but the nature of these gods is unknown (i.e. no specific religion contains a true description of the nature of god(s)).
Most of the remainder are atheists who are unwilling to use the term "atheist" for fear of being branded as evil by the theistic majority. They believe that it is very unlikely that gods exists and therefore do not believe in them. But by calling themselves agnostic, theists can comfortably believe that the "agnostic" hasn't yet decided to believe in God, and is therefore a candidate for conversion rather than extermination.
From my experience, true agnostics (based upon the definition above) are a small fraction (<10%) of people who call themselves agnostic.
Support SETI@home
I consider myself an agnostic, but I disagree. After all, have you proven that it's impossible for evidence about things which we currently consider to be metaphysical to ever be discovered? After all, I'd bet even the most scientific and enlightened people of ages past (up to the 1800s) would consider talk about subatomic particles and quantum physics and whatnot to be metaphysical until you explained it to them and showed that it could be proven by experiment. So who's to say that the sort of metaphysical things we attribute to god(s) couldn't turn out to be physical after all?
Now, that doesn't mean I think it's likely to be true; as a skeptic, I assume it's not by default. But that doesn't mean I'd deny reality if proven wrong.
On the other hand, you could define metaphysical as "things which can't be proven by science" and define gods as "beings who are capable of metaphysical acts," and then your definition of agnosticism would be correct. However, you would then open the possibility that beings like that described in, e.g., the Christian Bible could still be scientifically determined, but would no longer qualify as "gods" under that definition.
But all these mental gymnastics are silly anyway, which is why I just say the existence (or nonexistence) of god(s) is unknown and probably unknowable, but we don't know that.
Exactly! They believe (in the affirmative sense) that no gods exist without feeling the need for proof, i.e., they have faith in the non-existence of god(s) in exactly the same way that religious people have faith in the existence of them.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You haven't been to DailyKos or Democratic Underground lately have you?
I very sorry to say that this is now the heart and most active part of our party.
"If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be ________ (black, Morman, female, etc.) would you vote for that person?"
The Mormons really get a bad rap. Of the Mormons I have known were just like anyone else, other than the fact that they actually took their religion seriously. I think that is what gets them the most flak. Here in the US, the number of people that actually believe in their religion, and are willing to live by it is very small. For the most part, religion in the US is used as either a herd to join so people can feel like they are on the winning team, or as a political tool to steer that herd.
The last encounter I had with Mormons, I was digging a 4' deep trench in my front yard to bury the water main, and irrigation pipes. They stopped and offered to help. When I told them that I was finishing up for the day, they wanted to know when I would be working on it again so they could come and help. While they may have been hoping to preach at me. They were at the very least willing to put their backs where their mouths were.
It's not a marketing gimmick at all -- there's no intent to "sell" the charity to anyone. The church doesn't solicit donations outside of its membership, though it does get them, nor does it use its charitable programs as a method for gaining membership, or good PR. It also does nothing to increase the dollar donations flowing in.
I think it's very funny that I've repeated in a microcosm here exactly what the church as a whole has experienced: When we keep our good works to ourselves, we are accused of doing nothing. When we explain what we do, and how well it works, we're accused of all sorts of manipulative skullduggery by people who refuse to believe that the real purpose is exactly what it's stated to be.
I should mention that this method of "enhancing" the effectiveness of charitable donations through volunteer administrative and manual labor is not a new thing; it's been a normal practice for 150 years, including during the years that the church was isolated in the mountain west with no one to market to.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I have yet to meet an atheist who gives a fuck what anyone else believes, as long as the believers aren't trying to preach in schools or make laws based on current popular mythology.
Even then, the effects won't be equal. For instance, it is blatant that Hillary is a woman. If a bigoted, uninformed voter steps into the polls and sees "Hillary" he sure as hell isn't going to pull the lever. He might be suspicious of the name "Obama" - looks ethnic. Not that "Mitt" is a standard name, mind you :)
Don't underestimate the effect of the uninformed... did you see the CNN video? Here you go.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
LDS has the largest collection of genealogical records on microfilm. They go into cities and small villages around the world and microfilm their records.
Admittedly, they do this because of their believe that people can be converted to Mormonism after they are dead, which means people can retroactively convert their ancestors. But it makes us amateur and pro genealogists happy :)
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
Perhaps Star Star would be a nice choice? Hmm...maybe not, that's more of a Bill Clinton song...
It is hard to do today since most stations don't take requests...but, I used to love it when I could get a station to play Star Star over the air from time to time back in the day....just had to catch a DJ that wasn't familiar with Stones deep tracks....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Indeed it was...a BIG deal!!
Hehehe...but, with this election season, it almost seems like they're trying to set up a joke:
"Ok, so a mormon, a black guy, and a woman all walk into a bar....err...debate...and...."
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Mormons are just regular people."
That does not compute. Surely you mean "Ex-Mormons are just regular people". Or more likely "Mormons seem like regular people during their daily routines".
Regardless of their intentions or behavior towards you, Mormons are just as messed up in thought as many other religions, even moreso to many (In my own opinion of course).
Religion shouldn't matter one way or another but values do matter. If a person claiming to be a satanist can in some way have the same values that I feel are important in an elected official, then by all means. The thing is a religion will often reflect values which make Satan worship a tough sale.
www.joshferguson.org
I think we're both in agreement here... Christianity is, itself, pretty unbelievable and hokey. But I think Mormonism is even MORE ridiculous because it completely discounts REAL history and geography to just make up its own past. At least the Christian bible (while, again, a real stretch of the imagination) deals with real historical locations and times. There were Romans persecuting Jews, they were crucified... Jerusalem is a city in the Middle East... The Bible being a compilation of ancient stories, has real locations and events.
The Mormon bible just makes stuff up that can't even be remotely true. I don't claim to be very knowledgeable about Mormonism, but I thought they believe that the Jews in the bible were actually Americans and the Jerusalem is somewhere in the US? (Someone fill me in please)... but that flies in the face of real recorded History... and, to me, makes the Mormon faith even more ridiculous than Christianity (which is a real task, since it believes that burning bushes talk, a man separated a sea and a woman got pregnant by magic).
Clinton was the last president to get SecretService protection for life. Bush 43 and all after till law is amended only have something like 4 or 8 years of protection after they leave office.
