Comment archive from the Big Dog Forum
As some of you know I have been doing a little teaching over at The Big's House. When Betsy posted an article from Jarhead Bob, I hung out at his site for a while but he censored at least half of my comments, and then all of them. Coward. To Bigdog's credit, he has censored nothing [see *Update]. But I got in the habit of keeping copies, partly for reference and partly because I don't trust these guys to not censor/delete comments. So now I have accumulated, in only a month and a half, an astonishing amount of pretty decent rightwing roast. It's approaching book length. Not sure if I should be proud or embarrassed about that.
I am going to dump it here for two reasons. It will be easier for me to use our powerful freethinker search engine to find material I am looking for and there is useful information here some insomniacs may enjoy reading.
[*UPDATE 1/19/2011: Turns out this is no longer true. A year and a half later, Bigdog bans me from his site and claims my infraction was posting the above paragraph! See this all explained here.
[*UPDATE 3/10/2011: My friend Adam has been roasting Bigdog even longer than I have. For some reason Bigdog likes to call him sexist if he points out some of the obvious errors of some of the conservative women who post there. It's a knee jerk defense that has no basis in reality. To show Bigdog's hypocrisy Adam has compiled a list Bigdog's incredibly nasty insults against women that he has posted over the years. Amazing hypocrisy: Bigdog's Attacks on Women.
Oldest first, latest material at the bottom.
Make some popcorn. Enjoy the roast.
Oh, I would like to have quoted directly more of the comments I was responding to but Bigdog said he didn't like that so I had to do less quoting. I have tried to insert [in square brackets], from memory, the gist of what I was responding to.
***********************************************
MAY 15
***
RAV
I don’t want or need the government stepping in to regulate/strangulate the [health] system. And it will.>>
DAR
Our system is strangulated right now. It's gotten so bad, almost half the doctors now want single payer. These are the wealthy guys, who would typically lean to the right. These numbers are way up since Hillary tried to fix this 15 years ago. The chickens are coming home to roost.
RAV
Please don’t compare US health care with ANY other nation.>>
DAR
No can do. That's absurd. There is a whole world out side of the US that too many Americans are oblivious to. Some countries are simply better at tackling certain problems than the US. We can actually LEARN things from them. And in the health care dept. we can learn a lot. Considering our wealth, ours is actually, in many respects, a national disgrace.
Please take a few minutes and watch this short clip:
60 Minutes: Charity Trying To Make Up For Failing U.S. Health Care System
http://crooksandliars.com/2008/03/03/60 ... re-system/
Then tell me you're proud of the way your country conducts it's medical health delivery system.
D.
****
BIG DOG: There is no right to paid health care, there is a right to access and everyone has that.>>
DAR
No they don't. They have last minute, emergency health care. And it's quite good. They are good at patching you up (especially gunshot wounds, for obvious reasons) and sending you on your way. Then the public eats the bill.
It's expensive, it's foolish and it cannot, and is not, in anyway considered "health care" that is accessible to everyone. It just means we draw the line at letting people crawl around and die in the streets. If you have a chronic, long term, no instant fix illness that can't be patched up quick (as so many people do), and you don't have insurance, in the US, YOU ARE SCREWED.
BIG
When illegals are taken out of the mix the number of uninsured goes to about 12 million.>>
DAR
Actually that's rubbish. You cannot back it up. Just try and see.
BIG
The government cannot run anything effectively. The postal service?>>
DAR
Actually, that was going to be my example. The US has an EXCELLENT postal system (far better than Canada's btw), and it is supplemented very well by private industry.
What we have seen is that the free market can not deliver a workable health care system. Too many trillions of revenue are drained out of the system. It has become unworkable. Time for the government to step in and at a minimum, offer another option.
BIG
The decision on what care is needed should be between a doctor and a patient and not have a government bean counter involved.>>
DAR
I'd rather have one, non-profit government bean counter agency than 1,500 for profit private insurance companies counting the beans. This is because, they end up taking a lot of the beans as profit.
BIG
I have written many times that there are ways to solve health care costs and one is to reduce litigation which consumes about 19 or every 20 dollars in health care.>>
DAR
You think litigation consumes about 19 of every 20 dollars in health care? That is, 95% of costs? Sorry, that's insane. Again, I challenge you to back that one up. It's a howler and it came from your bottom. Zero percent chance of it being true.
BIG
Daschle, who is involved in this, has written that the elderly need to accept their fate and the ailments that come with old age. In other words, they can die off instead of being treated.>>
DAR
I don't believe you. You made that up. Don't do that.
BIG
We will end up with a system where people like Obama, Bush, Clinton and the “elite” will get what they want, when they want and the rest of us will die waiting.>>
DAR
You are confused. That's the system we have now. The goal is to change it.
BIG
And the care in the US is the best in the world.>>
DAR
No it isn't. No study has shown this. And I can bury you in ones that show otherwise. In some respects, in some categories, it is quite good. The problem is in the cost and the delivery. That part is busted.
BIG
At least that is what my colleagues in the health care professions from around the world tell me.>>
DAR
Then they are lying to you or are so politically confused they can't think straight. Don't listen to them.
D.
----------------------------
Alec Dubro | An "F" in Health Care
"The New York-based Commonwealth Fund released a comprehensive cross-border study of health care systems in rich countries and, no surprise, ranks the US as pretty much last. Except when it comes to cost, that is. We pay more overall and get less," writes Alec Dubro. "What everyone who cares to look knows is that there are two health care systems in America - one for those with money and one for those without."
http://www.truthout.org/article/us-heal ... ent-report
The BIG Doggie DUMP
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - June 30)
BIG: "The 12 million number [no health insurance] is the result when all of GM’s deletions are taken out AND then the illegals."
DAR
I read the article you cited that that is not what it says. The article is very crafty and carefully worded. It's easy to see how you got that impression. The article, which I did read, refers to "non-citizens." The US has millions of legal, non-citizen residents. You make the incorrect leap that non citizens are illegals. Not so.
BIG: "Actually, there are around 9 million illegals and the number of truly uninsured is about 8.3 million. It is not rubbish, you can find it here."
DAR
Sorry, the 8.3 million figure is complete rubbish and not remotely supported even by your terribly distorted Spectator article. Your own article says:
"To be clear, the statistic is not pulled out of thin air. It comes from an annual report by the Census Bureau, which most recently pegged the number of uninsured at 45.7 million for 2007."
The article tries to knock down this number but IMO fails miserably. This is easy to show but it would take a little unpacking. If you post it in a forum where others can learn from a good debunk I will gladly roast it to a crisp. Otherwise you will have to figure it out on your own.
cheerios,
D.
*****
BD: "I have said that I would be glad to embrace new Hybrid, or electric, or hydrogen cars, IF THEY WORKED, and if there was an infrastructure in place to refill, or re- charge, or re- whatever needs to be done.>>
DAR
Electric is going to be very tricky considering our battery technology only has, by weight, about 2% of the energy density of of gasoline.
Hydrogen is NOT a net source of energy and never will be. It has to be made/extracted/compressed and this always is a net energy loss. No exception to that rule.
Hybrids work very well. This is why Toyota has sold 1.7 million of them. But they are a bridge, they still use gas.
Natural gas has promise, for a while, then we will be out.
We have lots of coal and it can be liquified, but we throw about half of it away in the process.
BD: ...we need to drill for oil and gas on both coasts. Our finances dictate that we use our own fuel, and refine it here, and sell it here.>>
DAR
We will certainly do that. It's inevitable. But the US only has a tiny amount of the world's dwindling reserves and he have already burned up all of the stuff that's easy to get to. Going to all of this trouble to get the last remaining amounts just so some silly bunny can put it in his Hummer, well, that's dumb. The clock is ticking. Time to be smart, not dumb.
BD: "...it is really the environmentalists, who say no to oil and gas, say no to coal, say no to nuclear power, say no to ethanol, and say no to both solar and wind,...>>
DAR
Oil and gas are a bridge running out. Coal puts out tremendous amounts of C02, nuke has hope (and I fight the environmentalists on this), ethanol is a joke and a net energy loss. No environmentalists say no to solar and wind. That's ridiculous.
D.
