First he tries to make a joke out of the political statement I made. There's nothing humorous about my post, but trb0001 takes it upon himself to try to take the wind out of my sails. He's consistently partisan.. we see a lot of people like him here lately.
trb, I know you know this but I'm going to say it for the benefit of anyone who might be confused by your little tirade. My post is not a joke. I am addressing fellow liberals (of which trb0001 is NOT one). So of course he wants to disrupt any discussion.
People like trb are not going to shut up. We need to do more than just reorganize; we need to restrategize. We need party unity and party discipline. If we turn our backs on politics now, we can forget about civil rights and a whole lot more. We can forget about freedom of religion. And we can look forward to the rich paying no taxes, the rest of us paying higher taxes, and our taxes going solely towards services for the rich.
But frankly all that is moot. We liberals have a lot of work to do and I'm not talking about our leaders alone.
My short response to the conservatives who are gathering like pirhannas is: I'm trying to talk to people in my party. You're going to tear me to pieces for having a view that's not the same as yours? And your going to skew things so you can make yourself sound good?
Whatever. Democrats and liberals need to get together among ourselves and we need referendum. Any conservative who attacks me for saying that is flamebaiting or trolling.
The conservative-liberal discussion has been going on for a long time. You're not going to convince me today to give up and become a born again christian or a hard core republican. But if you're just going to throw verbal garbage into the discussion, I'm not interested.
As for painting *ALL* southerners as racist, you're just fanning the flames. I clearly stated that we democrats CAN embrace the south WITHOUT embracing bigotry. Read the post.
DID you read my post? I'm not even arguing that Bush is bad or that conservatives should change. I'm saying that we liberals have to get our act together. Attacking me doesn't make me go "oh this is hard.. I'll give up now". I remember how you can't even let me talk without attacking and mischaracterizing what I said.
Thanks, you've reminded me once more of what I think of conservatives; that some are ok but mostly the ones who talk, aren't interested in discussion, only in partisan attacks.
Apparently the republicans are invulnerable to truth and reason. Fairly or unfairly, they've taken the election. Since the conservative trolls and their mod abusing partners are still running rampant, let me cut to the chase.
We as democrats face a strategic gap. Our agenda of promoting civil rights and defending the lower class and the environment isn't grabbing the middle aged voters. In order to turn back the tide of partisan villification and party unilateralism we need to have referendum.
As americans we already have the ability to contact our representatives. Because of the situation we are in, we need to do something more than that. We need our democratic representatives to lead us by calling us together to share our insights and regroup as democrats.
If we do not act now we will be swept away. Discussing our hopes and desires with our neighbors is not going to cut it. Similarly just contacting our reps isn't enough. We need to professionally analyze and resynthsize our mode of operation. Clearly something has to change. We can do this the dumb, easy way, and go about business as usual. Or we can take a comprehensive accounting of ourselves and act.
Beyond that, I have some minor opinions of what we need to do; but these are just guesses in the dark on my part. To firm up our strategy we need to organize. Here's my 2 cents:
The republican agenda is set at the top and their rhetoric is uniform - they listen to Rush Limbaugh and everyone knows what lie to use, what button to push to aggravate us, and which slur to accuse us with. IMHO, we need to fight fire with fire on this. I've heard that we democrats function best as a party when we work from the grassroots up. If this election was our best, we're screwed. We need to oppose fundamentalist christianity's drive to weld their theology to the federal government, but we can embrace christians in the middle and on our side without giving up that goal. Republicans often go against the teachings of Jesus. We need to bring christianity to the fore so that we can counter their "blah blah bible" arguments. We can still embrace non christians by preserving the constitutional foundations of the separation of church and state, and the freedom of religion.
We may want to look at the South, and see if there is room for compromise with southern ideals. Personally, I view the north-south differences in terms of slavery. It appears to me that the big issue we have to face with the south is bigotry against non-whites and non-fundamentalist christians. We can embrace southerners without embracing racism and theological intolerance.
Finally I think we have all seen how much damage the conservative media bias has done to the national discourse. Their spinjockeys and pundits pound out two messages continuously to all their members: The first message is one of reinforcing hatred of democrats. They brand us all as communists, all as unamerican, all as unpatriotic and they're getting cocky about calling us terrorists. We have to give them a few bloody noses or it's never going to end, and America will spiral into theocracy and or fascism.