Very true. But neither of them are likely to get elected president any time soon.
No.
This is the particular one in question. Strongbad is not a threat.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
That's interesting, thanks. I hadn't heard anything about that change. According to Wikipedia's article on the Secret Service, it's 10 years after they leave office.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Exactly! They believe (in the affirmative sense) that no gods exist without feeling the need for proof, i.e., they have faith in the non-existence of god(s) in exactly the same way that religious people have faith in the existence of them.
No, that's not what the GP was saying. There are three categories of people we're talking about:
Someone who specifically believes there is no god.
Someone who does not claim to know whether there is a god.
Someone who does not believe it's possible to say whether there is a god (or usually anything theological).
The first is clearly atheist. The last is clearly agnostic. The middle case is called atheist by some people and agnostic by some people, and any discussion needs to acknowledge that people disagree on the borders of the definitions.
I firmly believe that every religion I'm familiar with is wrong, and I suspect strongly that all world religions are wrong, with the possible exception of those that say there's some higher power but the metaphor you use to relate to it is up to you ("God is too big to fit in one religion", etc.). I do not, however, have any position on whether there is any intelligent higher power at all. For simplicity, I usually say "somewhere between atheist and agnostic".
Congress authorized the executive to commit military forces without its approval for up to 60 days with the 1973 War Powers Act. The constitutionality of the act is in question, but don't expect a court to actually address this due to the Political Question Doctrine.
The U.S. has only declared war 5 times in its history - the rest have generally been authorized by congress. The precedent already exists, and it is strong.
So sorry to Ron Paul supporters, but it appears that once again you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
could they vote for a satanist? That's a religion that ranges from just love of hedonism to actual devil worship depending who you ask.
"Satanist" is not just one religion. While there probably are people who worship the Christian version of Satan, I suspect they're mostly isolated lunatics. The Church of Satan is just a group that has some vaguely hokey beliefs about power residing in each person and threw in the "Satan" name as a metaphor -- it always struck me as an excuse to annoy Christians. There's also The Temple of Set and various smaller groups.
I'm inclined to disagree.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
rage filled rantings and crazed indignation
Wow, THAT BAD, huh?
I don't think you know what "intolerance" really, truly means. Clearly you've never experienced or even observed it. Hint, it's not 'disagreeing with someone', no matter how strongly or fervently they disagree or how poor their arguments might be for doing so.
Zzz .. wake me atheists start blowing up churches, burning crosses on your front lawn, stringing people up, or beating up random Christians in the street, etc. ... come to think of it, I don't think I've ever even heard of that happening, and if it has, it would have been so exceptional and anomalous that it precisely disproves your point of atheists being intolerant.
And while we're on the topic, please stop overusing the word "zealot" to apply to anyone who believes anything strongly and fervently and seemingly irrationally. You probably have not ever even MET any actual zealots. That word should really be reserved for the kind of people who e.g. blow up abortion clinics or churches or beat up gays in the street etc., not just as a random insult for anyone you don't like or disagree with.
This news story is from Nov 1 2007, and it shows up here now. I was not impressed by the questions asked, and Mitt did say he had positions on some topics but failed to elucidate exactly what those were. H1-b visa's more important than the topic of Net Neutrality. I think not. Well he got a forum here, must have been one of his supporters that posted the topic.
You seem to imply that it's as wrong to judge someone for their decisions? Why?
is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
As I read his answer, it occurred to me that H1B's are to "local" workers what a Honda/Toyota is to Detroit. 'Competition is good' can be applied to people as well as companies. If you're a manager you want to hire someone who has the hunger and drive that growing up poor can give you, and as a worker you want to be working with someone competent.
Look at his track record: his solution for making health care affordable is to force everyone in MA to buy health insurance, or else get fined. Since then, health insurance premiums have INCREASED.
Thanks, Mitt!
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Often US citizens, that I speak with on the internets, apologize for their president. But it's not their president I fear, it's the dense 60% of the population that can hardly write.
Nice flamebait, but in fact, America's worst state vis-a-vis college education (West Virginia, 15%) has a higher percentage of residents who are college graduates than the average European country ( We The People , Thomas Patterson, p.16). California and New York have more colleges than any European democracy. More than a third of America's young people enter college, the highest in the world (less than 20% for Western Europe). BTW, speaking of "can hardly write," it's spelled "Internet."
It's time you people start forming an intellectual elite that has some leverage over this critical mass.
The average congressman and senator have much higher education than the average American, who is much higher educated than the average non-American (and how's that "leadership" working out?). Romney was valedictorian of his college, and holds two advanced degrees from Harvard.
And since George Bush graduated from Yale (where he got better grades than his 2004 opponent, John F. Kerry), I'm thinking that your educated elites theory might not hold up in real-world crash testing. Frankly, I'd prefer a little common sense to the "elites" running things. They've been doing that a while.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Well according to the classic definition for agnosticism, a belief that the characteristics of gods are metaphysical is pretty much required. The unfortunate thing is that over time the commonly used definition of agnoticism has degraded to the point where it means, "I'm not sure enough regarding whether or not god(s) exist to make a judgement either way." But this is a wholly different state of affairs. A true agnostic can at the same time be a theist (I believe that the existence of God is a metaphysical question, but I have faith that He exists) or there can be agnostic atheists as well.
No offense, but I think you are an atheist. Anyone who says, "I believe that no gods exist, but I would if proven otherwise," would still be considered an atheist. The key is whether or not they believe in any gods now, regardless of the reasoning.
Not really. Atheists can support their belief by using Occam's Razor to argue that the theists have the burden of proof. I haven't heard any good arguments to support the belief in a personal God beyond pure religious faith. Fine for them, but it's not enough for me personally. I'll stick with my own goofy pantheistic beliefs myself. And you thought you have it hard arguing that you aren't an atheist. :)
Happy people make bad consumers.
Natural rights and human rights began during the English Enlightenment of the 18th century, spurred by the English Bill of Rights of 1689
Which only applied through MPs, not individual Britons!
and expanded on by philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke etc.
