This is why Obama has not earned the support among the black community that many thought he should.
You're saying black voters are deciding whether to vote for Obama based on if he can trace his lineage to slavery? That's like, opposite aristocracy, and just as bad. Why not vote for the candidate whose issues are most congruent to your own instead of the one who has the right ancestral background?
Libertarians already have their own party (which sucks btw). Even so, unless you're meaning 'liberal' in the classic sense, there's no reason to lump them all together in one party. Unless I read your grammar wrong and you mean a party for each.
So Limbaugh changed his reasoning from 'teach America a lesson' to 'muddy up the waters for the Democratic party in order that I don't look like an asshole who wants this country to fail in order for it to succeed'? When did that happen? Sadly, the Reagan-worshippers thought a Carter-style Democratic presidency of bad government will lead to Americans suddenly changing their minds and actually becoming informed about politics and voting for a Republican who stands for American values as defined by the religious right. Have they changed their tune in order not to sound like they want this country to 'learn its lesson'?
The people on both sides of this fight are childless morons, eager to tell people how to raise their children. But both sides are fighting a futile fight.
I'm sure some people on either side are doing this. But on the whole it's not a crusade to tell people how to raise their children. It's ultimately about education--about how legislators and teachers shouldn't be inserting personal, religious views into a subject that is impersonal and logical. Science class and evolution have nothing to do with telling you or any other parent how to raise their children. It concerns teaching a student how to think critically and exposing them to ideas that were arrived out through precise experimentation, not faith.
There is a difference between minimum standards that are dictated by a nationwide test (which is ridiculously easy and a test of skills that belong at least three grades beneath what they're actually testing) and minimum standards that are dictated by actual knowledge, theories, facts, etc. The majority of standardized tests are worthless, which is why teachers didn't want to be held accountable for teaching to the test, as opposed to teaching their actual subject.
'Every public school teacher in the state's K-12 school system shall have the affirmative right and freedom to objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution in connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or biological origins.'
So when is intelligent design/creationism within the full range of scientific views? She's unintentionally making pro-evolution views.
I don't really believe in a "collective" in the political sense
Then what is good for the individual is good for the individual, not good for the "collective." I agree with you that it's a construct, but you used the term first and I felt obligated to stay within that term instead of causing unwanted confusion.
I really liked the last paragraph, though. Very Discordian.
Actually the power you're referring to is not collective at all. It is individual at its source because singular people are making the choice to determine what media is superior. Collective power is what you see when individual power is denied, like the government restriction and conventional advertising you refer to.
Ideally, in Libertopia, taxpayer dollars would not support what the taxpayer does not want. I think this is somewhat contradictory to the idea of a republic in the sense that even when the people choose, they don't always get what they want if another side wins. Also, the "secular" groups I'm referring to are those that are driven by ideology but are not essential to the workings of a limited government, stem-cell research, for example.
I don't think framing it as "religious" would do anything more than confuse people who are trying to understand the problem. Obsessive, narcissistic, hypocritical, and misguided are more accurate descriptors. I don't consider a mission to Mars to be any of those words, but I don't think it belongs in the realm of the government either. Besides, a lot of "leftists" oppose NASA space programs because they regard it as wasted money that could be used to feed the poor or other nanny-state social programs. Medicare was expanded monumentally under George Bush by $400 billion, so I see it as a pretty bipartisan endeavor to get the government to be our third parent, Big Brother, or God, depending on how you want to frame it.
I actually didn't go into secular or scientific groups since I was focused on the religious aspects of the argument, but I completely agree. I don't think the government should fund them either. I really don't like that my post suggests otherwise, but thanks for clearing that up.
It's not Toyota's fault that Americans would rather pay Toyota and get a nicer car than have a better standard of living for American auto workers.
Yeah, I would rather have a better car that doesn't require as much of a dependence on oil. Maybe American car companies could make better cars if they weren't paying out the ass to unions. Or to their CEOs. Sounds like greed on both sides of the business to me. The American lust to consume doesn't help, but there are other factors that you're ignoring. If I'm not mistaken, many parts that go into "American" cars are imported, so the whole "Buy America" is a fraud in this instance.
It would also be the single largest transfer of money from the poor to the rich.
You do, of course, mean it would be the single largest transfer of money from the rich to the poor back to the rich again, correct?
Funny, "conservatives" like most Republicans these days have a terrible idea of capitalism when they're spending left and right and consider tax cuts a good idea. I also admire their appreciation for "limited" government when they want to expand government power in the domestic sphere. A lot of hate for America is unfounded, but some of it is deserved. Americans are often rude or ill-mannered abroad, and often perceived as arrogant because they don't understand how to respect the differences of a foreign country. There is a difference between politely disagreeing and loudly enumerating the faults of France or whichever country is the popular one to make one of these days.