The second message of the conservative pundit is the party message of the moment. They always have ammo. If you win a discussion on one topic, they turn on you with another. Every time you argue, you're arguing with Karl Rove. It's like playing chess against an army of Kasparovs.
We need to reassert our party identity, and then we need to fight tooth and nail.
One last thing... we need to use our philibuster ability. We may need to compromise unduly... but we can not give up entirely.
As Barak Obama said, the Arc of the Universe is long, but it bends toward justice.
Thanks for correcting my spelling of Jainism, I appreciate it:)
>>But those parts of it that opposes what the Bible teaches, especially fanciful Gods -- that bit must be dumped.
You're wrong, the bible must defer to the Torah. Jesus was a false prophet and all his followers are subject to the laws of Yahweh.
Both are stated positions are now arbitrary. The more you think you're right, the more I'll take it as a sign that I am right.
This is the only way I can express to you my faith - that religion is a personal choice which should not be pushed on others. The bible should neither supercede nor defer to any religion, nor should any religion do so.
BTW, I was raised nominally within western religious circles. I'm reading the Gita right now. Where you've left, I am headed. Where I've left, you're headed. Sort of parallels my opinion. We both disagree with each other. The difference is that you think I should change to be like you and I think you should stop thinking I should change to be like you. We both think the other should change; you think we should both be christian, I think you should accept that everyone makes their own choice.
But hey, maybe it's all a dream and we're both wrong. Or right for that matter, although I can't see how there could be two mutually exclusive ultimate foundations to a single reality, but then I'm just a human.
This election is not getting less tight. The final electoral count will probably go to arbitration in at least one state (florida for starters, pennsylvania had thousands of votes on the electronic voting machines before anyone started voting; voter challenges/intimidation in ohio).
If it comes down to lawyers - and it looks likely - expect to see the cases appealed to the Supreme Court regardless of who wins in the lower courts. And when it gets there, it's going to be met by a court short a Justice - Rehnquist is going to be out indefinitely due to recent chemo and radiation for his thyroid cancer. So there's a good chance of a split court 4-4 on the decision.
Wow, Rayonic must be really scared of this election. His posts have gotten considerably more psychotic over the last few days. We haven't seen such a mindless poseur since.. well, ever.
Hey Rayonic:) How was your orgy with j0nb0y and millahtime? Did you get any or did they make you watch again?
"The worst thing you can say about god is he's basically an underacheiver."
I wish I could remember where I heard/read that:)
Lesse.. all seeing.. check. All knowing, check. All powerful, check. Creations able to go 5 minutes without raping, torturing, enslaving or killing each other...//drunk now, fix later
I wrote a 3 page flame but then I realized I'm just wasting my time. So I'm just going to explain this like I would to a 3 year old.
>> the scientists went looking for proof of what they wanted to believe, that creationists are wrong.
1) Scientists don't go looking for evidence that creationists are wrong.. they go looking for evidence, period.
2) Creationists don't even look for evidence, they just spew venom and use their personal beliefs as "proof".
A typical scientific assertion is "the data are best explained by hypothesis X. Therefore, until a better explanation is posited, I the scientist will work under the theory that X is a valid description of reality." A typical religious assertion is "You're going to hell! You sinner! The bible tells us that Y! Therefore Y, and anyone who disagrees is a heretic! Burn the witches! Burn the heretics! Death to the unbelievers!"
This is how it's been since science hit the scene, and probably will be until either religion stops being so vindictive and neurotic, or religious zealots bring about a second Dark Age, or religious zealots kill us all. I'd like to include the alternative "or until religious people stop trying to deny reality", but honestly, I don't think that pig will ever fly.
PS, who modded parent insightful? Please wait until after your crack wears off before modding here. Also, ironically, despite parent's total ignorance it makes an interesting point. If scientists have indeed found proof that creationists are wrong, where does that leave creationism?:P
>>Also, there is also an "eyewitness" account being claimed here -- God's word in the Bible. How do we examine the trustworthiness of this account?
Sheesh, talk about obvious. All ya' have to do is ASK God. I mean, all seeing, all knowing, everywhere always.. it doesn't get easier or more obvious.
I asked God what the deal was with the whole "human origin" and "prime mover" (source of the universe) thingies the other day.. And God was all "Oh that? Like, I totally have some theories. Those biblical dudes couldn't deal with the ambiguity so they chalked it up to me. And I totally told them not to! Now everyone says I created everything and it's really been annoying me. I mean, I'm real laid back, I mostly get off on watching stuff happen. If I created people, they'd be totally more chill and stuff."