Yes, Locke had enormous influence on Jefferson's Declaration, but Hobbes? Hardly. Yes, the state of nature was bad, but Hobbes did not have the answer for the revolutionaries. If there was one thing the Patriots were against, it was another absolutist ruler.
and pulled together the Declaration and the Constitution mostly from their common-law heritage and Enlightenment philosophers.
Yes and no. The Declaration reads right from Locke; but the Constitution, particularly Madison's Bill of Rights, is a laundry list of things that the colonists despised about the UK's political system. As I tell my law students, the US legal system owes enormous debt to the English common law tradition, but the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, on the other hand, is a written political document which has no analogue in the UK.
Portraying them as creating the wave rather than riding it is misleading.
Hardly. Who else delineated the rights of man (as opposed to the ruling elites), including to form his own government, on paper no less? Certainly not the UK, which is to this day a representative monarchy with an official church and no written constitution!
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
You might want to read the rest of the document before making these wide-ranging conclusions: Yup, a bunch of Godless commies, them framers.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
But sorry, the Volunteers wouldn't feel as good about themselves.
Possibly. But you do miss a rather important point. This was last expressed by esteemed mr. ubergeek, Woz as "I could give a million dollars, but as a multi-millionaire that's nothing. So I like to give something much more valuable to me, my time". That's why he (for example) volunteers as a teacher, in addition to other activities. He's not the only one, you can read about folks like mr. Buffet, Gates et al.
Point being that beyond pragmatic maximization of efficiency, there is still value in giving something you yourself actually need: for more affluent people that is usually time. Not just write a check every now and then.
I've read and heard people talking about the Mormon religion and Christianity as though they are different. Being Catholic I view all of these religions as Christian, just not Catholic. So basically I lump Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, ... and Mormon as Protestant. Is there something really different about the Mormon faith?
... than yours for a Ron Paul supporter.
Just because the constitutionality of something is questioned does not mean it is, in fact, unconstitutional. Such a difficult concept, I know.
Also, the Political Question Doctrine is one of the oldest standards of our Supreme Court, arguably having its roots in Marbury v. Madison if one reads the opinion. And, of course, Marbury v. Madison is the case that introduces the very idea of judicial review, the idea you depend upon for the courts to intervene, and an idea spelled out nowhere in the constitution. It is an implied power. It is not in "THE CONSTITUTION!1!" The people who best know "THE CONSTITUTION!1!" do not interpret it as being in there.
If all this is a bit much for you, then here is the gist - the court essentially decided that, if there's a war and the people don't like it, then the people should be responsible for electing to the legislative and executive branch people who would stop it immediately. The Supreme Court, through its own decision - and it is an undeniably reasonable decision that has stood for well over a century - thus removed itself from much (though certainly not all) of the foreign affairs issues of government, leaving them to the executive and legislative branches, to whom the constitution actually gives those powers.
I would point you to Mr. Paul's national poll numbers - which have never exceeded single digits - to know the people's opinion on the matter. I know, I know: you're the only enlightened ones, and you can't possibly be wrong on this. It's just those darn sheeple that keep getting in your way: and, of course, the doctrine of stare decisis, public opinion, and that all-time favorite, common sense. If it makes you better to feel that way, then please do. After all, I'm just a law school student with a political science and international relations background - what could I possibly know that an obstetrician who receives the enthusiastic support of white supremacists and conspiracy theorists doesn't?
Wikipedia it - too much to cover in a post. If LDS is Christianity then Christianity is Judaism. :)
It's not that different, but they do believe that Christ got around a lot more. The basic values don't really change.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Because the point of life is to always operate at maximally optimal efficiency, ignoring all other considerations, right?
Better start eating noodles for every meal....
I would say feeling good about yourself is a pretty important part of life.
People get sick of it pretty fast when they don't.
Incidentally, they both give generously from their income AND work on the farm. Your point is taken, however.
Because no one considers Ron Paul a serious candidate.
Also, his supporters utilize a botnet to send political spam, which is about the only sure way to make every red-blooded slashdotter hate you.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm an atheist who generally leaves religious beliefs alone, for a wide range of reasons (including the fact the most of us hold our beliefs for pre-rational reasons, and that most of us have contradictory beliefs, and that religious and spiritual beliefs are usually about emotional needs, etc.) And most people I know with my background (to not put too fine a point on it, intellectuals with a wide-ranging liberal education) share my attitude.
Who I have seen become rabidly anti-religious are people from very religious areas who are still in the process of rebelling against it, for whom religion is a surrogate for a conflict with their families or hometowns or such. I know rabidly anti-religious people from Florida, Texas, and West Virginia, but none that I can think of from New York City, San Francisco, or Boston (except for those that didn't make it to college - usually of very blue-collar backgrounds.)
I live in Austin, TX. The home of the University of Texas. You can't throw a rock without hitting two or three of them. I do, however, acknowledge that my experience is not universal. I was really just presenting a counter-case to show that the OP's wasn't either.
http://xkcd.com/386/
Welcome to the internet, you must be new here.
http://xkcd.com/386/
If you firmly believed in the original principles held by the founders, and you were running for office, and you wanted to proclaim that you would abide by those principles.. would saying "If you want to go to war, declare war" make you a lunatic? Or a liar? Or even ignorant of the current legal climate?
The same founders who prosecuted the First and Second Barbary wars? You know, those guys, Jefferson and Madison? I seem to recall those two having something to do with the constitution...
The "current legal climate" you allude to has been the "current legal climate" for more than TWO CENTURIES of this county's history. I know, you didn't learn history in school and you feel blindsided by this, but these are not new legal concepts, and no one is using crazy lawyer talk to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. It's a shame that approximately 4% of the people in this country woke up one day and decided to read the constitution without paying any attention whatsoever to either the history of the document or how the Supreme Court has interpreted it. It is also supremely funny to see the same people practically demanding the courts step in to stop wars (as you do above) when the constitution does not grant them that power, nor does it even explicitly grant the court the power of judicial review, the underlying power you want the court to use to act in this manner. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
As for poll numbers, he has come in second in both Nevada and Louisiana. Those numbers speak for themselves.