***
DAR
I've already shown that the record of democratic presidents out performs the record of republican presidents in nearly all objective, normative categories we can judge presidents by.
For instance, see:
http://www.academycomputerservice.com/e ... charts.htm
And: http://tinyurl.com/5gbjeg
Imagine if the demo's had held all controlling power of branches of government as the repub's have for six of the last eight years. Imagine that the shit had hit the fan, by all normal measurements, as it had under Bush. Would you find it at all persuasive if someone said, "yeah well, both parties suck and one isn't any better than the other." I certainly hope not.
There comes a time those who had power really need to take some responsibility for their having pooped the national bed so badly. It seems they don't want to take this responsibility but fortunately, the American people are overwhelmingly holding them responsible. And that is as it should be.
***
MAY 18
***
BLAKE: "My personal take on the situation is that people are beginning to shy away from the personal attacks of ridicule that those who choose life..."
DAR
My personal take is that these cherry picked polls are "outliers" and don't mean much. Fivethirtyeight has a good rebuttal to this here:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/ ... undup.html
BLK: "How someone could favor an abortion over a live baby is beyond me-..."
DAR
Well then if you ever have to make that decision you can decide to keep it. Others have different circumstances and will decide differently.
BLK: "There is no difference between [abortion], and shooting someone who was ahead of you in the line for a burger"
DAR
There is a huge difference. One is a person with full human rights, the other is a fetus dependent upon the body of another person and without the status or rights of personhood.
BLK: "what do you... call him when you have dragged his lifeless body from the protection of his mother’s womb?"
DAR
A fetus who has passed away.
D.
***
DAR
I read the article you cited that that is not what it says. The article is very crafty and carefully worded. It's easy to see how you got that impression. The article, which I did read, refers to "non-citizens." The US has millions of legal, non-citizen residents. You make the incorrect leap that non citizens are illegals. Not so.
BIG: "Actually, there are around 9 million illegals and the number of truly uninsured is about 8.3 million. It is not rubbish, you can find it here."
DAR
Sorry, the 8.3 million figure is complete rubbish and not remotely supported even by your terribly distorted Spectator article. Your own article says:
"To be clear, the statistic is not pulled out of thin air. It comes from an annual report by the Census Bureau, which most recently pegged the number of uninsured at 45.7 million for 2007."
The article tries to knock down this number but IMO fails miserably. This is easy to show but it would take a little unpacking. If you post it in a forum where others can learn from a good debunk I will gladly roast it to a crisp. Otherwise you will have to figure it out on your own.
cheerios,
D.
*****
BD: "I have said that I would be glad to embrace new Hybrid, or electric, or hydrogen cars, IF THEY WORKED, and if there was an infrastructure in place to refill, or re- charge, or re- whatever needs to be done.>>
DAR
Electric is going to be very tricky considering our battery technology only has, by weight, about 2% of the energy density of of gasoline.
Hydrogen is NOT a net source of energy and never will be. It has to be made/extracted/compressed and this always is a net energy loss. No exception to that rule.
Hybrids work very well. This is why Toyota has sold 1.7 million of them. But they are a bridge, they still use gas.
Natural gas has promise, for a while, then we will be out.
We have lots of coal and it can be liquified, but we throw about half of it away in the process.
BD: ...we need to drill for oil and gas on both coasts. Our finances dictate that we use our own fuel, and refine it here, and sell it here.>>
DAR
We will certainly do that. It's inevitable. But the US only has a tiny amount of the world's dwindling reserves and he have already burned up all of the stuff that's easy to get to. Going to all of this trouble to get the last remaining amounts just so some silly bunny can put it in his Hummer, well, that's dumb. The clock is ticking. Time to be smart, not dumb.
BD: "...it is really the environmentalists, who say no to oil and gas, say no to coal, say no to nuclear power, say no to ethanol, and say no to both solar and wind,...>>
DAR
Oil and gas are a bridge running out. Coal puts out tremendous amounts of C02, nuke has hope (and I fight the environmentalists on this), ethanol is a joke and a net energy loss. No environmentalists say no to solar and wind. That's ridiculous.
D.
***
DAR
I've already shown that the record of democratic presidents out performs the record of republican presidents in nearly all objective, normative categories we can judge presidents by.
For instance, see:
http://www.academycomputerservice.com/e ... charts.htm
And: http://tinyurl.com/5gbjeg
Imagine if the demo's had held all controlling power of branches of government as the repub's have for six of the last eight years. Imagine that the shit had hit the fan, by all normal measurements, as it had under Bush. Would you find it at all persuasive if someone said, "yeah well, both parties suck and one isn't any better than the other." I certainly hope not.
There comes a time those who had power really need to take some responsibility for their having pooped the national bed so badly. It seems they don't want to take this responsibility but fortunately, the American people are overwhelmingly holding them responsible. And that is as it should be.
***
MAY 18
***
BLAKE: "My personal take on the situation is that people are beginning to shy away from the personal attacks of ridicule that those who choose life..."
DAR
My personal take is that these cherry picked polls are "outliers" and don't mean much. Fivethirtyeight has a good rebuttal to this here:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/ ... undup.html
BLK: "How someone could favor an abortion over a live baby is beyond me-..."
DAR
Well then if you ever have to make that decision you can decide to keep it. Others have different circumstances and will decide differently.
BLK: "There is no difference between [abortion], and shooting someone who was ahead of you in the line for a burger"
DAR
There is a huge difference. One is a person with full human rights, the other is a fetus dependent upon the body of another person and without the status or rights of personhood.
BLK: "what do you... call him when you have dragged his lifeless body from the protection of his mother’s womb?"
DAR
A fetus who has passed away.
D.
***
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - June 30)
MAY 19, 2009
***
BLAKE: I might also add,” rights” are not rights,...">>
DAR
Actually, "rights" are by definition, "rights." Think about it.
BLK: "they are more correctly called privileges, as there are countries where our “rights” would be laughed at.>>
DAR
And there are countries where people laugh at our lack of rights. Lots of specific examples provided upon request.
BLK: In the end, humans have only two real rights- the right to be born, and the right to die.>>
DAR
Neither of those are "rights" in the normative sense of the word but maybe you're being poetic. Due to long and difficult efforts at law creation, we actually do have certain rights. But they are man made. In almost all instances, a fetus doesn't have any human rights kick in until they are born. That's just the way it is.
BLK
It is you who wishes to take away rights.>>
DAR
No, I am for more rights, for persons.
BLK
And you want to play God and decide?>>
DAR
Because of circumstances beyond my control, I will never have the option of "playing God" on this issue.
And if the God you mention is the God of Bible, God's position on this is clear. A fetus has no rights of personhood. The Lord, is pro-choice, bigtime, no exceptions.
As I've shared in another thread, my concise evidence for this claim can be found here:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/fetus.shtml
D.
****
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my comments Victoria. Let me respond to yours.
****
VIC: Darrel I am sorry but you cannot use the Bible to justify abortion>>
DAR
I would never use the Bible to justify abortion. I don't believe the Bible. Not most of it anyway. But I spent about 10,000 hours in church and am a bit of an amateur scholar and wrote a book about the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.
VIC: ...and say that it is right and especially by taking verses out of context.>>
DAR
Feel free to add all the context you want. The more the better. I am well aware of the context and it doesn't change any of my claims in the slightest.
VIC: Genesis Chapter 25:
(the Hebrew word used, banim, plural of ben), commonly refers to children after birth, and often has a more specific meaning “sons.”>>
DAR
Apparently it also can on occasion apply to a fetus. And this is supposed to show what exactly? That Jews did not consider a fetus a person is clear and I have provided many specific examples. A woman can rub her tummy and talk about how her fetus has the potential to become a baby, but this says nothing about how a society considered the legal status of a fetus.
VIC: “leaped in her [Elizabeth’s] womb”>>
DAR
I don't think anyone would deny that a fetus can kick. Even a fetus without a brain. This says nothing about the status of a fetus.
Jesus gave lots of commands, rules and suggestions, but he never took a moment to say a word about abortion. Not one word. Moses had 600 or so very important laws to deal with, but again, not a word about abortion. A curious oversight.