Europe is anti-america because it's the devil. It shows that, while lefty politics are failing all over the globe, policies to the extreme right, and extreme liberty amongst citizens largely holding the Christian faith is a working, stable state structure.
I can't even begin to address the rhetorical devices you so intelligently employ. "It's the devil?" A lot of the people who disagree with you and your ideological compatriots do so because you do not state your points intelligently or factually, not because of the actual content of those beliefs (although those are sadly misguided as well). "Policies to the extreme right" happen to be fascism, a growing (yeah, for the last 30 years, I'd say) concern among those who don't want expansive government power, which is exactly what extreme rightism or leftism entails.
I'd make the argument that religion has not much to do with the economic system of a country, but it's usually more detrimental than beneficial, especially when certain "faith-based" interest groups are endowed with my tax money. Unconstitutional to say the least; America is not a Christian nation, it is a federal republic. It's laws are derived from philosophy, not religion. I would encourage you to look up your history, on both the founders of America and the deleterious effects of religion on both economy and government when it is given free reign.
Finally, the last thing we need to worry about is Europe. It is a comparatively weak "enemy" (I say this without much gusto) compared to, oh I don't know, religious fundamentalism.
This is interesting because it reminds me of a point one of my lit professors was trying to make about the overwhelming quantity of well-written literature today, due to a more educated, writing-inclined population worldwide. He posited that there is so much quality literature being written that it is nearly impossible to keep up with reading all of it while getting into the same kind of depth you could when great books weren't being whipped out so numerously and so quickly. If the literate sector who chooses to read avidly can't keep up, what is the solution? Well, stop expecting to put every great artist on a pedestal, because there is no way any one person is going to get to them all. In the next few decades, it will be nearly impossible for an establishment to cohesively keep track of all the literature being published, so there will have to be some sort of breakdown in the system that gets to decide who's good and who's not. You can probably substitute music for this too. Of course, all of this is opinion based (with the exception of rising literacy rates) and in no way the "right" answer, just my (and his) two cents.
The media probably cared more about the ratings they would get for reporting to the trembling, nail-biting public that their favorite shows would be halted due to the strike. They know American viewers well enough to bank on the fact that they would care just enough to watch news about it, but are generally too apathetic to actually getting involved.
The parent is saying if you are not affiliated with a university, yet agree with the statement that "only those who are currently affiliated with a university have a right to understand how the world works" then you are wrong, simply because you are not affiliated of a university.
Intentionally backwards logic, sometimes called a joke.
Instead of arguing pointlessly back and forth, take a look at the proven crimes Scientology has committed and the inability of the American legal system to correct them. I quote the Time magazine expose "Scientology: the Thriving Cult of Greed and Power":
"During the early 1970s, the IRS conducted its own auditing sessions and proved that Hubbard was skimming millions of dollars from the church, laundering the money through dummy corporations in Panama and stashing it in Swiss bank accounts. Moreover, church members stole IRS documents, filed false tax returns and harassed the agency's employees. By late 1985, with high-level defectors accusing Hubbard of having stolen as much as S200 million from the church, the IRS was seeking an indictment of Hubbard for tax fraud. Scientology members "worked day and night" shredding documents the IRS sought, according to defector Aznaran, who took part in the scheme."
And yeah, Scientology can and has outspent not just the local D.A., but the federal government to the point that the Feds don't have the resources to take on such a task as cleaning up the Church. As the article states, it has 71 active cases against the IRS alone, one of which requires the U.S. to provide 52,000 documents. So yes, you are naively defending this organization on the basis of the First Amendment, but they are too powerful for the federal government to handle. Not even Christian or Catholic churches have mired themselves this deeply in the legal system. The most terrifying part of the article states that the federal government may not even have the resources to get rid of Scientology.
"Federal agents complain that the Justice Department is unwilling to spend the money needed to endure a drawn-out war with Scientology or to fend off the cult's notorious jihads against individual agents. "In my opinion the church has one of the most effective intelligence operations in the U.S., rivaling even that of the FBI," says Ted Gunderson, a former head of the FBI's Los Angeles office."
This is more than just a group of people protesting another group of people because they believe in aliens and space ships instead of talking snakes and the dead coming back to life. It's not even the "thought-crime" that's being committed (which to me, isn't a crime at all). It's that this group is too powerful to be allowed to sit back and continue to expand and conquer.
Not that I'm anywhere _near_ a cognitive science expert, but I thought weak emergence could resurrect that old corpse. If I'm wrong, that's alright, I just don't like that you dismissed it out of hand.
Whether or not either group is "born that way" there is a distinct difference between a legally consensual act between two adults (if they choose to act on their sexual impulses) and an illegal act, even if the child "consents" between an adult and a child (if the pedophile chooses to act on their sexual impulses).