Like dude, now you know the real deal. It's the word of God.. like, dig it!
In all seriousness, what does "the bible" say about Hinduism, Greek polytheism, shinto, confucianism, janism? Should all those (perfectly valid) religions be ignored because they're not referred to in "the bible"? Not to mention that Buddhism does a damn good job of providing a conceptual framework and moral ground, without god At All.
For an election, we still have to vote.. so Kerry supporters all still have to go to the polls. What it REALLY means is that the Repubs have no chance, and should make their time (don't bother voting, Texas... you have no chance to survive:)
>>If there was concrete evidence that we were all created from God, there'd be scientists denying the fact.
You seem to have a misperception of scientists' motives. If there was concrete evidence of God creating the universe, that evidence would be used by scientists to better understand reality. You're confusing science with atheism. BTW, scientists have a tendency toward agnosticism, not atheism.
I find it frustrating that religious people (which by your post I suppose you are one, that or badly misinformed about science) think that because they base their worldview on faith, that everyone else does as well. Some of us are perfectly happy admitting that there are things which we do not yet know, and striving to find out in due time.
Your statement is also ironic, seeing that science is constantly challenged/attacked by the religious, who refuse to accept things because they are worried about implications for their beliefs.
To really consider the relation between the science and religion, there's some homework to do. Philosophically speaking, God can not be proved nor disproved. David Hume showed that all proofs of God beg the question of God's existence. That means they're circular proofs; they prove nothing. Similarly, when you're discussing a being/force which can by definition "do anything", it's child's play to refute any assertion based on faith; if someone says that God doesn't exist because of observation X, the retort is that God wants it that way, and is hiding.
If religious people want 100% of the population to believe in God, I have two suggestions: 1) Stop trying to assert that science is untrue on the basis of your personal beliefs. 2) Stop using your social identity as an excuse to do things which are clearly prohibited in your own code of conduct.
This still leaves the religious more "wiggle room" than I would like; but I think we can agree that we'd all get along better if we are considerate of each other's beliefs. And frankly, I have as much right to believe that physical reality has no cause but itself as others do to believe that physical reality must have a cause other than itself because nothing causes itself, therefore it's cause must be God, which has no cause because God has no cause but itself.
When Galileo concluded that the earth must go around the sun, it wasn't because he wanted to disprove God or destroy religion; it was because he observed reality. Galileo didn't attack the church; the church attacked Galileo. When Darwin published the Origin of the species, it wasn't his way of casting doubt on God or religion; it was his theory as to why animals are the way they are. Again, Darwin didn't attack the church, the church attacked Darwin.
What bothers me more than anything is that people who use faith to explain everything seem to have the least understanding of the nature of the spirit and the debate which they wish to participate in. Religion's value is in its charge to its followers to do the RIGHT thing. To help the weak and poor. To repay a wrong with a right. To love and forgive instead of hating and avenging. Religion also has speculative answers to questions which once were considered unanswerable. Now that some of those answers are proving to be *ahem* inexact, *certain* people are very upset. Instead of keeping their cool, they attack the messenger, and everyone who doesn't agree with them. The US is very backward, philosophically, in many places, and this is perpetuated by conservatives for political reasons. Liberals don't want to take your religion away people... we just want the same freedom you take for granted; to believe as we will and live as we choose. Evangelists have missed something here; that their right to swing their fist stops at my nose. You don't want schools teaching that God doesn't exist.. well guess what, they don't address that issue at all. We don't want *you* forcing us to live your lifestyle. You think you're "saving" people. But if atheists were to go around "saving" people from
>>Let's see. Who has the capability to snarf up a bunch of ballots.
Anyone who has access to the materials. You don't have to be the boss to have access.
>>Who else could do it? One of her employess, perhaps. Not sure how that could actually happen, since it is unlikely that the Eelection Supervisor's office would hand 58,000 envelopes to their gopher and say "drop these at the Post Office on your way home, will you?".
Yeah, I'm sure that they don't use employees to move the ballots... probably magic or alien transported technology. Much more likely than sending out a truck.
>> If only because 58,000 absentee ballots probably weighs in at 5+ tons.