VIC: In Old Testament Israel, a criminal injury that caused a pregnant woman’s unborn child to die was treated the same as any other murder. The criminal was punished less severely, only if the baby was born alive, although premature (Exodus 21:22-25, NKJV).>>
DAR
The NKJV is a evangelical translation put together by pseudo scholars who were required to take oaths about their faith. I have a whole section on these dishonest translations in my book. Scholars don't take it seriously because they play games with verses like the above to please evangelicals who buy their books. Even the KJV is more honest.
I deal with this example in my tract. It's #1. See what the scholarly translations say. They show that in this verse a fetus is specifically given less than personhood value.
As were slaves by the way. See the preceding verse where it is allowable to beat a slave to death as long as the slave takes a day or two to die. "Sanctity of human life" indeed.
VIC: Right throughout Scripture, murder—that is the intentional killing of innocent humans—is regarded as a heinous sin....>>
DAR
What a bizarre notion. The Bible is filled to the brim with mass slaughter of men women and child and the unborn (God even kills David's baby because he's made at David). I can give you literally hundreds of examples. It's hard to imagine how a book filled with such genocidal slaughter could have less of a regard for human life or "killing innocent humans." Unless you want to suggest that because they were killed, they were therefore guilty and their death was justified.
But that would be more than a little self-serving wouldn't it?
Darrel.
****
BIGDOG
The legal definition is that an unborn child is not a person,...>>
DAR
You got that part exactly right.
BIG
unless of course the pregnant mother is killed because then the perp is charged with 2 murders.>>
DAR
Really? Is that true? Shouldn't be but sometimes goofy things happen out in the fringe states.
BIG:
Or if the mother abuses drugs and the child is born retarded, then she is charged with abuse.>>
DAR
Well, prosecutors can bring all sorts of charges can't they?
BIG: How can you murder or abuse that which is not a person?>>
DAR
You just shown (or at least claimed) above that it can be done. Murder means wrongful killing. This is just question begging.
BIG: The non legal definition of a person is a HUMAN.>>
DAR
"Human" is a biological, scientific term. My toenails are "human." When you say "a human" you are simply begging the question.
BIG: An embryo is a human the moment the 23 chromosomes of the father combine with the 23 chromosomes of the mother.>>
DAR
Nope. If we have two test tubes in front of us and one has a canine embryo and the other a human embryo, we may say one is canine and one is human, we do not say one is "a dog" and the other is "a human."
There is a difference between a "a dog" and a dog embryo.
There is a substantive difference between a pecan, and pecan tree. One has the potential to become a pecan tree and has very little value and the other is a pecan tree and can have a great value. We got a 147 lbs from our pecan tree last year. Great tree! There is a difference between the potential and the actual and it's not useful to pretend there isn't.
BIG: A unique human is formed and its height, eye and hair color and sex are all determined and (unless it is an identical twin) there will be no other like it.>>
DAR
My body produces hundreds of thousands of sperm per day. By design, almost all will be discarded as will almost all of a woman's eggs (never mind that the female body discards many if not most embryos too). Each sperm is unique. My pecan tree will produce millions of seeds in a year (and 12,000 pecans in a good year). Each seed is unique. The moral of this story? Nature, or a designer, doesn't give a flip about "unique." Every sperm is indeed "not sacred," by design. And unique doesn't even address the issue anyway.
BIG They [blacks] were PEOPLE just like us and deserved to be treated as such.>>
DAR
Right. Except when they were a fetus. Then they don't have the same rights as a person.
BIG: the Bible says that the life is in the blood and an unborn child has blood running through it.>>
DAR
Right. *The mothers blood.* She had it first and she is sharing it, if she wishes. This is just another reason a fetus does not (and actually cannot) have separate personhood status.
My claims regarding the Bible come from standard mainstream Christian scholarship and standard historical reference works regarding the Jews. There is nothing in the Bible against abortion, and several verses supporting it and many others showing that a fetus has less than person status. See my tract and Oxford reference for a start.
BIG: We allow her to abort in this country until well after it could survive without her.>>
DAR
With few exceptions, that's pretty much a myth some pass around. Most of the rather rare late term abortions are for health reasons or because the fetus has no brain etc.,.
BIG: ...the child is still dependent on her for everything except breathing when it is born. Can she murder it then if it is a burden to her and her body?>>
DAR
Nope. In the Bible, if the child was disobedient or stubborn, of course then you could kill it (Deut. 21:18).
thanks for the reply Big Dog.
Darrel.
****
BIG: Darrel, you took Biblical references out of context...>>
DAR
You say this but you provide no evidence or example of how context changes anything I've said. Add all the context you like.
BIG: and nowhere does it say that God is in favor of abortion.>>
DAR
I never said anyone "is in favor" of abortion. But the God of the Bible, and the Jews who wrote it, clearly did not consider a fetus to have the status of a person. That's why they weren't counted in a census (until 30 days old in fact). If they are persons, you count them as persons. But by law, they were not counted. Why do you think?
BIG: The definition of a person that you use is a legal one.>>
DAR
When speaking about the status, or non status of an entity within in society, of course you would use a legal one and not a biological one.
BIG: The dictionary definition is that a person is a human.>>
DAR
This is a word game. All persons are human. Whether all humans are persons, is of course the very question at hand. Don't beg the question.
BIG: A fetus is a human.>>
DAR
If the mother is a human, then yes, the fetus is put in the scientific biological category of Homo sapien. And your pointing this out is useful how?
BIG: Remember the way it works. If a person is a human and a fetus is a human than a fetus is a person.>>
DAR
If a chicken is a bird and an egg is a chicken then an egg is a chicken!
You don't know the difference between an egg and chicken? I assure you, there is a difference!
BIG: Your evidence is incorrect and taken quite out of context.>>
DAR
You like to say this but you don't show how. I would really like to see it.
D.
****
God speaks of abortion twice in the Bible.
1) Accidental Abortion. If a brawling man happens to strike a pregnant
woman and causes a miscarriage, i.e., an ABORTION, he must pay a fine to
the expectant father. But if he otherwise injures the woman, he must be
punished accordingly (Exodus 21:22-25).
2) Intentional Abortion. Af a man suspects that his wife had had intercourse with another man--and possibly has become pregnant--he shall take her to the tabernacle, where the priest shall mix holy water with the dust off the floor--where animals are slaughtered for sacrifice--and force the woman to drink it. If she is guilty, her womb will discharge and her
uterus will drop. In other words, she will have an ABORTION (Numbers 5:11-21).
In neither case does God say that the fetus had a so-called "right to
life." A legitimate fetus has only a monetary value, but an illegitimate
fetus has no value at all.
***
A MOTHER: According to your logic, Dar, women also have no value.>>
DAR
No, actually I think women have 100% of the value of a person. This is unlike the Bible. You can read all about the actual monetary value of males and females. In cash value, God's word says females are worth about half. (Lev 27:2-7). I would have given them full value and not included that rule about them having to marry their rapist. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
A MOM: Exodus 21:22 - When men strive together...>>
DAR
Right, a very good example. My response:
If men have a fight and one of them causes a pregnant woman to miscarry, the penalty was a fine; if the mother was harmed, it was "life for life" (Exod. 21:22,23). While a small number of politically correct fundamentalist Bibles try to fix this verse (NIV), all of the major scholarly translations think the best way to translate the literal “goes forth” in Ex. 21:22 is with the word “miscarriage.”
This includes:
* Revised Standard Version
* The American Standard
* New English Bible
* Today's English Version
* The Douay-Rheims Bible
* The Jerusalem Bible
A small fine was levied because the woman, and fetus were the man's property and someone had harmed his chattel. This verse shows a fetus had less than full human status otherwise it would have been "life for life" for the miscarriage. But it wasn't. A small fine was levied as if an animal had been killed.
A MOM: This is the taxing value, Dearest Dar, not the value of a life…>>
DAR
If they are a person, why don't you count them as a person and tax them? Because they were not considered a person.
A MOM: Numbers 3:15 “...from a month old and upward you shall list.”
Do you think this could possibly be due to the infant mortality rate?>>
DAR
I think so yes and have already quoted scholars who agree. But the reason hardly matters. If it is a person, why wouldn't you count them as a person? Because they did not give them the value of a person.