Now this is where it goes from funny to sad. Wow. Paul got second place - (Wow, second! That matters so much in American elections!) where NO ONE BUT THE FRONT RUNNER BOTHERED TO CAMPAIGN. And in Nevada, he managed to take a whopping 14% - less than 1/3 of the front runner and only 1% ahead of McCain, who never bothered with the state to begin with! He picked up an astounding four - yes, count 'em, 4 - delegates - One NINTH of what any of the serious candidates has! Clearly, his campaign is a steamroller, filled with such power that it cannot be stopped! Oh, no, wait - he's dead in the water and hanging on to make himself feel important, as he hasn't a chance to win any appreciable and significant number of delegates come Super Tuesday. You're right on one matter, though: those numbers do speak for themselves, and they do not speak in favor of Ron Paul. A bunch of people voting over and over again on internet polls does not a viable candidate make.
Also, I love how you claim a vote for Paul is against common sense. The media has done well to brainwash those of you unable to perform independent analysis (and don't call me a conspiracy theorist - it takes but one google search to find heaps of evidence of media bias against Ron Paul).
"Now I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but you're an idiot and you've been brainwashed by the vast media bias against this man." Oh, but it is to laugh. You're right - I've done no independent analysis. Just posted rebuttals to his main points. With sources. Nope, no research or thought here, no siree Bob. Oh, and conspiracy theorists totally don't believe things like The Man brainwashing the ignorant masses - because all reasonable people must believe what Ron Paul says, this means that everyone is either too stupid or too brainwashed to vote for him!
Here's a quick hint - it's not media bias. It's not that everyone but you can't figure out the grand gnosis of Ron Paul. It's not that you're the only ones defending the Constitution. It's that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about and the vast majority of the population has more than enough reason to both disbelieve and disregard your arguments. Now, if you get warm fuzzies being a martyr for a wacko, then by all means do so.
He's the only Republican claiming
Speaking of admitting you don't know, you could learn a bit more about what you criticize before you criticize it.
Or am I being too critical of your grammar?
While the war on drugs is very wasteful and destructive, it doesn't register at all when compared with the destructive potential of the bankruptcy of social security.
You pretend that these things have nothing to do with one another.
Do you realize how much money is directly spent every year on the war on drugs?
Do you realize much money is pulled out of the economy because users and dealers are thrown in jail? I knew a guy who lost nearly 6 months of his life for simple possession--not only is that 6 months of his room, board, and medical expenses the government paid (how much is the average cost to keep a prisoner nowadays, something like $40k/year?), but the government also lost out on his income tax... not just for the 6 months' worth, but much more... he wound up losing his job.
This isn't directly related to pot, but do you realize how much property crime is created as a direct result of sky-high prices for drugs like heroin and cocaine? People hooked on cheap drugs, like alcohol or pot, tend to do just fine working shitty jobs all day, buying their drug of choice, then going home and consuming that drug to forget about their shitty day. People who get hopelessly hooked on fucking H or (non-crack) cocaine either have a ton of money, or they take money from whomever they can.
Do you know how much money the government could rake in if they legalized pot (and/or other drugs) and heavily taxed it?
Fact: We have more people in our prisons than any other nation has in the past 100 years, despots and dictators and former Soviet Union included (the only arguable exception is the Rwandan genocide fiasco.) The vast majority of these people are incarcerated for drug offences. The effort to hunt them down and throw them in jail--combined with the collateral economic damage wrought by such draconian measures--costs us many BILLIONS each year.
Jesus. You don't even have to agree with any particular moral position here. You can think that pot is a fucking "gateway" drug to HELL, and it STILL doesn't make sense to squander our nation's resources locking up working taxpayers and paying for their room and board for years on end.
Open your eyes, man... the war on drugs has NEVER been about stopping drug use. It's simply a MASSIVE cash cow, nothing more. I been to police auctions and I've seen with my own two eyes where they had an entire meth lab setup, hydroponics setup, etc. They confiscate the equipment, then turn around and sell it right back to other drug manufacturers!
It makes people paranoid and stupid and is linked to paranoid schizophrenia.
1. The word "linked" does not mean what you think it means. Wearing large pants is "linked" to being fat. This does not mean wearing large pants makes one fat. IIRC, tobacco has a MUCH stronger "link" to schizos. Off the top of my head, it's something like over 70% of all schizos are tobacco smokers.
2. You misspelled "Christianity." They're always suffering paranoid persecution complexes, claiming to talk to invisible people, believing falsehoods, etc. And if you find such sweeping generalizations offensive... good! Maybe you'll stop making them yourself.
I know virtually nothing about Mormons, but the US media often give me the impression of Mormons being highly conservative medieval puritans, married to lots of wives and lying about that. On the other hand, the handful of Mormons I meet online, like Howard Tayler, creator of the Schlock Mercenary webcomic, all tend to be intelligent, funny, and generally pretty enlightened.
My guess is that most Mormons are actually surprisingly similar to regular people.
Okay, so I've given you the benefit of the doubt, even though I'm getting nothing but condescension from your reply, and I looked up intolerance.
The old 1994 Webster II dictionary gives a pretty flat definition:
intolerant Not tolerant, esp.: a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinion or beliefs, esp. religious beliefs. b. Unable or unwilling to endure.
So far it sounds like I know what intolerance means, but it's a pretty generic definition and using "Not tolerant" to define the word seems a little hokey. I checked tolerant to make sure I had a good understanding of that word too.
tolerant 1.Inclined to recognize and respect the beliefs, practices, or traits of others: FORBEARING 2. Capable of withstanding or enduring an adverse environmental condition. (plants tolerant of extreme cold)
Then, since it was on the same page I figured, what the hell, I'll check out tolerance too
tolerance 1.Recognition and respect for opinions, practices, or behavior of others.
Tolerance goes on to define other things in mechanical and medical senses, but the first definition was really how I was using the word.
Just to be extra special certain I hit up the old google define:intolerance.
I noticed a funny trend. Nowhere in any of the definitions did I see anything about fervent disagreement. Nowhere in any of the definitions did I see anything about "blowing up churches, burning crosses on your front lawn, stringing people up, or beating up random X in the street". One word REALLY popped out at me immediately - RESPECT.
That is what tolerance is about. You have taken the most extreme cases of intolerance and held them up as the only true sign that there is any intolerance, but don't you think at the point where people start setting fires and setting out to join the mob that the level of intolerance has already gotten a little out of hand? RESPECT is the root of tolerance. "rage filled rantings and crazed indignation" are generally sans respect. Respect doesn't preclude someone from disagreeing however. Disagreements are welcome, discussions are usually good for both parties when they are done with respect and tact.