5.8 pounds per ballot? Not likely. hey, I can make shit up too. I choose to live in reality instead. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree since you clearly insist on believing whatever's convenient enough to let you dismiss anything and everything you don't like hearing.
>>Won't it be funny if this reduces down to Ms. Snipes saying "Oops! We told the USPS it was the pallet in Warehouse 2, when it was actually the pallet in Warehouse 1 they should have picked up. My bad"?
Won't it be funny if this reduces down to the police investigation eventually fingering a hard core republican with mislabeling a few bins or just not calling the post office? Sure, it'd be funny. But your speculation and my speculation aren't important. The police will continue their investigation. If you don't like it, you can lump it.
>>1) Massive conspiracy of a level impossible to operate without someone finding out and blowing the whistle.
It doesn't need to be a "massive conspiracy". 58,000 ballots could be misaddressed purposely with a few keystrokes, or a few mailbins could be left in a storage room. Easy enough if it all happens at the source. As for no one "finding out"... there's an article on BBC. Clearly someone did find out. We're into *duh* territory here.
>>2) Error on behalf of election board or post office.
Which the post office themself says is highly unlikely. RTFA.
digitect>>It doesn't say 58,000 ballots are missing. What it says is that of 60,000 absentee ballots distributed, only 2,000 have been returned so far.
From the article: "Some 60,000 absentee ballots were despatched by authorities in Broward County, north of Miami, this month. However, only 2,000 of them have been delivered."
Delivered, not returned. Note the HUGE FREAKING DIFFERENCE. Why do you lie? What's in it for you? Especially such an obvious and easy to see through lie, since everyone can see in the FIRST PARAGRAPH that what you posted is blatantly untrue?
digitect>>There is no way the post office is going to loose 58,000 pieces of individually mailed letters, all which happen to be ballots.
Yeah, which means someone else probably did it. Now, lets see... who has a vested interest in and history of suppressing votes in florida... rrr.... reee.... repuh.... republi.... republicaaa... (note: the completion of this word is left as an excersize to anyone with at least one functioning brain cell).
digitect>> This is yet another case of Slashdot maliciously pumping false headlines and summaries to generate controversy (and thereby, hits) again.
Dude, you changed the wording of the story, then you attack slashdot for reporting something false. I think that digitect is clearly trolling.
digitect>>Would everybody please stop reading "Politics:" topics so we can get back to Nerd stuff please?
Oh, yeah, I'm going to turn my back on politics on the eve of debatably the most important election ever, because you don't like the light reality casts on a certain state or party. Don't like the truth? Try honesty. It's better than booze or church, and it's 100% compatible with reality!
How can I put this; you sir, have a brain. I wish the political discourse were more populated by people like yourself. I'd love to just sit back, laugh a little, and not really worry so much. But people like Rayonic, Cynic and their ilk make me scared; Anne Frank scared.
I disagree with the crybaby thing on the basis that we swallowed the supreme court thing without nationwide riots. But I haven't walked a mile in your shoes and maybe the dems in your neck of the woods whine more than the ones I know.
I can barely follow the news over the past week because NPR and WMHT/PBS always put Bush before Kerry even though those are *supposed* to be the liberal outlets.
However, I am going to send out a big kudos, or a hug, or something to you, because reading your post didn't set off my "wtf" alarms. If the republican party were running its campaign along realistic lines maybe I wouldn't have to do anger control excersizes every night (not your fault, MrBrown).
You didn't go to bizarroville to get my blood up or harrass me just for chuckles. That puts you comfortably into the acquaintanceship zone for me..
Damn, I do ramble don't I? Basically I'm saying that: although I stand by what I have said in the past, I believe a discussion with a person like you would be more agreeable than with Rayonic or Cynic. Kind of like, no offense, I guess. But specifically to you, because you're firmly grounded in reality.
Wow, it's really complicated being nice to people who deserve it without encouraging the rest. Maybe I'm a simpleton trying to encourage cordial and mature relations across party lines. Meh... it seems right. dare I *Submit*?
They didn't need to. Bush's rhetoric about "doing God's work" and "God speaks through me [bush]" and "this crusade" and the interminable drivel about "faith" and "consulting a higher father" make the crosses unnecessary.
well, I thought the plague of neo-con moderators had abated, but I guess I was wrong.
Parent is informative, not to mention insightful. I'm not surprised that conservatives abuse the moderation system, I'm just confused as to why they keep getting mod points. Maybe republicans are leeter than I thought?