This is standard scholarly and historical information anyone can discover with a library card. I wish ministers would stop lying to their flocks about these things.
See this for a standard respected Christian reference on this topic:
"The Oxford Companion to the Bible"; edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan; Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 4
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1477&start=140#p18651
D.
----------------
“For census purposes in Numbers 3:15, only male babies older than one month were to be counted. Below this age, they were not considered persons to be counted.
Jewish law is quite clear in its statement that an embryo is not reckoned a viable living thing (in Hebrew, bar kayama) until thirty days after its birth. One is not allowed to observe the Laws of Mourning for an expelled fetus. As a matter of fact, these Laws are not applicable for a child who does not survive until his thirtieth day."
Since the fetus is not considered a person under Jewish law, it would be impossible to consider its abortion a murder. Indeed, most Jewish scholars have agreed that abortion was legal under Jewish law.” --Steve Kangas
****
DAR
I was there for my son's cesarean birth in 1990. The doctor was against it but my wife insisted. I grew up on a dairy farm and saw a lot of graphic surgical things. Abortion is not nice. No one wants to have an abortion, but some need to. It's not my place to tell a woman what to do with her body.
If you have any arguments besides distorted made up appeals to emotion I would be pleased to consider them.
Regarding the abortion issue in the US, it's established law and that genie will not be going back in the bottle. I just wish people would stop making up stuff about the Bible.
D.
------------------
Oxford Companion to the Bible, a standard Christian reference work, article on 'Abortion' page 4:
"Biblical legislation, as in Leviticus 27:3-7, indicates that the lives of children as well as women were not valued as highly as those of adult men, while no value whatsoever was given to a child under the age of one month. There is no indication that a fetus had any status."
****
BigDog: You claim there is no life at conception.>>
DAR
Never did, never would. I'll even go a step further back. Sperm are alive. Are they persons? No. Human? Yes. Human sperm. Female eggs are alive also.
Oh, and I was wrong on my sperm math. Human males make about 200 million a day. Apparently the designer of the human body didn't consider them very precious.
BIGD: Since God defined the life of the flesh as being in the blood (Lev 17:11) then there is no doubt the fetus is a life...>>
DAR
You keep trying to equivocate. Of course a fetus is alive so it has "a life." So does bacteria. Being alive doesn't bestow much value.
The fetus uses the mothers blood. This is more evidence of it's complete dependence on the mother.
Again, my Oxford Companion:
"The Rabbis ruled that the fetus was "animated" with a "life" similar to vegetables or animals, but only after birth did an immortal soul, a living person, a "nefesh adam," come into being. In fact, unless a full nine-month pregnancy was definitely known to have been completed, a female child was not considered a "bar Chaiyama" (a viable, living thing) until thirty days after its birth (males were required by the Law to be circumcised on the 8th day after birth, so a male only had to survive for eight days to be given a name).
The Talmud used the phrase, "ubar yerekh imo" ("The fetus is the thigh of its mother") [TB Hulin 58a and elsewhere] and, "the fetus is regarded as one of her limbs" [TB Gittin 23b]. Clearly, as the Rabbis understood the scriptures, the fetus is considered a "part of its mother" rather than an independent entity. [ Cf. "Marital Relations, Birth Control, and Abortion in Jewish Law" by David M. Feldman (New York: Schocken Books) , p. 253.] The Mishnah [Arakhin, I.4 (7a)] ruled that there is no need to wait for a pregnant woman convicted of a capital crime to give birth before being ex ecuted. The Talmud and the Mishnah have actually required abortion in cases where the mental or physical health of the mother was jeopardized by a pregnancy. [Ibid, p. 275]."
BIG: Show me in any example where the Bible mentions abortion.>>
DAR
The word "abortion" does not appear in the Bible. Clearly an oversight considering how important it is to Christians today. I already gave two instances of abortions in the Bible. Here they are again:
***
1) Accidental Abortion. If a brawling man happens to strike a pregnant
woman and causes a miscarriage, i.e., an ABORTION, he must pay a fine to
the expectant father. But if he otherwise injures the woman, he must be
punished accordingly (Exodus 21:22-25).
2) Intentional Abortion. Af a man suspects that his wife had had
intercourse with another man--and possibly has become pregnant--he shall
take her to the tabernacle, where the priest shall mix holy water with the
dust off the floor--where animals are slaughtered for sacrifice--and force
the woman to drink it. If she is guilty, her womb will discharge and her
uterus will drop. In other words, she will have an ABORTION (Numbers
5:11-21).
D.
****
A MOM: "I chose to keep said “fetus” and now I have a healthy child.">>
DAR
I am glad you made a decision that you are pleased with and it turned out well for you. Others will decide differently.
A MOM: "Exodus 21:22-25
When men strive together and hit a woman pregnant woman, so that her children come out..."
DAR
Here is the history of that verse and how it applies to this issue:
***
Pro-choice activists have a near-argument stopper in Exodus 21:22-23:
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury [i.e., to the mother], the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury [i.e., to the mother], you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot"
The traditional interpretation of this text, which even rabbinical scholars accepted for thousands of years, is this: if a man hurts a woman enough to cause a miscarriage, he reciprocates according to how much injury he caused her, i.e., an eye for an eye, etc. However, if the miscarriage resulted in no injury to the woman, then all the assailant had to pay was a monetary fine. The fact that the Bible does not equate the assailant's life with the stillborn's life is proof that the Bible does not count the fetus as a person.
This was the traditional interpretation -- until recently, that is, when pro-life Christians became alarmed by the pro-choice side's successful use of it in the debate on abortion. They took a close second look at the passage, and discovered a second possible interpretation. The text actually turns out to be ambiguous. It does not say who exactly suffers the "mischief" or harm; it could be the fetus as well as the mother. In that case, a miscarriage resulting in a live birth was punishable by a monetary fine, but a miscarriage resulting in fetal injury or death would call for the same from the assailant.
This new interpretation suffers from three drawbacks. First, the Jews, who know their own tradition best, have always accepted the first interpretation. Second, the laws of surrounding cultures (Assyrians, Hittites, Sumerians, Babylonians, Hammurapi and Eshnunna) were similar to Israel's, due to widespread copying of laws. There is no ambiguity in their laws; any harm caused clearly refers to the mother. Finally, miscarriages in ancient times almost always resulted in stillbirths; saving premature babies is an achievement of modern science."
regards,
Darrel
------------------
"Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' " 5 In the case of a "feet-first" delivery, it happens when most of the fetal body is outside the mother's body."
--http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm
****
KAT: Scientifically, that DNA is human DNA, it is at its appropriate level of development, and It. Is. Fully. Human. Period.>>
DAR
Of course. But having a speck of human DNA doesn't necessarily equate to the value of a human, or person. We discard human cells and human DNA all the time. Every cell has a complete copy of the whole and has the potential to be made into the complete creature. There is a difference between the potential to have something and actually having something. You should learn this difference.
KAT: [insults snipped] Therefore, I’ll “answer a fool according to his folly” and not continue arguing when said fool,...>>
DAR
So you're going to not respond to my points, you're going to run. I understand.
KAT: since you choose to use Scripture - when you use it - wrongfully,...>>
DAR
Please show where I have ever used scripture "wrongfully." You can't do it.
Let's review. Here is what I am claiming.
1) Current society does not consider a fetus a person. This is why we don't count them in a census, why they can travel without a passport, and why they don't have to buy a ticket when taken to the movies.
This claim is so obviously true I think anyone with an IQ above room temperature can understand it is true.
2) The Bible, the God of the Bible and the people who wrote did not consider a fetus a person. This is why they did not count them in a census. This is why women were regularly run through with the sword on God's command. This claim is supported by the mass of standard mainstream Christian scholarship and can easily be confirmed by visiting your local library. Don't bother going to the little library in your church with the big section of Josh McDowell books. Those books are written by fundies for fundies and are not scholarly and are not taken seriously outside of evangelical circles (because they are rubbish).
D.
----------------
See also:
What Does The Bible Say About Abortion?
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php
****
VIC: "...you don’t believe in the Bible. So why are you using it as an argument?"
DAR
Thanks for the question Victoria. I do not base my personal beliefs about abortion on the Bible. Now, regarding the question, is the Bible pro-choice? Did the writers, inspired or not, consider a human fetus, as having the value of a personhood?
