As a history major, I often feel the same way about journalism, which is more biased than historians, with even more myopic viewpoints that they try to fit into one-page summaries. My primary complaint about journalism is that they're out there trying to "fix" something, and typically don't have decent historical backing for their reporting or try to interpret everything through their worldview.
Historians, of course, are almost as bad, but at least we look at a bigger picture.
There's also a group of veterans (who are also bikers) who have pretty much committed to standing (peaceably) in front of the Westboro group, or surrounding them so that the families don't have to see them. My understanding is that if you know of a funeral which the Westboros are going to show up at, you can contact them and they'll show up.
No no NO. The freaks at Westboro are NOT a "large group," and represent ONLY themselves. If you're going to complain about the excesses of religion, find a different example.
Humaid b. 'Abd al-Rahman b. 'Auf reported that his mother Umm Kulthum daughter of 'Uqba b. Abu Mu'ait, and she was one amongst the first emigrants who pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him), as saying that she heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: A liar is not one who tries to bring reconciliation amongst people and speaks good (in order to avert dispute), or he conveys good. Ibn Shihab said he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them). (Sahih Muslim, Hadith number 6303-05; see also Sahih al-Bukhari 3.857) http://muslim-responses.com/Islam_on_Lying/Islam_on_Lying_/
More of a Hadith, but it's generally held with Qur'an teachings.
Worse, there's a case that can be made that it's Napoleonic crossed with some sort of Messiah complex. Some of those guys REALLY don't like everyone else, and may take the admonition in the Koran that a Muslim can lie to a non-Muslim in a time of war seriously.
Interestingly enough, it doesn't mean multiple partners in varying relationships. Also, keep in mind that the two primary religions which allow polygamy are also VERY morally strict - fundamental Mormonism and Islam.
Well, technically speaking, you're allowed it in Islam if you can afford it. That adds about half the Middle East right there. I imagine Saudi Arabia and Iran are on that list...
As an aside point, it is considered that if you have a pre-existing business relationship with someone (ie credit card or auto loan), THAT'S your opt-in, and they can call you until you officially tell them to stop.
Oddly enough, Obama was one of the more partisan members with possibly the MOST leftist voting record in the senate. I don't recall him making very many efforts to cross party lines on any votes. Can't say that about McCain.
No, it's people treating Obama like everything he does is somehow enlightened and above reproach. The Obamaphiles are some of the worst followers I have EVER seen - worse than some of the Bush supporters, who will at least name SOMETHING they don't like at this point.
There was a fairly pointed question last night about Obama's opinion of who is rich, and, in a sense, it came down to class politics. McCain didn't play it, mostly because he considers the question unimportant when you don't plan on raising taxes.
Of course, all those same things you spoke about happened or continued with a Democratic-controlled congress who was pretty ineffective in getting anything done. Everyone in office right now is at fault.
Hillary was campaigning since she was elected senator. McCain since 2000. Obama since he saw he had a shot and got some backers, which has been for a few years and since he got in the Senate. "Reasonable, well-thought" position changes are still position changes - see his recent change on possible drilling. He, and most dems, were kowtowing to the environmental whackos for a LONG time, and now there's such an outcry for more drilling (as gas prices most affect Obama's targeted audience than McCain's) that he HAS to come up with a more nuanced reason than "everyone wants it." It's starting to hit the pocketbooks of people he really wants votes from, and Obama needs to throw a bone there. He wouldn't change his position on it if he weren't running for President, I would bet.
Which is the REAL question we need to ask - would they change their stance on --insert issue-- if they weren't running for President?
As a Louisianian, I have less of a problem with negative campaigning than most people, but I agree that both sides are being pretty dumb with their attacks. We're living in an era where EVERYTHING can get fact-checked, and quickly. I have yet to see a candidate smart about it.
He's gonna get it by taxing people he considers "rich," which apparently is anyone making more than $97k a year. Yeah, thanks for sticking it to the most productive members of society.
I acknowledge that it "can" happen during campaigns, but I've seen far too often such "evolving" happen ONLY during campaigns. McCain has never towed the party line this much until recently, and I can't see how Obama's changing stances (of course, he doesn't have such a long history, so it's difficult to really see where his core stances were, other than on some situations like Iran).
Any reaction toward a presidential race that doesn't include cynicism for either candidate, IMHO, is idiotic.
I don't have a problem with a pol changing his mind, but you ALWAYS have to take timing into account. Any position change made within the context of a campaign is immediately suspect.
Finally, a reasonable argument, and not one that's all that Al-gore-alarmist. If people actually looked into arguments such as you're making, they might actually be convinced. AGW just has all the wrong people on its side, I think, and that's the major turn-off. Rabid environmentalists don't make the best spokespeople.
Part of it pretty much lies in the raw data - such as cooling over the last few years and the tendancy for the earth to warm and cool over eons (I question the data that looks back only thousands - instead of tens or hundreds of thousands - of years. In that perspective, we are actually just now emerging from the last Ice Age).
I NEVER expressed opposition, just that you're one of the few people who address the issue with the "electric car" - that we're going to need some ramping up on centralized sources of power if they're in massive production.
Slashdot Mirror
As a history major, I often feel the same way about journalism, which is more biased than historians, with even more myopic viewpoints that they try to fit into one-page summaries. My primary complaint about journalism is that they're out there trying to "fix" something, and typically don't have decent historical backing for their reporting or try to interpret everything through their worldview.