[sarcasm] Right, only liberal bashing is insightful. Expressing frustration with the "faith based" delusions of the fundamentalist-aligned "conservative" party is trolling.[/sarcasm]
Trolling is when you post something false in feigned ignorance. Posting truths that are inconvenient to the VRWC is patriotic dissent.
Poor little repubs, being fed lies and loving it. You think islamic extremists want Bush out because Bush tells you that. Meanwhile islamic extremists want Bush to STAY because he turned a secular arab state into a terrorist recruiting ad and battleground, and fear Kerry because democrats actually have a leg to stand on international credibility wise.
You may not realize this, or you may just be using your "faith" to ignore painful realities. But a vote for Bush is a vote for another 9-11. It's a vote for strengthening alQaeda, and for making us less safe.
Why do you support alQaeda, moronikos? Does it have something to do with your poorly chosen but totally apt moniker?
Slashdot Mirror
With blood and words, same as now.
:/
First he tries to make a joke out of the political statement I made. There's nothing humorous about my post, but trb0001 takes it upon himself to try to take the wind out of my sails. He's consistently partisan.. we see a lot of people like him here lately.
trb, I know you know this but I'm going to say it for the benefit of anyone who might be confused by your little tirade. My post is not a joke. I am addressing fellow liberals (of which trb0001 is NOT one). So of course he wants to disrupt any discussion.
People like trb are not going to shut up. We need to do more than just reorganize; we need to restrategize. We need party unity and party discipline. If we turn our backs on politics now, we can forget about civil rights and a whole lot more. We can forget about freedom of religion. And we can look forward to the rich paying no taxes, the rest of us paying higher taxes, and our taxes going solely towards services for the rich.
But frankly all that is moot. We liberals have a lot of work to do and I'm not talking about our leaders alone.
Great.
My short response to the conservatives who are gathering like pirhannas is: I'm trying to talk to people in my party. You're going to tear me to pieces for having a view that's not the same as yours? And your going to skew things so you can make yourself sound good?
Whatever. Democrats and liberals need to get together among ourselves and we need referendum. Any conservative who attacks me for saying that is flamebaiting or trolling.
The conservative-liberal discussion has been going on for a long time. You're not going to convince me today to give up and become a born again christian or a hard core republican. But if you're just going to throw verbal garbage into the discussion, I'm not interested.
As for painting *ALL* southerners as racist, you're just fanning the flames. I clearly stated that we democrats CAN embrace the south WITHOUT embracing bigotry. Read the post.
DID you read my post? I'm not even arguing that Bush is bad or that conservatives should change. I'm saying that we liberals have to get our act together. Attacking me doesn't make me go "oh this is hard.. I'll give up now". I remember how you can't even let me talk without attacking and mischaracterizing what I said.
Thanks, you've reminded me once more of what I think of conservatives; that some are ok but mostly the ones who talk, aren't interested in discussion, only in partisan attacks.
Apparently the republicans are invulnerable to truth and reason. Fairly or unfairly, they've taken the election. Since the conservative trolls and their mod abusing partners are still running rampant, let me cut to the chase.
We as democrats face a strategic gap. Our agenda of promoting civil rights and defending the lower class and the environment isn't grabbing the middle aged voters. In order to turn back the tide of partisan villification and party unilateralism we need to have referendum.
As americans we already have the ability to contact our representatives. Because of the situation we are in, we need to do something more than that. We need our democratic representatives to lead us by calling us together to share our insights and regroup as democrats.
If we do not act now we will be swept away. Discussing our hopes and desires with our neighbors is not going to cut it. Similarly just contacting our reps isn't enough. We need to professionally analyze and resynthsize our mode of operation. Clearly something has to change. We can do this the dumb, easy way, and go about business as usual. Or we can take a comprehensive accounting of ourselves and act.
Beyond that, I have some minor opinions of what we need to do; but these are just guesses in the dark on my part. To firm up our strategy we need to organize. Here's my 2 cents:
The republican agenda is set at the top and their rhetoric is uniform - they listen to Rush Limbaugh and everyone knows what lie to use, what button to push to aggravate us, and which slur to accuse us with. IMHO, we need to fight fire with fire on this. I've heard that we democrats function best as a party when we work from the grassroots up. If this election was our best, we're screwed. We need to oppose fundamentalist christianity's drive to weld their theology to the federal government, but we can embrace christians in the middle and on our side without giving up that goal. Republicans often go against the teachings of Jesus. We need to bring christianity to the fore so that we can counter their "blah blah bible" arguments. We can still embrace non christians by preserving the constitutional foundations of the separation of church and state, and the freedom of religion.