That is an interesting historical and theological question. And we have an answer to that question. They did not.
VIC: "and you think you are a scholar but I just have two verses for you...>>
DAR
I am an Arkansas goat farmer with a high school degree, but I have been studying the Bible since the 60's and it's a safe bet I know more about it than you do. So no need to toss little knee jerk scriptures at me.
Let's test my claim. Here is a little online Bible quiz. Multiple choice:
http://www.ffrf.org/bquiz.html
See how you do. I got 48 out of 50 correct.
That's 96%.
If you can do that well I'll give you a goat. Delivery not included.
Good luck!
D.
***
***
BLAKE: I might also add,” rights” are not rights,...">>
DAR
Actually, "rights" are by definition, "rights." Think about it.
BLK: "they are more correctly called privileges, as there are countries where our “rights” would be laughed at.>>
DAR
And there are countries where people laugh at our lack of rights. Lots of specific examples provided upon request.
BLK: In the end, humans have only two real rights- the right to be born, and the right to die.>>
DAR
Neither of those are "rights" in the normative sense of the word but maybe you're being poetic. Due to long and difficult efforts at law creation, we actually do have certain rights. But they are man made. In almost all instances, a fetus doesn't have any human rights kick in until they are born. That's just the way it is.
BLK
It is you who wishes to take away rights.>>
DAR
No, I am for more rights, for persons.
BLK
And you want to play God and decide?>>
DAR
Because of circumstances beyond my control, I will never have the option of "playing God" on this issue.
And if the God you mention is the God of Bible, God's position on this is clear. A fetus has no rights of personhood. The Lord, is pro-choice, bigtime, no exceptions.
As I've shared in another thread, my concise evidence for this claim can be found here:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/fetus.shtml
D.
****
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my comments Victoria. Let me respond to yours.
****
VIC: Darrel I am sorry but you cannot use the Bible to justify abortion>>
DAR
I would never use the Bible to justify abortion. I don't believe the Bible. Not most of it anyway. But I spent about 10,000 hours in church and am a bit of an amateur scholar and wrote a book about the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.
VIC: ...and say that it is right and especially by taking verses out of context.>>
DAR
Feel free to add all the context you want. The more the better. I am well aware of the context and it doesn't change any of my claims in the slightest.
VIC: Genesis Chapter 25:
(the Hebrew word used, banim, plural of ben), commonly refers to children after birth, and often has a more specific meaning “sons.”>>
DAR
Apparently it also can on occasion apply to a fetus. And this is supposed to show what exactly? That Jews did not consider a fetus a person is clear and I have provided many specific examples. A woman can rub her tummy and talk about how her fetus has the potential to become a baby, but this says nothing about how a society considered the legal status of a fetus.
VIC: “leaped in her [Elizabeth’s] womb”>>
DAR
I don't think anyone would deny that a fetus can kick. Even a fetus without a brain. This says nothing about the status of a fetus.
Jesus gave lots of commands, rules and suggestions, but he never took a moment to say a word about abortion. Not one word. Moses had 600 or so very important laws to deal with, but again, not a word about abortion. A curious oversight.
VIC: In Old Testament Israel, a criminal injury that caused a pregnant woman’s unborn child to die was treated the same as any other murder. The criminal was punished less severely, only if the baby was born alive, although premature (Exodus 21:22-25, NKJV).>>
DAR
The NKJV is a evangelical translation put together by pseudo scholars who were required to take oaths about their faith. I have a whole section on these dishonest translations in my book. Scholars don't take it seriously because they play games with verses like the above to please evangelicals who buy their books. Even the KJV is more honest.
I deal with this example in my tract. It's #1. See what the scholarly translations say. They show that in this verse a fetus is specifically given less than personhood value.
As were slaves by the way. See the preceding verse where it is allowable to beat a slave to death as long as the slave takes a day or two to die. "Sanctity of human life" indeed.
VIC: Right throughout Scripture, murder—that is the intentional killing of innocent humans—is regarded as a heinous sin....>>
DAR
What a bizarre notion. The Bible is filled to the brim with mass slaughter of men women and child and the unborn (God even kills David's baby because he's made at David). I can give you literally hundreds of examples. It's hard to imagine how a book filled with such genocidal slaughter could have less of a regard for human life or "killing innocent humans." Unless you want to suggest that because they were killed, they were therefore guilty and their death was justified.
But that would be more than a little self-serving wouldn't it?
Darrel.
****
BIGDOG
The legal definition is that an unborn child is not a person,...>>
DAR
You got that part exactly right.
BIG
unless of course the pregnant mother is killed because then the perp is charged with 2 murders.>>
DAR
Really? Is that true? Shouldn't be but sometimes goofy things happen out in the fringe states.
BIG:
Or if the mother abuses drugs and the child is born retarded, then she is charged with abuse.>>
DAR
Well, prosecutors can bring all sorts of charges can't they?
BIG: How can you murder or abuse that which is not a person?>>
DAR
You just shown (or at least claimed) above that it can be done. Murder means wrongful killing. This is just question begging.
BIG: The non legal definition of a person is a HUMAN.>>
DAR
"Human" is a biological, scientific term. My toenails are "human." When you say "a human" you are simply begging the question.
BIG: An embryo is a human the moment the 23 chromosomes of the father combine with the 23 chromosomes of the mother.>>
DAR
Nope. If we have two test tubes in front of us and one has a canine embryo and the other a human embryo, we may say one is canine and one is human, we do not say one is "a dog" and the other is "a human."
There is a difference between a "a dog" and a dog embryo.
There is a substantive difference between a pecan, and pecan tree. One has the potential to become a pecan tree and has very little value and the other is a pecan tree and can have a great value. We got a 147 lbs from our pecan tree last year. Great tree! There is a difference between the potential and the actual and it's not useful to pretend there isn't.
BIG: A unique human is formed and its height, eye and hair color and sex are all determined and (unless it is an identical twin) there will be no other like it.>>
DAR
My body produces hundreds of thousands of sperm per day. By design, almost all will be discarded as will almost all of a woman's eggs (never mind that the female body discards many if not most embryos too). Each sperm is unique. My pecan tree will produce millions of seeds in a year (and 12,000 pecans in a good year). Each seed is unique. The moral of this story? Nature, or a designer, doesn't give a flip about "unique." Every sperm is indeed "not sacred," by design. And unique doesn't even address the issue anyway.
BIG They [blacks] were PEOPLE just like us and deserved to be treated as such.>>
DAR
Right. Except when they were a fetus. Then they don't have the same rights as a person.
BIG: the Bible says that the life is in the blood and an unborn child has blood running through it.>>
DAR
Right. *The mothers blood.* She had it first and she is sharing it, if she wishes. This is just another reason a fetus does not (and actually cannot) have separate personhood status.
My claims regarding the Bible come from standard mainstream Christian scholarship and standard historical reference works regarding the Jews. There is nothing in the Bible against abortion, and several verses supporting it and many others showing that a fetus has less than person status. See my tract and Oxford reference for a start.
BIG: We allow her to abort in this country until well after it could survive without her.>>
DAR
With few exceptions, that's pretty much a myth some pass around. Most of the rather rare late term abortions are for health reasons or because the fetus has no brain etc.,.
BIG: ...the child is still dependent on her for everything except breathing when it is born. Can she murder it then if it is a burden to her and her body?>>
DAR
Nope. In the Bible, if the child was disobedient or stubborn, of course then you could kill it (Deut. 21:18).
thanks for the reply Big Dog.
Darrel.
****
BIG: Darrel, you took Biblical references out of context...>>
DAR
You say this but you provide no evidence or example of how context changes anything I've said. Add all the context you like.
BIG: and nowhere does it say that God is in favor of abortion.>>
DAR
I never said anyone "is in favor" of abortion. But the God of the Bible, and the Jews who wrote it, clearly did not consider a fetus to have the status of a person. That's why they weren't counted in a census (until 30 days old in fact). If they are persons, you count them as persons. But by law, they were not counted. Why do you think?
BIG: The definition of a person that you use is a legal one.>>
DAR
When speaking about the status, or non status of an entity within in society, of course you would use a legal one and not a biological one.