Historians, of course, are almost as bad, but at least we look at a bigger picture.
There's also a group of veterans (who are also bikers) who have pretty much committed to standing (peaceably) in front of the Westboro group, or surrounding them so that the families don't have to see them. My understanding is that if you know of a funeral which the Westboros are going to show up at, you can contact them and they'll show up.
They're called the Patriot Guard Riders http://www.patriotguard.org/
No no NO. The freaks at Westboro are NOT a "large group," and represent ONLY themselves. If you're going to complain about the excesses of religion, find a different example.
Humaid b. 'Abd al-Rahman b. 'Auf reported that his mother Umm Kulthum daughter of 'Uqba b. Abu Mu'ait, and she was one amongst the first emigrants who pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him), as saying that she heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: A liar is not one who tries to bring reconciliation amongst people and speaks good (in order to avert dispute), or he conveys good. Ibn Shihab said he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them). (Sahih Muslim, Hadith number 6303-05; see also Sahih al-Bukhari 3.857)
http://muslim-responses.com/Islam_on_Lying/Islam_on_Lying_/ More of a Hadith, but it's generally held with Qur'an teachings.
Worse, there's a case that can be made that it's Napoleonic crossed with some sort of Messiah complex. Some of those guys REALLY don't like everyone else, and may take the admonition in the Koran that a Muslim can lie to a non-Muslim in a time of war seriously.
Information wants to be FREE!!
Interestingly enough, it doesn't mean multiple partners in varying relationships. Also, keep in mind that the two primary religions which allow polygamy are also VERY morally strict - fundamental Mormonism and Islam.
Well, technically speaking, you're allowed it in Islam if you can afford it. That adds about half the Middle East right there. I imagine Saudi Arabia and Iran are on that list...
As an aside point, it is considered that if you have a pre-existing business relationship with someone (ie credit card or auto loan), THAT'S your opt-in, and they can call you until you officially tell them to stop.
Of course, that's IF you owe them money...
Oddly enough, Obama was one of the more partisan members with possibly the MOST leftist voting record in the senate. I don't recall him making very many efforts to cross party lines on any votes. Can't say that about McCain.
No, it's people treating Obama like everything he does is somehow enlightened and above reproach. The Obamaphiles are some of the worst followers I have EVER seen - worse than some of the Bush supporters, who will at least name SOMETHING they don't like at this point.
It actually came out in the primaries, with some slight modifications last night.
http:///
There was a fairly pointed question last night about Obama's opinion of who is rich, and, in a sense, it came down to class politics. McCain didn't play it, mostly because he considers the question unimportant when you don't plan on raising taxes.
Of course, all those same things you spoke about happened or continued with a Democratic-controlled congress who was pretty ineffective in getting anything done. Everyone in office right now is at fault.
Hillary was campaigning since she was elected senator. McCain since 2000. Obama since he saw he had a shot and got some backers, which has been for a few years and since he got in the Senate. "Reasonable, well-thought" position changes are still position changes - see his recent change on possible drilling. He, and most dems, were kowtowing to the environmental whackos for a LONG time, and now there's such an outcry for more drilling (as gas prices most affect Obama's targeted audience than McCain's) that he HAS to come up with a more nuanced reason than "everyone wants it." It's starting to hit the pocketbooks of people he really wants votes from, and Obama needs to throw a bone there. He wouldn't change his position on it if he weren't running for President, I would bet.
Which is the REAL question we need to ask - would they change their stance on --insert issue-- if they weren't running for President?
As a Louisianian, I have less of a problem with negative campaigning than most people, but I agree that both sides are being pretty dumb with their attacks. We're living in an era where EVERYTHING can get fact-checked, and quickly. I have yet to see a candidate smart about it.
He's gonna get it by taxing people he considers "rich," which apparently is anyone making more than $97k a year. Yeah, thanks for sticking it to the most productive members of society.
I acknowledge that it "can" happen during campaigns, but I've seen far too often such "evolving" happen ONLY during campaigns. McCain has never towed the party line this much until recently, and I can't see how Obama's changing stances (of course, he doesn't have such a long history, so it's difficult to really see where his core stances were, other than on some situations like Iran).
Any reaction toward a presidential race that doesn't include cynicism for either candidate, IMHO, is idiotic.
No, he changed his mind within the context of a campaign. PLEASE tell me how that should not be immediately suspect.
I don't have a problem with a pol changing his mind, but you ALWAYS have to take timing into account. Any position change made within the context of a campaign is immediately suspect.
If that's the case, I ain't complainin'. That's the type of conspiracy I could live with.
Good Ol' Emergency Repair Plan A
My impression is that Einstein was never absolute in his atheism. He's also post-1900.
Finally, a reasonable argument, and not one that's all that Al-gore-alarmist. If people actually looked into arguments such as you're making, they might actually be convinced. AGW just has all the wrong people on its side, I think, and that's the major turn-off. Rabid environmentalists don't make the best spokespeople.
Do you have names? There are two I can think of right off who contradict your statement - Newton and Pascal.
Part of it pretty much lies in the raw data - such as cooling over the last few years and the tendancy for the earth to warm and cool over eons (I question the data that looks back only thousands - instead of tens or hundreds of thousands - of years. In that perspective, we are actually just now emerging from the last Ice Age).
I NEVER expressed opposition, just that you're one of the few people who address the issue with the "electric car" - that we're going to need some ramping up on centralized sources of power if they're in massive production.