We may want to look at the South, and see if there is room for compromise with southern ideals. Personally, I view the north-south differences in terms of slavery. It appears to me that the big issue we have to face with the south is bigotry against non-whites and non-fundamentalist christians. We can embrace southerners without embracing racism and theological intolerance.
Finally I think we have all seen how much damage the conservative media bias has done to the national discourse. Their spinjockeys and pundits pound out two messages continuously to all their members: The first message is one of reinforcing hatred of democrats. They brand us all as communists, all as unamerican, all as unpatriotic and they're getting cocky about calling us terrorists. We have to give them a few bloody noses or it's never going to end, and America will spiral into theocracy and or fascism.
The second message of the conservative pundit is the party message of the moment. They always have ammo. If you win a discussion on one topic, they turn on you with another. Every time you argue, you're arguing with Karl Rove. It's like playing chess against an army of Kasparovs.
We need to reassert our party identity, and then we need to fight tooth and nail.
One last thing... we need to use our philibuster ability. We may need to compromise unduly... but we can not give up entirely.
As Barak Obama said, the Arc of the Universe is long, but it bends toward justice.
We shall overcome.
should have been from the "told you so" department.
>>But those parts of it that opposes what the Bible teaches, especially fanciful Gods -- that bit must be dumped.
You're wrong, the bible must defer to the Torah. Jesus was a false prophet and all his followers are subject to the laws of Yahweh.
Both are stated positions are now arbitrary. The more you think you're right, the more I'll take it as a sign that I am right.
This is the only way I can express to you my faith - that religion is a personal choice which should not be pushed on others. The bible should neither supercede nor defer to any religion, nor should any religion do so.
BTW, I was raised nominally within western religious circles. I'm reading the Gita right now. Where you've left, I am headed. Where I've left, you're headed. Sort of parallels my opinion. We both disagree with each other. The difference is that you think I should change to be like you and I think you should stop thinking I should change to be like you. We both think the other should change; you think we should both be christian, I think you should accept that everyone makes their own choice.
But hey, maybe it's all a dream and we're both wrong. Or right for that matter, although I can't see how there could be two mutually exclusive ultimate foundations to a single reality, but then I'm just a human.
If it comes down to lawyers - and it looks likely - expect to see the cases appealed to the Supreme Court regardless of who wins in the lower courts. And when it gets there, it's going to be met by a court short a Justice - Rehnquist is going to be out indefinitely due to recent chemo and radiation for his thyroid cancer. So there's a good chance of a split court 4-4 on the decision.
Anyone think the congress could choose Kerry?
Hey Rayonic :) How was your orgy with j0nb0y and millahtime? Did you get any or did they make you watch again?
thanks :) I think you're right.
I wish I could remember where I heard/read that :)
Lesse.. all seeing.. check. All knowing, check. All powerful, check. Creations able to go 5 minutes without raping, torturing, enslaving or killing each other... //drunk now, fix later
>> the scientists went looking for proof of what they wanted to believe, that creationists are wrong.
1) Scientists don't go looking for evidence that creationists are wrong.. they go looking for evidence, period.
2) Creationists don't even look for evidence, they just spew venom and use their personal beliefs as "proof".
A typical scientific assertion is "the data are best explained by hypothesis X. Therefore, until a better explanation is posited, I the scientist will work under the theory that X is a valid description of reality." A typical religious assertion is "You're going to hell! You sinner! The bible tells us that Y! Therefore Y, and anyone who disagrees is a heretic! Burn the witches! Burn the heretics! Death to the unbelievers!"
This is how it's been since science hit the scene, and probably will be until either religion stops being so vindictive and neurotic, or religious zealots bring about a second Dark Age, or religious zealots kill us all. I'd like to include the alternative "or until religious people stop trying to deny reality", but honestly, I don't think that pig will ever fly.
PS, who modded parent insightful? Please wait until after your crack wears off before modding here. Also, ironically, despite parent's total ignorance it makes an interesting point. If scientists have indeed found proof that creationists are wrong, where does that leave creationism? :P
... but they'll deny it :)
Sheesh, talk about obvious. All ya' have to do is ASK God. I mean, all seeing, all knowing, everywhere always.. it doesn't get easier or more obvious.