BIG: The dictionary definition is that a person is a human.>>
DAR
This is a word game. All persons are human. Whether all humans are persons, is of course the very question at hand. Don't beg the question.
BIG: A fetus is a human.>>
DAR
If the mother is a human, then yes, the fetus is put in the scientific biological category of Homo sapien. And your pointing this out is useful how?
BIG: Remember the way it works. If a person is a human and a fetus is a human than a fetus is a person.>>
DAR
If a chicken is a bird and an egg is a chicken then an egg is a chicken!
You don't know the difference between an egg and chicken? I assure you, there is a difference!
BIG: Your evidence is incorrect and taken quite out of context.>>
DAR
You like to say this but you don't show how. I would really like to see it.
D.
****
God speaks of abortion twice in the Bible.
1) Accidental Abortion. If a brawling man happens to strike a pregnant
woman and causes a miscarriage, i.e., an ABORTION, he must pay a fine to
the expectant father. But if he otherwise injures the woman, he must be
punished accordingly (Exodus 21:22-25).
2) Intentional Abortion. Af a man suspects that his wife had had intercourse with another man--and possibly has become pregnant--he shall take her to the tabernacle, where the priest shall mix holy water with the dust off the floor--where animals are slaughtered for sacrifice--and force the woman to drink it. If she is guilty, her womb will discharge and her
uterus will drop. In other words, she will have an ABORTION (Numbers 5:11-21).
In neither case does God say that the fetus had a so-called "right to
life." A legitimate fetus has only a monetary value, but an illegitimate
fetus has no value at all.
***
A MOTHER: According to your logic, Dar, women also have no value.>>
DAR
No, actually I think women have 100% of the value of a person. This is unlike the Bible. You can read all about the actual monetary value of males and females. In cash value, God's word says females are worth about half. (Lev 27:2-7). I would have given them full value and not included that rule about them having to marry their rapist. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
A MOM: Exodus 21:22 - When men strive together...>>
DAR
Right, a very good example. My response:
If men have a fight and one of them causes a pregnant woman to miscarry, the penalty was a fine; if the mother was harmed, it was "life for life" (Exod. 21:22,23). While a small number of politically correct fundamentalist Bibles try to fix this verse (NIV), all of the major scholarly translations think the best way to translate the literal “goes forth” in Ex. 21:22 is with the word “miscarriage.”
This includes:
* Revised Standard Version
* The American Standard
* New English Bible
* Today's English Version
* The Douay-Rheims Bible
* The Jerusalem Bible
A small fine was levied because the woman, and fetus were the man's property and someone had harmed his chattel. This verse shows a fetus had less than full human status otherwise it would have been "life for life" for the miscarriage. But it wasn't. A small fine was levied as if an animal had been killed.
A MOM: This is the taxing value, Dearest Dar, not the value of a life…>>
DAR
If they are a person, why don't you count them as a person and tax them? Because they were not considered a person.
A MOM: Numbers 3:15 “...from a month old and upward you shall list.”
Do you think this could possibly be due to the infant mortality rate?>>
DAR
I think so yes and have already quoted scholars who agree. But the reason hardly matters. If it is a person, why wouldn't you count them as a person? Because they did not give them the value of a person.
This is standard scholarly and historical information anyone can discover with a library card. I wish ministers would stop lying to their flocks about these things.
See this for a standard respected Christian reference on this topic:
"The Oxford Companion to the Bible"; edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan; Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 4
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1477&start=140#p18651
D.
----------------
“For census purposes in Numbers 3:15, only male babies older than one month were to be counted. Below this age, they were not considered persons to be counted.
Jewish law is quite clear in its statement that an embryo is not reckoned a viable living thing (in Hebrew, bar kayama) until thirty days after its birth. One is not allowed to observe the Laws of Mourning for an expelled fetus. As a matter of fact, these Laws are not applicable for a child who does not survive until his thirtieth day."
Since the fetus is not considered a person under Jewish law, it would be impossible to consider its abortion a murder. Indeed, most Jewish scholars have agreed that abortion was legal under Jewish law.” --Steve Kangas
****
DAR
I was there for my son's cesarean birth in 1990. The doctor was against it but my wife insisted. I grew up on a dairy farm and saw a lot of graphic surgical things. Abortion is not nice. No one wants to have an abortion, but some need to. It's not my place to tell a woman what to do with her body.
If you have any arguments besides distorted made up appeals to emotion I would be pleased to consider them.
Regarding the abortion issue in the US, it's established law and that genie will not be going back in the bottle. I just wish people would stop making up stuff about the Bible.
D.
------------------
Oxford Companion to the Bible, a standard Christian reference work, article on 'Abortion' page 4:
"Biblical legislation, as in Leviticus 27:3-7, indicates that the lives of children as well as women were not valued as highly as those of adult men, while no value whatsoever was given to a child under the age of one month. There is no indication that a fetus had any status."
****
BigDog: You claim there is no life at conception.>>
DAR
Never did, never would. I'll even go a step further back. Sperm are alive. Are they persons? No. Human? Yes. Human sperm. Female eggs are alive also.
Oh, and I was wrong on my sperm math. Human males make about 200 million a day. Apparently the designer of the human body didn't consider them very precious.
BIGD: Since God defined the life of the flesh as being in the blood (Lev 17:11) then there is no doubt the fetus is a life...>>
DAR
You keep trying to equivocate. Of course a fetus is alive so it has "a life." So does bacteria. Being alive doesn't bestow much value.
The fetus uses the mothers blood. This is more evidence of it's complete dependence on the mother.
Again, my Oxford Companion:
"The Rabbis ruled that the fetus was "animated" with a "life" similar to vegetables or animals, but only after birth did an immortal soul, a living person, a "nefesh adam," come into being. In fact, unless a full nine-month pregnancy was definitely known to have been completed, a female child was not considered a "bar Chaiyama" (a viable, living thing) until thirty days after its birth (males were required by the Law to be circumcised on the 8th day after birth, so a male only had to survive for eight days to be given a name).
The Talmud used the phrase, "ubar yerekh imo" ("The fetus is the thigh of its mother") [TB Hulin 58a and elsewhere] and, "the fetus is regarded as one of her limbs" [TB Gittin 23b]. Clearly, as the Rabbis understood the scriptures, the fetus is considered a "part of its mother" rather than an independent entity. [ Cf. "Marital Relations, Birth Control, and Abortion in Jewish Law" by David M. Feldman (New York: Schocken Books) , p. 253.] The Mishnah [Arakhin, I.4 (7a)] ruled that there is no need to wait for a pregnant woman convicted of a capital crime to give birth before being ex ecuted. The Talmud and the Mishnah have actually required abortion in cases where the mental or physical health of the mother was jeopardized by a pregnancy. [Ibid, p. 275]."
BIG: Show me in any example where the Bible mentions abortion.>>
DAR
The word "abortion" does not appear in the Bible. Clearly an oversight considering how important it is to Christians today. I already gave two instances of abortions in the Bible. Here they are again:
***
1) Accidental Abortion. If a brawling man happens to strike a pregnant
woman and causes a miscarriage, i.e., an ABORTION, he must pay a fine to
the expectant father. But if he otherwise injures the woman, he must be
punished accordingly (Exodus 21:22-25).
2) Intentional Abortion. Af a man suspects that his wife had had
intercourse with another man--and possibly has become pregnant--he shall
take her to the tabernacle, where the priest shall mix holy water with the
dust off the floor--where animals are slaughtered for sacrifice--and force
the woman to drink it. If she is guilty, her womb will discharge and her
uterus will drop. In other words, she will have an ABORTION (Numbers
5:11-21).
D.
****
A MOM: "I chose to keep said “fetus” and now I have a healthy child.">>
DAR
I am glad you made a decision that you are pleased with and it turned out well for you. Others will decide differently.
A MOM: "Exodus 21:22-25
When men strive together and hit a woman pregnant woman, so that her children come out..."