And while we're talking, I thought I would rebut your second post. I used zealot twice in my original post, once to say there were zealots on both sides of the line, and the other to describe what this particular brand of zealot tends to do. We'll break out the dictionary again, because it seems that you only apply the meaning of a word to the most extreme caricature you can imagine. For the sake of brevity I'll use the most applicable definition, you can trust me or look it up if you think I've missed some important detail.
One who is zealous, esp. excessively so. A fanatically committed person.
Hmph, no fire and death here either. The dictionary is SO boring. Anyways, if you take note, you'll find that I also said that there were zealots ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE. That is to say, there are excessively fervent, fanatical folks on either side of the argument.
I appreciate you taking the time to read my response, I hope that you didn't find it as sleep inducing as my original post. Perhaps I should have just posted RESPECT, which is really what needs to be shared between people of differing opinions and views. I hope that you come to agree that intolerance is more than death and carnage that is a result of when intolerance goes to the extreme, but that it is also a lack of fundamental respect that should be given to every individual, no matter how much you disagree with them.
yes, i know they have some charities that help the community.
but, as someone who was raised (not *still*) mormon, their beliefs are crazy and their religion is a cult.
"If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
Exactly! They believe (in the affirmative sense) that no gods exist without feeling the need for proof, i.e., they have faith in the non-existence of god(s) in exactly the same way that religious people have faith in the existence of them.
I am atheistic/agnostic, and I've wavered between the two. Mostly because of what level of rigiourous logic is being used.
I disbelieve in god in the way I disbelieve in alien abductions. There just isn't any (to me) credible evidence either is happening, and enough credibility issues for enough proponents that I remain skeptical.
I don't see any reason to think, as suggested, that either example is unknowable however. A D&D style avatar could appear one day, heal and damn people and otherwise give pretty good proof for the existance of *a* god, though maybe not the one anyone expected. Priests could obtain the ability to create food, convert water into wine, and lay on hands to heal sicknesses medicine cannot. If studied scientifically and shown to both not be "magic tricks" in the david copperfield sense, and widely reported in various non-affiliated news sources, then good evidence for the existance of god would appear.
I don't, in the way religious people often describe, hold any *faith* that god doesn't exist. My faith in the non-existance of god is the same as my faith that cold-fusion doesn't exist.
I don't think lack of belief is the same as belief, and this idea that both are equally based of faith would be a somewhat differnt definition of faith than normally used.
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
I think that's often true. As long as you're not trying to intrude on me in some way, I really don't care what you believe. Actually, it's not so much that I care that you believe you have to convert me or kill me, or supress evolution or base foreign policy on faith. It's you trying to convert me or trying to kill me etc.
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
Heh, I think alien abductions are considerably more likely (although still nearly infinitessimal)!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
should be "verification of employers", not "verification by employers". In fact, the whole sentence can probably use a re-write.
Table-ized A.I.
All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
The death has to be directly attributable to smoking pot. Diabetics and heart patients get in car crashes, but it doesn't mean those accidents were caused by insulin or blood pressure medication. Correlation does not equal causation.
This is good. Life has been a bit boring of late.
I'm fairly certain there was discussion of the War Powers clause back when the Constitution was being drafted, and the wording was specifically chosen for a reason.
Oh, so now you're fairly certain. But have nothing to back it up. At all. Other than an overly-literal interpretation of an area that has remained entirely grey for constitutional scholars for a long, long time. But hey, you've got a gut feeling. Let's base everything off that.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I claim that courts should end Iraq. The notion is ridiculous. Who the hell said that?
Oh man. This is great.
I posted this, to which you responded:
Yes, the constitutionality of the War Powers Act is in question. Yes, federal courts will turn a blind eye.
Ongoing military operations in Iraq are the entire reason why people are creating these magical declaration of war arguments to begin with. You lament the federal courts turning a blind eye to them (personally, I'd love to see someone actually challenge the war in federal court and be utterly destroyed there, both for fun and for scholarly interest, but I digress).
Now, on to another great highlight:
Nevertheless, your arguments about Constitutional law are side-skirting my point. I'm advocating a Presidential candidate - if he plans on demanding a declaration before going to war, the President can do that.
Oh, so you don't actually care about the constitution - you're just a populist supporting a man rather than a system of government. Thanks for clearing that up!
The POINT of the declaration is so that wars are not secretive, and not drug out.
Yeah. Totally. Because the world would have no idea that we were in Iraq right now unless there was a declaration. It would be one huge secret. Oh wait...
They are declared, the nation fights with its full force, and gets it over with.
Which falls into a classic argument in regards to Congress' ability to declare war - that it only applies to "total war" wherein full force is used, not minor actions such as Iraq. Which way is it, then? Also, as far as "get[ting] it over with", we did not turn over control of Japan and Germany until well into the fifties. It was a declared war, and we did not "get it over with" quickly at all.
It's very simple, perhaps too simple for you to believe possible?
Here's the thing - constitutional law is NOT simple. It's centuries of precedent and argument about a document made by men who were not of unanimous accord, explained their interpretation of it differently, and drew from disparate philosophical sources from Locke to Plato.
I know, you want uncle Ron to come down and wave his magic non-interventionist wand and all of a sudden everything will be just hunky dory! Sorry - we live in a real world. things aren't that simple.
Yes, second place isn't the same as first, but it's as close as it gets.
In other news, apples are fruit.
Your arguments about noone else campaigning in these states is moot. Turn on the f*****g TV, read the f*****g paper. McCain, Romney, and Huckabee get 100 times as much play in the media.
Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that they have platforms which a reasonable amount of the American public can get behind. Oh, and a shot at winning - that helps, too.
As to all the pissing and moaning about media bias - cry me a river. Paul has more cash on hand than McCain and around eight times as much as Huckabee, not to mention a vast network of grassroots volunteers who have nothing better to do than spend thousands of their own money on him hanging ugly signs everywhere. If Paul wants play time on TV, he can buy it.