I asked God what the deal was with the whole "human origin" and "prime mover" (source of the universe) thingies the other day.. And God was all "Oh that? Like, I totally have some theories. Those biblical dudes couldn't deal with the ambiguity so they chalked it up to me. And I totally told them not to! Now everyone says I created everything and it's really been annoying me. I mean, I'm real laid back, I mostly get off on watching stuff happen. If I created people, they'd be totally more chill and stuff."
Like dude, now you know the real deal. It's the word of God.. like, dig it!
In all seriousness, what does "the bible" say about Hinduism, Greek polytheism, shinto, confucianism, janism? Should all those (perfectly valid) religions be ignored because they're not referred to in "the bible"? Not to mention that Buddhism does a damn good job of providing a conceptual framework and moral ground, without god At All.
Sweet.. I can't wait to yell "Get over it!" to some republicans. :)
For an election, we still have to vote.. so Kerry supporters all still have to go to the polls. What it REALLY means is that the Repubs have no chance, and should make their time (don't bother voting, Texas... you have no chance to survive :)
You seem to have a misperception of scientists' motives. If there was concrete evidence of God creating the universe, that evidence would be used by scientists to better understand reality. You're confusing science with atheism. BTW, scientists have a tendency toward agnosticism, not atheism.
I find it frustrating that religious people (which by your post I suppose you are one, that or badly misinformed about science) think that because they base their worldview on faith, that everyone else does as well. Some of us are perfectly happy admitting that there are things which we do not yet know, and striving to find out in due time.
Your statement is also ironic, seeing that science is constantly challenged/attacked by the religious, who refuse to accept things because they are worried about implications for their beliefs.
To really consider the relation between the science and religion, there's some homework to do. Philosophically speaking, God can not be proved nor disproved. David Hume showed that all proofs of God beg the question of God's existence. That means they're circular proofs; they prove nothing. Similarly, when you're discussing a being/force which can by definition "do anything", it's child's play to refute any assertion based on faith; if someone says that God doesn't exist because of observation X, the retort is that God wants it that way, and is hiding.
If religious people want 100% of the population to believe in God, I have two suggestions: 1) Stop trying to assert that science is untrue on the basis of your personal beliefs. 2) Stop using your social identity as an excuse to do things which are clearly prohibited in your own code of conduct.
This still leaves the religious more "wiggle room" than I would like; but I think we can agree that we'd all get along better if we are considerate of each other's beliefs. And frankly, I have as much right to believe that physical reality has no cause but itself as others do to believe that physical reality must have a cause other than itself because nothing causes itself, therefore it's cause must be God, which has no cause because God has no cause but itself.
When Galileo concluded that the earth must go around the sun, it wasn't because he wanted to disprove God or destroy religion; it was because he observed reality. Galileo didn't attack the church; the church attacked Galileo. When Darwin published the Origin of the species, it wasn't his way of casting doubt on God or religion; it was his theory as to why animals are the way they are. Again, Darwin didn't attack the church, the church attacked Darwin.
What bothers me more than anything is that people who use faith to explain everything seem to have the least understanding of the nature of the spirit and the debate which they wish to participate in. Religion's value is in its charge to its followers to do the RIGHT thing. To help the weak and poor. To repay a wrong with a right. To love and forgive instead of hating and avenging. Religion also has speculative answers to questions which once were considered unanswerable. Now that some of those answers are proving to be *ahem* inexact, *certain* people are very upset. Instead of keeping their cool, they attack the messenger, and everyone who doesn't agree with them. The US is very backward, philosophically, in many places, and this is perpetuated by conservatives for political reasons. Liberals don't want to take your religion away people... we just want the same freedom you take for granted; to believe as we will and live as we choose. Evangelists have missed something here; that their right to swing their fist stops at my nose. You don't want schools teaching that God doesn't exist.. well guess what, they don't address that issue at all. We don't want *you* forcing us to live your lifestyle. You think you're "saving" people. But if atheists were to go around "saving" people from
Anyone who has access to the materials. You don't have to be the boss to have access.
>>Who else could do it? One of her employess, perhaps. Not sure how that could actually happen, since it is unlikely that the Eelection Supervisor's office would hand 58,000 envelopes to their gopher and say "drop these at the Post Office on your way home, will you?".