DAR
Here is the history of that verse and how it applies to this issue:
***
Pro-choice activists have a near-argument stopper in Exodus 21:22-23:
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury [i.e., to the mother], the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury [i.e., to the mother], you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot"
The traditional interpretation of this text, which even rabbinical scholars accepted for thousands of years, is this: if a man hurts a woman enough to cause a miscarriage, he reciprocates according to how much injury he caused her, i.e., an eye for an eye, etc. However, if the miscarriage resulted in no injury to the woman, then all the assailant had to pay was a monetary fine. The fact that the Bible does not equate the assailant's life with the stillborn's life is proof that the Bible does not count the fetus as a person.
This was the traditional interpretation -- until recently, that is, when pro-life Christians became alarmed by the pro-choice side's successful use of it in the debate on abortion. They took a close second look at the passage, and discovered a second possible interpretation. The text actually turns out to be ambiguous. It does not say who exactly suffers the "mischief" or harm; it could be the fetus as well as the mother. In that case, a miscarriage resulting in a live birth was punishable by a monetary fine, but a miscarriage resulting in fetal injury or death would call for the same from the assailant.
This new interpretation suffers from three drawbacks. First, the Jews, who know their own tradition best, have always accepted the first interpretation. Second, the laws of surrounding cultures (Assyrians, Hittites, Sumerians, Babylonians, Hammurapi and Eshnunna) were similar to Israel's, due to widespread copying of laws. There is no ambiguity in their laws; any harm caused clearly refers to the mother. Finally, miscarriages in ancient times almost always resulted in stillbirths; saving premature babies is an achievement of modern science."
regards,
Darrel
------------------
"Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' " 5 In the case of a "feet-first" delivery, it happens when most of the fetal body is outside the mother's body."
--http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm
****
KAT: Scientifically, that DNA is human DNA, it is at its appropriate level of development, and It. Is. Fully. Human. Period.>>
DAR
Of course. But having a speck of human DNA doesn't necessarily equate to the value of a human, or person. We discard human cells and human DNA all the time. Every cell has a complete copy of the whole and has the potential to be made into the complete creature. There is a difference between the potential to have something and actually having something. You should learn this difference.
KAT: [insults snipped] Therefore, I’ll “answer a fool according to his folly” and not continue arguing when said fool,...>>
DAR
So you're going to not respond to my points, you're going to run. I understand.
KAT: since you choose to use Scripture - when you use it - wrongfully,...>>
DAR
Please show where I have ever used scripture "wrongfully." You can't do it.
Let's review. Here is what I am claiming.
1) Current society does not consider a fetus a person. This is why we don't count them in a census, why they can travel without a passport, and why they don't have to buy a ticket when taken to the movies.
This claim is so obviously true I think anyone with an IQ above room temperature can understand it is true.
2) The Bible, the God of the Bible and the people who wrote did not consider a fetus a person. This is why they did not count them in a census. This is why women were regularly run through with the sword on God's command. This claim is supported by the mass of standard mainstream Christian scholarship and can easily be confirmed by visiting your local library. Don't bother going to the little library in your church with the big section of Josh McDowell books. Those books are written by fundies for fundies and are not scholarly and are not taken seriously outside of evangelical circles (because they are rubbish).
D.
----------------
See also:
What Does The Bible Say About Abortion?
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php
****
VIC: "...you don’t believe in the Bible. So why are you using it as an argument?"
DAR
Thanks for the question Victoria. I do not base my personal beliefs about abortion on the Bible. Now, regarding the question, is the Bible pro-choice? Did the writers, inspired or not, consider a human fetus, as having the value of a personhood?
That is an interesting historical and theological question. And we have an answer to that question. They did not.
VIC: "and you think you are a scholar but I just have two verses for you...>>
DAR
I am an Arkansas goat farmer with a high school degree, but I have been studying the Bible since the 60's and it's a safe bet I know more about it than you do. So no need to toss little knee jerk scriptures at me.
Let's test my claim. Here is a little online Bible quiz. Multiple choice:
http://www.ffrf.org/bquiz.html
See how you do. I got 48 out of 50 correct.
That's 96%.
If you can do that well I'll give you a goat. Delivery not included.
Good luck!
D.
***
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - June 30)
MAY 19 continued...
***
BIG: "Pretend they are all his [Obama's] birth certificate. That is one document he has successfully kept under wraps.
What kind of country is this where classified information is freely released and a birth certificate is locked up tighter than Fort Knox?>>
DAR
I never really bothered to investigate this loony birth certificate nonsense some pass around.
Snopes has a nice debunk here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/bi ... ficate.asp
The state of Hawaii made Obama's birth available in June of last year. You can view it here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg
And I guess Obama's birth announcement published in the August 1961 edition of the Honolulu Advertiser was all part of some sneaky plan?
good grief,
D.
****
ADAM
I have always believed in an exception to women’s health, D->>
DAR
That's good. I have met people who believe the child should be saved in preference to the woman. How about rape and incest?
BLK: "...and yes, it is law- how established is the debatable point- that is like saying “Global Warming” is settled science. No, it is not,>>
DAR
Actually, it is. If you would like to tango on this, post your best arguments in the science section of our freethinker forum (or here) and I'll roast them to a crisp.
Link: viewforum.php?f=4
BLK: and to say that would be the height of ignorance.>>
DAR
Post it and I'll roast it. We'll see how high the ignorance goes.
BLK: The best we could truthfully say is that man does have an effect on our environment.>>
DAR
That's a rather vacuous claim.
BLK "...the disingenuous ” I would never tell a woman what to do with her body” is a lame attempt to disengage yourself from any responsibility for the death of a child.
DAR
a) it's a fetus, not a child
b) I take full responsibility for my position. I believe a woman should have the right to choose to have an abortion.
BLK: You would not have any trouble telling some woman not to smoke, would you?>>
DAR
If she's not blowing it in my face, why would I tell her that?
D.
****
BLK: "Gays do not reproduce, not if they stay faithfully gay, anyway."
DAR
Not so. The first successful artificial insemination occurred in 1784. So the technology goes way back. Gays have children all the time and it doesn't involve being "unfaithful."
http://www.asas.org/symposia/esupp2/Footehist.pdf
Heterosexual couples also regularly "reproduce" this way too, for a variety of reasons.
D.
***
DAR
Nope, "Promoting up-to-date, scholarly, information about the Bible" is only one of the nine listed things we do. See the rest here:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/aboutus.shtml
I don't hold any beliefs about the Bible that aren't exactly in line with what is taught in every religious studies program in every major university in America, as well as every major theological seminary that is independent of Christian financial pressure. I only make claims about the Bible that can be backed up with solid, mainstream, even mainstream Christian, Bible scholarship.
The problem is, America is filled to almost 1/3 with biblically illiterate people who have been lied to by their clergy. They are regularly fed absurdities that were discarded in serious scholarship well over 100 years ago. This is a problem. But I am a Bible missionary, and I can help.
BLK: "a place that is glad to twist the context of the Bible.">>
DAR
You keep saying this as if it means something. You have yet to provide a single, solitary, example.
Why don't you do this? I know why.
We've had our website up for about ten years. I have begged Christians to provide critical analysis and give feed back about anything inaccurate.
No takers yet. Two verses come to mind:
1 PET. 3:15 (RSV). “Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;”
JUDE 3. “. . . ye should earnestly contend for the faith.”
D.
***
BIGD: You claim not to believe the Bible. Then why use it?>>
DAR
If the matter in question is what is the biblical position on "X," I obviously have to refer to the Bible. I don't have to be a muslim or a follower of Islam to answer a similar question about the Quran.
BIG: The fact that the legal profession has defined a person as someone who has been born does not negate the fact that a fetus is a person by the non legal definition.>>
DAR
The legal profession? I am talking about our society. Our laws have been enacted by our elected representatives and the law of the land says a woman can terminate a pregnancy and kill her fetus. Agree or not, like it or not, this means our society deems that action, not murder.
BIG: I have asked you a number of times, was it OK for slaves to be beaten and killed since the law did not classify them as people?>>
DAR
No. Please note. I am NOT saying the correct moral answer is arrived at because of the law of the land or popular belief. That would be the fallacy (ad populum). I have provided no argument that abortion is morally right. We can have that discussion if you like but it gets much more murky on both sides. Please read carefully. I have said it is the law of the land, I have said my opinion is I agree with it. I have made these two claims:
1) our society does not consider a fetus a person
2) The Bible, the God of the Bible and the people who wrote it did not consider a fetus a person
I try to stay to claims I can back up. Those two are a slam dunk.