And they don't get called a conspiracy theorist, racist, or lunatic!!
or if it slides further towards religious beliefs being banned from public the religious people among us might learn that some peoples idea of the separation of church and state involves the extinction of religion.
http://www.google.com/search?q=cocaine+causes+up+regulation&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
There you go, enough sources to shut you the fuck up once and for all.
Don't tell me I'm wrong douche, it's my field of expertise and I've worked in it, done original research in it, and know it far better than you ever will.
You are wrong. Your source DOES NOT say what you think it does, and you've made an ass of yourself making a point that anyone with cursory knowledge of the subject sees right through.
Now, this is when you read the links I gave you, then come back and admit you're a lying asshole.
I'll wait lying asshole, but you won't read the links and you won't be back, because you're too fucking stupid to ever admit you got anything wrong.
But this time you did, you got it all wrong and fucked up colossally.
Both examples had the individuals using pot a few hours before they drove.
The length of action for pot exceeds the time given for both cases, so pot was AT THE VERY LEAST, partially DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE.
So, unequivocally, you're wrong. Stop looking for a stupid excuse and admit you go this one wrong, that "directly attributable" garbage for a substance known to cause impairment of perception makes it clear you're not thinking this through, or even interested in proof.
Read the links loser, your argument fails totally, and you sound like a fucking moron making it
I gave you EXACTLY what you asked for. That you hate that it proves you totally wrong is not my fault, it's yours for making an imbecilic argument in the first place.
Just what part of "correlation does not equal causation" do you not understand, dipshit? Thousands of people smoke cigarettes and then end up in car accidents. Therefore, cigarettes cause car accidents. That's the same head-up-the-ass logic that you're using. Stop being a fool and a tool and find some real examples where someone was actually proved to have been incapacitated from smoking pot.
Here I sit, with little will power to plow through another 20 pages of property law reading. What shall I do... what shall I do...
I'm not wasting my time to dig up a link for you. If you don't believe me, oh well.
Nope, I don't believe you. Or the media conspiracy.
The response you quoted was me simply agreeing with your previous post, and it makes no mention of Iraq.
Clearly, you were implying Afghanistan then...
While I agree the situation has revived the argument, it's been around.
Yup. An argument has been around. Wow. Since when did the existence of an argument = complete preference for your side of the argument?
You assert the President not accepting certain forms of authorization from Congress for his own requests is to not follow the Constitution. Interesting.
Yes, I can. And do it with authority. The president does not need to accept authorization for covert action from congress - he doesn't even have to ask for it. This is called the Foreign Affairs power.
Unnecessary perpetual war is not fun. Especially when your loved ones are maimed and killed. F**k the status quo.
DOWN WITH THE MAN! FIGHT THE POWER! Let's wrap up the war (is this Iraq? Afghanistan? Lord only knows what you'll claim 3 posts from now...) and then everyone will just love us so much!
Do you honestly believe thirty-second advertising spots compare to being taken seriously in the media..?
They sure help get the name out, and with only one exception Paul has appeared in essentially every Republican debate. Once again - he's nuts. It's not that the media simply paints him as nuts, he's nuts.
If you can find me these diatribes, by all means. I've looked, and looked. Can only find one article in one newsletter, the content of which isn't what you'd expect.
Sorry, the last thing I want to do is google "Ron Paul".
I don't mind Ron appearing on a 9/11 conspiracy theorist radio show. It gave him alot of exposure back when he was a nobody. It's not like he was hollering that 9/11 was an inside job.
There's this thing called tacit approval... and this also explains a great deal of his base, who have a habit of calling up radio and television shows and making idiots of themselves.
Not sure what you're referring to with the 'discredited' foreign policy remark.
That would be the years of study on the subject of international relations. Paul's bizarre isolationist stance seems to be an ugly inbred child of Wilson and Carter - both dramatic and powerful examples of complete and utter failure.
Nice to know you're a Mormon. Have you looked into Romney? Heard he's a great Mormon.
Eh. Romney fails to inspire. Oh, but I get it - I'm a Mormon, so I should vote for the Mormon... riiight... we people do stick together, you know...
Thanks for the accusation of being racist, and of associating with anti-Semites. You have class. Lots.
Birds of a feather vote together...
I wasn't aware of the 7.5% statistic, I thought they held more of the state. Thanks for the clarification.
"Held". Yes, it's held under the ALL-POWERFUL-MORMON-CONSPIRACY!
I like your use of the term bloodbath. Certainly voting for someone like Romney to continue our persistence in Iraq will help to keep the blood flowing.
So if we left, the blood would immediately stop flowing? Of course, the trend line for both American and Iraqi casualties has shown a dramatic decrease in the past 6-8 months, associated largely with new American tactics, more troops, and various other forces. I know it hurts to think about things like that. I know you're eager to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
As for calling me anti-religion: I'm not sure it's quite accurate. I'd call myself more of a 'I dont give a shit about your religion as long as you dont impose it on me' kind of guy. Maybe one day I'll become more religiou
"Just what part of "correlation does not equal causation" do you not understand, dipshit?"
Just why are you so stupid that you think this matters.
THEY USED POT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE DRIVING, THEN CRASHED. POT IS KNOWN TO IMPAIR PERCEPTION. THAT IS CAUSATION BY DEFINITION YOU FUCKING TWAT.
Stop trying so hard to avoid admitting you're wrong and an idiot.
That has nothing to do with "correlation" and you being too fucking dumb to realize it doesn't change that.
I gave you EXACTLY what you asked for, you just hate that it proves you wrong, so you flail about looking for moronic excuses. BUt they fail, just like you.
I proved you wrong, grow up and admit it instead of finding less and less relevant objections you fucking cunt, you'll sound far less pathetic that way.
These guys smoked pot. Then they drove a vehicle. Then the ended up in a car accident. Therefore, smoking pot causes accidents.
People smoke cigarettes. Some of these people then drive vehicles. Some of those people end up in car accidents. Therefore, smoking cigarettes causes car accidents.
THIS IS THE EXACT LOGIC YOU ARE USING YOU FUCKING IDIOT. Get a book on logic and read it until you get it through your thick skull that correlation does not equal causation. That these people had THC in their system is no more proof that the accident was caused by marijuana than the color of shirt they were wearing. You have to prove that they were specifically impaired by smoking pot to demonstrate that the accident was in fact caused by smoking marijuana. You have not done this, you just get more and more hysterical and become more and more of a shithead.