Yeah, I'm sure that they don't use employees to move the ballots... probably magic or alien transported technology. Much more likely than sending out a truck.
>> If only because 58,000 absentee ballots probably weighs in at 5+ tons.
5.8 pounds per ballot? Not likely. hey, I can make shit up too. I choose to live in reality instead. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree since you clearly insist on believing whatever's convenient enough to let you dismiss anything and everything you don't like hearing.
>>Won't it be funny if this reduces down to Ms. Snipes saying "Oops! We told the USPS it was the pallet in Warehouse 2, when it was actually the pallet in Warehouse 1 they should have picked up. My bad"?
Won't it be funny if this reduces down to the police investigation eventually fingering a hard core republican with mislabeling a few bins or just not calling the post office? Sure, it'd be funny. But your speculation and my speculation aren't important. The police will continue their investigation. If you don't like it, you can lump it.
It doesn't need to be a "massive conspiracy". 58,000 ballots could be misaddressed purposely with a few keystrokes, or a few mailbins could be left in a storage room. Easy enough if it all happens at the source. As for no one "finding out"... there's an article on BBC. Clearly someone did find out. We're into *duh* territory here.
>>2) Error on behalf of election board or post office.
Which the post office themself says is highly unlikely. RTFA.
From the article: "Some 60,000 absentee ballots were despatched by authorities in Broward County, north of Miami, this month. However, only 2,000 of them have been delivered."
Delivered, not returned. Note the HUGE FREAKING DIFFERENCE. Why do you lie? What's in it for you? Especially such an obvious and easy to see through lie, since everyone can see in the FIRST PARAGRAPH that what you posted is blatantly untrue?
digitect>>There is no way the post office is going to loose 58,000 pieces of individually mailed letters, all which happen to be ballots.
Yeah, which means someone else probably did it. Now, lets see... who has a vested interest in and history of suppressing votes in florida... rrr.... reee.... repuh.... republi.... republicaaa... (note: the completion of this word is left as an excersize to anyone with at least one functioning brain cell).
digitect>> This is yet another case of Slashdot maliciously pumping false headlines and summaries to generate controversy (and thereby, hits) again.
Dude, you changed the wording of the story, then you attack slashdot for reporting something false. I think that digitect is clearly trolling.
digitect>>Would everybody please stop reading "Politics:" topics so we can get back to Nerd stuff please?
Oh, yeah, I'm going to turn my back on politics on the eve of debatably the most important election ever, because you don't like the light reality casts on a certain state or party. Don't like the truth? Try honesty. It's better than booze or church, and it's 100% compatible with reality!
Okay, I love you bye bye!
I disagree with the crybaby thing on the basis that we swallowed the supreme court thing without nationwide riots. But I haven't walked a mile in your shoes and maybe the dems in your neck of the woods whine more than the ones I know.
I can barely follow the news over the past week because NPR and WMHT/PBS always put Bush before Kerry even though those are *supposed* to be the liberal outlets.
However, I am going to send out a big kudos, or a hug, or something to you, because reading your post didn't set off my "wtf" alarms. If the republican party were running its campaign along realistic lines maybe I wouldn't have to do anger control excersizes every night (not your fault, MrBrown).
You didn't go to bizarroville to get my blood up or harrass me just for chuckles. That puts you comfortably into the acquaintanceship zone for me..
Damn, I do ramble don't I? Basically I'm saying that: although I stand by what I have said in the past, I believe a discussion with a person like you would be more agreeable than with Rayonic or Cynic. Kind of like, no offense, I guess. But specifically to you, because you're firmly grounded in reality.
Wow, it's really complicated being nice to people who deserve it without encouraging the rest. Maybe I'm a simpleton trying to encourage cordial and mature relations across party lines. Meh... it seems right. dare I *Submit*?
BTW grandparent is mad funny.
Parent is informative, not to mention insightful. I'm not surprised that conservatives abuse the moderation system, I'm just confused as to why they keep getting mod points. Maybe republicans are leeter than I thought?
Trolling is when you post something false in feigned ignorance. Posting truths that are inconvenient to the VRWC is patriotic dissent.
You may not realize this, or you may just be using your "faith" to ignore painful realities. But a vote for Bush is a vote for another 9-11. It's a vote for strengthening alQaeda, and for making us less safe.
Why do you support alQaeda, moronikos? Does it have something to do with your poorly chosen but totally apt moniker?