Slashdot Mirror
This is why Obama has not earned the support among the black community that many thought he should.
You're saying black voters are deciding whether to vote for Obama based on if he can trace his lineage to slavery? That's like, opposite aristocracy, and just as bad. Why not vote for the candidate whose issues are most congruent to your own instead of the one who has the right ancestral background?
Libertarians already have their own party (which sucks btw). Even so, unless you're meaning 'liberal' in the classic sense, there's no reason to lump them all together in one party. Unless I read your grammar wrong and you mean a party for each.
So Limbaugh changed his reasoning from 'teach America a lesson' to 'muddy up the waters for the Democratic party in order that I don't look like an asshole who wants this country to fail in order for it to succeed'? When did that happen? Sadly, the Reagan-worshippers thought a Carter-style Democratic presidency of bad government will lead to Americans suddenly changing their minds and actually becoming informed about politics and voting for a Republican who stands for American values as defined by the religious right. Have they changed their tune in order not to sound like they want this country to 'learn its lesson'?
We have Cerberus on our hands and you're saying one slobbering fanged head is preferable to the other two?
The people on both sides of this fight are childless morons, eager to tell people how to raise their children. But both sides are fighting a futile fight. I'm sure some people on either side are doing this. But on the whole it's not a crusade to tell people how to raise their children. It's ultimately about education--about how legislators and teachers shouldn't be inserting personal, religious views into a subject that is impersonal and logical. Science class and evolution have nothing to do with telling you or any other parent how to raise their children. It concerns teaching a student how to think critically and exposing them to ideas that were arrived out through precise experimentation, not faith.
There is a difference between minimum standards that are dictated by a nationwide test (which is ridiculously easy and a test of skills that belong at least three grades beneath what they're actually testing) and minimum standards that are dictated by actual knowledge, theories, facts, etc. The majority of standardized tests are worthless, which is why teachers didn't want to be held accountable for teaching to the test, as opposed to teaching their actual subject.
Ack, thanks for correcting my sloppy diction!
'Every public school teacher in the state's K-12 school system shall have the affirmative right and freedom to objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution in connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or biological origins.'
So when is intelligent design/creationism within the full range of scientific views? She's unintentionally making pro-evolution views.
I don't really believe in a "collective" in the political sense Then what is good for the individual is good for the individual, not good for the "collective." I agree with you that it's a construct, but you used the term first and I felt obligated to stay within that term instead of causing unwanted confusion. I really liked the last paragraph, though. Very Discordian.
Actually the power you're referring to is not collective at all. It is individual at its source because singular people are making the choice to determine what media is superior. Collective power is what you see when individual power is denied, like the government restriction and conventional advertising you refer to.
Don't forget Arrested Development!
Ideally, in Libertopia, taxpayer dollars would not support what the taxpayer does not want. I think this is somewhat contradictory to the idea of a republic in the sense that even when the people choose, they don't always get what they want if another side wins. Also, the "secular" groups I'm referring to are those that are driven by ideology but are not essential to the workings of a limited government, stem-cell research, for example.
I don't think framing it as "religious" would do anything more than confuse people who are trying to understand the problem. Obsessive, narcissistic, hypocritical, and misguided are more accurate descriptors. I don't consider a mission to Mars to be any of those words, but I don't think it belongs in the realm of the government either. Besides, a lot of "leftists" oppose NASA space programs because they regard it as wasted money that could be used to feed the poor or other nanny-state social programs. Medicare was expanded monumentally under George Bush by $400 billion, so I see it as a pretty bipartisan endeavor to get the government to be our third parent, Big Brother, or God, depending on how you want to frame it.
I actually didn't go into secular or scientific groups since I was focused on the religious aspects of the argument, but I completely agree. I don't think the government should fund them either. I really don't like that my post suggests otherwise, but thanks for clearing that up.
It's not Toyota's fault that Americans would rather pay Toyota and get a nicer car than have a better standard of living for American auto workers.
Yeah, I would rather have a better car that doesn't require as much of a dependence on oil. Maybe American car companies could make better cars if they weren't paying out the ass to unions. Or to their CEOs. Sounds like greed on both sides of the business to me. The American lust to consume doesn't help, but there are other factors that you're ignoring. If I'm not mistaken, many parts that go into "American" cars are imported, so the whole "Buy America" is a fraud in this instance.
It would also be the single largest transfer of money from the poor to the rich. You do, of course, mean it would be the single largest transfer of money from the rich to the poor back to the rich again, correct?