I'm not foolish enough to click on a link posted by a Ron Paul supporter.
Instead, I will respond in kind.
See the above, genius.
The difficulty with Ron Paul is knowing where to begin. Is it the laughably simplistic demand to return to a gold standard and Austrian economics? Because the present economic system has just been so terrible... we're surrounded with the impoverished, depression abounds! Oh, wait... floating currencies rather than archaic gold standards have ushered in unprecedented economic growth around the world... hmmm...
Then there's the "let's get out of Iraq NOW!" argument. Sure... right... that'll work. I'm sure Iran would do absolutely nothing if that happened. I'm sure the whole world would love us for doing that. Oh yeah, it just makes so much sense! Particularly the idiotic isolationist bent. After all, Carter's decision to cease U.S. support in Iran has really worked well for the U.S. - we're now loved there! Beloved! Wonderful! The government there is great now!
Uh oh, government spending is high! Let's just cancel Social Security! Because canceling programs makes all the problems go away! Oh, and let's all just do away with the IRS! IRS = very bad, so we should just ditch it! We'll all fall back on the states who will, in their grand benevolence, provide the federal government with money so freely.
Then, we can neuter the military!
The difficulty is that there is so little of substance to critique. Ron Paul's platform consists of little more than a populist-like rhetoric of waving a magic wand and fixing all the nation's problems, all written with the idyllic cant of a high schooler. He doesn't understand the constitution. He doesn't understand foreign relations. He doesn't understand trade.
He does understand precisely what gets conspiracy theorists, white supremacists, and the gullible from around the nation - even around the world - excited about a candidate who is entirely unelectable.
Are there economic problems? Sure. Do I want the U.S. in Iraq in its present force forever? No, just long enough to do the job. But Paul's policies are so far from providing actual fixes it's funny. It's a campaign of platitudes.
It appears that Mr. Paul will do fairly well in Maine - a state where no one campaigned, and a state which has no delegates to even give. Thus far, Paul has only shown any progress in states where a) others have not even campaigned and b) where the people's votes don't matter anyways. In Nevada, he came nowhere near winning. In Maine, he is poised to lose once again - and even if he wins, it won't matter a bit - and the fact that it doesn't matter at all will be the only reason he wins.
Paul's best hope at this juncture is a 3rd party run. Even then, he stands absolutely no chance of winning the presidency - only of pissing off one party or the other.
No amount of claiming there is a vast media conspiracy and attempt to assassinate your candidate will help. He has been weighed by the voting public - and found wanting.
I misread my ol' scorecard for Maine. Maine does have delegates - they just don't award them now.
Of course, now that Paul is in third place with 41% of votes in - in a state where neither Romney nor McCain spent much time - it's all a wash for RON PAUL as is.
Tell me - will you go out and take down all of the graffiti you and your compatriots have put up over the last year once Paul has lost? Or do we have to put up with those stupid "Revolution" signs forever?
Time to end the fun with this one, I suppose.
Oh, so Ron Paul doesn't support a return to the Gold Standard?
Or immediate withdrawal from Iraq?
Lordy, where could I have gotten those ideas?
Here's the secondary point - it's not that I don't know what Paul stands for. It's not that I'm an uneducated loon on the matter of international relations - frankly, a political science BA with an international relations focus is good for little else, and law school just might give me an edge on understanding, you know, the law. I know what he stands for. I've read his issue statements.
I just completely disagree with far too much of it to ever consider voting for him.
I know, I know. It's tough for you to comprehend. Your messiah came down and told you - promised you - that all you had to do was get the word out. Put up ugly signs. Vote in useless internet polls. Then, the people would flock to their Austrian economics, non-interventionist god. Of course, the millions given to him didn't hurt one bit, either.
But you failed. You didn't lose to a media conspiracy. You didn't lose to a grand assassination plot. You lost because his ideas resonate with, at best, a tiny minority of angry but ultimately impotent people who cannot possibly hope to accomplish what they want.
But here's the main point - you did nothing to convince me. Nothing. Look back at the previous posts - all of 'em. Where is the eloquent argument for Paul's policies? Where? It seems to me that we began debating a point of law. You lost, so we slid to something else, and the question became one of "why don't you support Ron Paul?", as if there was clearly some mental defect in me if I could not see the glory of the great messiah of the gold standard reigning down.
Well, with a top 6% score on the LSAT, the ability to speak 3 languages, fairly extensive overseas travel, a college degree and a graduate degree on the way, I may not be the smartest guy on the block - if law school teaches you anything, it's that you're not nearly as smart as you think you are - but I'm not the dumbest either. It's not that all those who dislike Ron Paul are stupid - it's that we just don't like him or can easily name a list of preferable candidates. And much of our dislike happens to come from the fact that we do, in fact, understand his policies.
To sum up, your entire argument has been, "why don't you love me?" This is not convincing. I let it go on for a while - curious to see if you would ever put up something other than a half-hearted defense, curious to know if you would ever at least attempt to grab the initiative. Unsurprisingly, you did neither. You're like the sad little ex-boyfriend who hangs around a former girlfriend, convinced the relationship is still on unless she can give him a reason for it to end. No courting, no schmoozing - just an obsessive, crazed hanger-on who, in the end, will probably brush himself off, curse the one who spurned him for being such a fool, and then wander off to find the next hopeless cause to pin his life to.
Sometimes, it's just over, usually because the groundwork itself was never laid. And now, it's over - quite literally for Paul.
Paul, rather unsurprisingly, lost miserably once again tonight in Maine, coming in behind McCain who, once again, barely bothered to campaign in that state. No, Ron Paul did not win in New Hampshire. No, he did not even come close to first in Nevada. He then failed massively in Maine. He possesses a whopping four ballots - less than 1/4 of one percent than that needed to take the nomination.
It's over. It never even began for Ron Paul.
I'm not sure who I'll vote for in November. Elections are - and always have been - about deciding between the lesser of a set of evils who must at least fall within a certain set of parameters to be palatable at all. I find little t
Ignoring the paragraphs describing your supreme intellect, your assertions that I'm a disproved conspiracy theorist, your little strawmen, etc. Our discussion didn't begin with an argument over law - it began with you arguing that Ron's statements about the Constitution weren't how courts rule on Constitutional law. Somehow you think this matters, like he's arguing a legal case. Good for you.