Funny, "conservatives" like most Republicans these days have a terrible idea of capitalism when they're spending left and right and consider tax cuts a good idea. I also admire their appreciation for "limited" government when they want to expand government power in the domestic sphere. A lot of hate for America is unfounded, but some of it is deserved. Americans are often rude or ill-mannered abroad, and often perceived as arrogant because they don't understand how to respect the differences of a foreign country. There is a difference between politely disagreeing and loudly enumerating the faults of France or whichever country is the popular one to make one of these days. Europe is anti-america because it's the devil. It shows that, while lefty politics are failing all over the globe, policies to the extreme right, and extreme liberty amongst citizens largely holding the Christian faith is a working, stable state structure. I can't even begin to address the rhetorical devices you so intelligently employ. "It's the devil?" A lot of the people who disagree with you and your ideological compatriots do so because you do not state your points intelligently or factually, not because of the actual content of those beliefs (although those are sadly misguided as well). "Policies to the extreme right" happen to be fascism, a growing (yeah, for the last 30 years, I'd say) concern among those who don't want expansive government power, which is exactly what extreme rightism or leftism entails. I'd make the argument that religion has not much to do with the economic system of a country, but it's usually more detrimental than beneficial, especially when certain "faith-based" interest groups are endowed with my tax money. Unconstitutional to say the least; America is not a Christian nation, it is a federal republic. It's laws are derived from philosophy, not religion. I would encourage you to look up your history, on both the founders of America and the deleterious effects of religion on both economy and government when it is given free reign. Finally, the last thing we need to worry about is Europe. It is a comparatively weak "enemy" (I say this without much gusto) compared to, oh I don't know, religious fundamentalism.
This is interesting because it reminds me of a point one of my lit professors was trying to make about the overwhelming quantity of well-written literature today, due to a more educated, writing-inclined population worldwide. He posited that there is so much quality literature being written that it is nearly impossible to keep up with reading all of it while getting into the same kind of depth you could when great books weren't being whipped out so numerously and so quickly. If the literate sector who chooses to read avidly can't keep up, what is the solution? Well, stop expecting to put every great artist on a pedestal, because there is no way any one person is going to get to them all. In the next few decades, it will be nearly impossible for an establishment to cohesively keep track of all the literature being published, so there will have to be some sort of breakdown in the system that gets to decide who's good and who's not. You can probably substitute music for this too. Of course, all of this is opinion based (with the exception of rising literacy rates) and in no way the "right" answer, just my (and his) two cents.
The media probably cared more about the ratings they would get for reporting to the trembling, nail-biting public that their favorite shows would be halted due to the strike. They know American viewers well enough to bank on the fact that they would care just enough to watch news about it, but are generally too apathetic to actually getting involved.
The parent is saying if you are not affiliated with a university, yet agree with the statement that "only those who are currently affiliated with a university have a right to understand how the world works" then you are wrong, simply because you are not affiliated of a university. Intentionally backwards logic, sometimes called a joke.
"During the early 1970s, the IRS conducted its own auditing sessions and proved that Hubbard was skimming millions of dollars from the church, laundering the money through dummy corporations in Panama and stashing it in Swiss bank accounts. Moreover, church members stole IRS documents, filed false tax returns and harassed the agency's employees. By late 1985, with high-level defectors accusing Hubbard of having stolen as much as S200 million from the church, the IRS was seeking an indictment of Hubbard for tax fraud. Scientology members "worked day and night" shredding documents the IRS sought, according to defector Aznaran, who took part in the scheme."
And yeah, Scientology can and has outspent not just the local D.A., but the federal government to the point that the Feds don't have the resources to take on such a task as cleaning up the Church. As the article states, it has 71 active cases against the IRS alone, one of which requires the U.S. to provide 52,000 documents. So yes, you are naively defending this organization on the basis of the First Amendment, but they are too powerful for the federal government to handle. Not even Christian or Catholic churches have mired themselves this deeply in the legal system. The most terrifying part of the article states that the federal government may not even have the resources to get rid of Scientology.
"Federal agents complain that the Justice Department is unwilling to spend the money needed to endure a drawn-out war with Scientology or to fend off the cult's notorious jihads against individual agents. "In my opinion the church has one of the most effective intelligence operations in the U.S., rivaling even that of the FBI," says Ted Gunderson, a former head of the FBI's Los Angeles office."
This is more than just a group of people protesting another group of people because they believe in aliens and space ships instead of talking snakes and the dead coming back to life. It's not even the "thought-crime" that's being committed (which to me, isn't a crime at all). It's that this group is too powerful to be allowed to sit back and continue to expand and conquer.
Not that I'm anywhere _near_ a cognitive science expert, but I thought weak emergence could resurrect that old corpse. If I'm wrong, that's alright, I just don't like that you dismissed it out of hand.
Whether or not either group is "born that way" there is a distinct difference between a legally consensual act between two adults (if they choose to act on their sexual impulses) and an illegal act, even if the child "consents" between an adult and a child (if the pedophile chooses to act on their sexual impulses).