Wow.
I'm just gonna stop here for a moment.
So, the Supreme Court - vested with power by the Constitution (implied, but essentially universally agreed) has no power, according to Paul's view, to, you know, interpret the constitution?
An argument about the Constitution is an argument on the subject of the highest law of the land. Of course it is a legal "case". You're not mad because it was made into a legal case - it is one fundamentally. You're upset that neither the law nor history go your way, nor have they ever. I understand that basic constitutional precepts are not exactly the focus of an engineering degree, but they remain vital to the informed citizenry.
It is also of note that courts do make law - the common law - and the rulings of the Supreme Court must be followed lower courts. Much of the law of torts, property, contracts, and other areas are created, managed, and interpreted almost entirely by courts. Legislatures can, of course, jump in to fill in gaps or reverse a common law trend if they wish, and they do so quite often. Almost all state legislatures have done so by creating a statute along the lines of: 'The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State.' There is a difference between "legislating from the bench" and crafting common law, of course, but law is law - regardless of its source.
What Paul fights against when discussing the war powers is an act of congress supported by the judicial branch. Oddly enough, the branch most likely to argue that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional is the Executive - the act places restrictions on the president's power found nowhere in the constitution. No president, to my knowledge, has ever acknowledged and considered himself bound by the act.
Guess what happens when the dollar crashes? People here start using alternative currencies - except they'll be foreign currencies instead of our own US alternatives.
Fascinating...
First of all, Paul's glorious announcement of the death of the U.S. dollar is premature. The dollar is weak right now. This is good for U.S. business, bad for U.S. tourists. Lower dollar = lower costs for overseas buyers of U.S. goods. This means higher exports. I know that Paul believes in the Austrian school of economics, which has all but thrown out the scientific approach used by the rest of the social sciences, and thus rejects this idea which fits with both common sense and history. The dollar goes through periodic dips and peaks - this is nothing new, this has happened before, and it will pass.
Personally, I'm convinced that the dollar tanks whenever I go overseas, based on past performance. This is m personal conspiracy theory. It did it when I went to Europe, it did it when I went to Chile, and as I will be heading to South America for 6 weeks this summer, I anticipate the dollar to go even lower. This is karma for having lived through the Argentine Riots of December 2001 (that was a long month...), when I enjoyed watching my dollar become three-times as powerful once the Argentines got the bright idea of unhooking their currency from the arbitrarily set parity with the U.S. dollar. The Argentine economy has seen a remarkable rebound since it floated its economy, ignoring ideas of both the gold standard and its previous mistake of arbitrarily pegging their currency to that of another country. And let me put it to you this way - even in a country which expe
"These guys smoked pot. Then they drove a vehicle. Then the ended up in a car accident. Therefore, smoking pot causes accidents."
Contributes, not causes.
Now you see why you're too stupid to continue this conversation.
Contributes, not causes.
Nowhere was that proven in your links, you ungodly shitsack. By your own logic, smoking cigarrettes causes car accidents, as would insulin or wearing a red shirt. Now, try again, or visit the nearest castration clinic for the sake of the gene pool, stat.
Simply put, time has not allowed a greater response. I advanced far further in the competition I entered than originally anticipated, and went from simply trying it out for fun to preparing to enter the quarter finals this Tuesday while keeping up with the rest of my madcap schedule. I simply don't have time for this, although I have posted a few brief items on /. to fill the time lately.
Paul's recent decision to pull out of the race has also made this thread far less useful. Far too much time has already been wasted on a man who could barely scrape together 14 delegates.
As Paul's candidacy is relegated to an obscure reference found in a small footnote of history - still far too great an honor - I would urge you to consider the following:
The fact that we have people in the white house abusing their power to the point of invading other countries without merit is an excellent example of why the US should not attempt to control the world and maintain bases everywhere. We aren't a perfect angel that can keep evil at bay. We should restrict our military to our own homeland except for brief periods when they must wage war overseas. It would let other countries feel more independent and let them worry less about the US deciding to order their troops next door to open fire.
While Paul fans have famously misstated both the number of American bases (the number includes not only bases, but essentially any piece of property found on a military base - even including buildings of fewer than 1,000 sq. ft. as "bases") and the number of countries American bases are in (my previous research on the matter indicates that any country with an American embassy was included. While American embassies do host military personnel and are, in fact, guarded by Marine Security Guards, the MSGs are under civilian command and are so few in number that referring to them as a base is a far stretch.), the simple fact is that the pullback has already begun. The U.S. has begun reducing its presence overseas, cutting back on bases considered "large" by the defense department and cutting back on personnel as well.
Also, many countries want those bases overseas, and we happen to want them there as well.
This is perhaps the biggest insanity of the Ron Paul nuts. Weakness is not strength. Pulling back military presence overseas does not create a "flyswatter" military. It hampers operations. North Korea's reasons for being pissed off with the south (and virtually everyone around them) go far further than a relatively small contingent of U.S. personnel. It's not always America's fault.
Foreign bases provide incredible power projection ability, keep naval ships running, and ensure that we can rapidly deploy forces. You may think they're unnecessary. I think it's clear than well over 90% of the electorate disagrees with you.
On to a few more personal matters:
I'm not sure why you now request me to provide an eloquent argument for Ron Paul. If you were really interested, you could easily search online and find more specific, concrete details about him. Heck, you could read his positions from his own words at ronpaullibrary.org
Yes, it's easy to find information about Paul. I have read it. I don't like him. Your issue - and the issue of many of your fellow Paul supporters - is that he doesn't appeal to me in the slightest. Period. And when an argument occurs, rather than providing a defense (i.e. - Ron Paul says this, and I believe it is correct for good and well-thought out reasons a, b, and c), the argument is flipped around to "how dare you deny the Paul!!!" I deny him because I have weighed his views in the light of history and the present political situation. Period.
We should not be there.
Well, we're there. Sunk costs, my friend. We can't change the fact that we entered Iraq. The question - and the only logical question - is what to do now.
It is pr