BIG: They were property, under the law, so was it OK to treat them badly?>>
DAR
According to the Bible (which is pro-slavery from start to finish), yes. You could beat your slave to death as long as it took a couple days for it to die. See Exod. 21:21.
According to me, no.
BIG: You have obviously not studied the Bible or you would understand the difference between the Old and New Testament and why things happened.>>
DAR
Yeah right. Hey Bigdog, take a few moments and take an online Bible quiz. It's multiple choice so you can use your quarter if you like. See if you can get 96% like I did.
http://www.ffrf.org/bquiz.html
BIG: I also wonder if Jews wrote every word of it. Had not some become Christians after Christ was executed?>>
DAR
The gospels are anonymous, the names were added later for convenience. Paul wrote most of the NT and is the only author in the NT that is confirmed. And don't forget Paul never met Jesus, and he never mentioned the gospels either (which were obviously written later). The Bible is Jewish from start to finish.
BIG
Scott Peterson was convicted of two murders for the death of his pregnant wife. How can that be if the fetus was not a person entitled to protection?>>
DAR
Wiki has:
"Peterson was convicted of first-degree murder with special circumstances for killing Laci and second-degree murder for killing the fetus she carried."
She was eight months pregnant so probably this was taken into consideration, as it should have been. Roe v. Wade also takes viability into consideration, this is why it is such a reasonable compromise. He is up for the death penalty which would not be the case if he had only killed the fetus. He probably wouldn't even have been charged with murder two for that except that he killed the mother and this was such a heinous and publicized case.
BIG: The law contradicts itself and it...>>
DAR
Sometimes our society and our laws do have contradictions (as with the laws in the Bible). This is why we have judges to interpret laws.
If Lacie had terminated her pregnancy, she would not be charged with murder. I am not for other people being able to kill someone else's fetus without their permission.
D.
***
DAR
You really want to defend this JUNK? Okay, I'll bite.
BIG: "certificate of live birth"
DAR
Yes, that's specifically what snopes said it was. I didn't read the whole article because I can't bring myself to even read a rebuttal to such nonsense. And I can stomach a lot of nonsense.
Consider:
***
This [conspiracy] view was rejected by the state authorities, the media and independent factchecking organizations. FactCheck.org was invited to view the Obama campaign's hard copy of the candidate's Certification of Live Birth and concluded:
t meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.[15]
The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health, Chiyome Fukino, issued a statement confirming that the state held Obama's "original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures".[1][2] Noting "there have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate", Fukino explained that the department was prohibited by state law from releasing it to "persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record." She stated: "No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai'i.
...
A birth notice for Barack Obama was published in two local newspapers in August 1961.[50][15] Such notices were sent to newspapers routinely by the Hawaii Department of Health.[50]
17 cases have been filed:
"No such suit has yet resulted in the grant of any relief to the plaintiffs by any court."
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Oba ... y_theories
Holy cow, just how deep and how wide is this conspiracy?!
D.
***
***
BIG: "Pretend they are all his [Obama's] birth certificate. That is one document he has successfully kept under wraps.
What kind of country is this where classified information is freely released and a birth certificate is locked up tighter than Fort Knox?>>
DAR
I never really bothered to investigate this loony birth certificate nonsense some pass around.
Snopes has a nice debunk here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/bi ... ficate.asp
The state of Hawaii made Obama's birth available in June of last year. You can view it here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg
And I guess Obama's birth announcement published in the August 1961 edition of the Honolulu Advertiser was all part of some sneaky plan?
good grief,
D.
****
ADAM
I have always believed in an exception to women’s health, D->>
DAR
That's good. I have met people who believe the child should be saved in preference to the woman. How about rape and incest?
BLK: "...and yes, it is law- how established is the debatable point- that is like saying “Global Warming” is settled science. No, it is not,>>
DAR
Actually, it is. If you would like to tango on this, post your best arguments in the science section of our freethinker forum (or here) and I'll roast them to a crisp.
Link: viewforum.php?f=4
BLK: and to say that would be the height of ignorance.>>
DAR
Post it and I'll roast it. We'll see how high the ignorance goes.
BLK: The best we could truthfully say is that man does have an effect on our environment.>>
DAR
That's a rather vacuous claim.
BLK "...the disingenuous ” I would never tell a woman what to do with her body” is a lame attempt to disengage yourself from any responsibility for the death of a child.
DAR
a) it's a fetus, not a child
b) I take full responsibility for my position. I believe a woman should have the right to choose to have an abortion.
BLK: You would not have any trouble telling some woman not to smoke, would you?>>
DAR
If she's not blowing it in my face, why would I tell her that?
D.
****
BLK: "Gays do not reproduce, not if they stay faithfully gay, anyway."
DAR
Not so. The first successful artificial insemination occurred in 1784. So the technology goes way back. Gays have children all the time and it doesn't involve being "unfaithful."
http://www.asas.org/symposia/esupp2/Footehist.pdf
Heterosexual couples also regularly "reproduce" this way too, for a variety of reasons.
D.
***
DAR
Nope, "Promoting up-to-date, scholarly, information about the Bible" is only one of the nine listed things we do. See the rest here:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/aboutus.shtml
I don't hold any beliefs about the Bible that aren't exactly in line with what is taught in every religious studies program in every major university in America, as well as every major theological seminary that is independent of Christian financial pressure. I only make claims about the Bible that can be backed up with solid, mainstream, even mainstream Christian, Bible scholarship.
The problem is, America is filled to almost 1/3 with biblically illiterate people who have been lied to by their clergy. They are regularly fed absurdities that were discarded in serious scholarship well over 100 years ago. This is a problem. But I am a Bible missionary, and I can help.
BLK: "a place that is glad to twist the context of the Bible.">>
DAR
You keep saying this as if it means something. You have yet to provide a single, solitary, example.
Why don't you do this? I know why.
We've had our website up for about ten years. I have begged Christians to provide critical analysis and give feed back about anything inaccurate.
No takers yet. Two verses come to mind:
1 PET. 3:15 (RSV). “Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;”
JUDE 3. “. . . ye should earnestly contend for the faith.”
D.
***
BIGD: You claim not to believe the Bible. Then why use it?>>
DAR
If the matter in question is what is the biblical position on "X," I obviously have to refer to the Bible. I don't have to be a muslim or a follower of Islam to answer a similar question about the Quran.
BIG: The fact that the legal profession has defined a person as someone who has been born does not negate the fact that a fetus is a person by the non legal definition.>>
DAR
The legal profession? I am talking about our society. Our laws have been enacted by our elected representatives and the law of the land says a woman can terminate a pregnancy and kill her fetus. Agree or not, like it or not, this means our society deems that action, not murder.
BIG: I have asked you a number of times, was it OK for slaves to be beaten and killed since the law did not classify them as people?>>
DAR
No. Please note. I am NOT saying the correct moral answer is arrived at because of the law of the land or popular belief. That would be the fallacy (ad populum). I have provided no argument that abortion is morally right. We can have that discussion if you like but it gets much more murky on both sides. Please read carefully. I have said it is the law of the land, I have said my opinion is I agree with it. I have made these two claims:
1) our society does not consider a fetus a person
2) The Bible, the God of the Bible and the people who wrote it did not consider a fetus a person
I try to stay to claims I can back up. Those two are a slam dunk.
BIG: They were property, under the law, so was it OK to treat them badly?>>
DAR
According to the Bible (which is pro-slavery from start to finish), yes. You could beat your slave to death as long as it took a couple days for it to die. See Exod. 21:21.
According to me, no.
BIG: You have obviously not studied the Bible or you would understand the difference between the Old and New Testament and why things happened.>>
DAR
Yeah right. Hey Bigdog, take a few moments and take an online Bible quiz. It's multiple choice so you can use your quarter if you like. See if you can get 96% like I did.
http://www.ffrf.org/bquiz.html
BIG: I also wonder if Jews wrote every word of it. Had not some become Christians after Christ was executed?>>
DAR
The gospels are anonymous, the names were added later for convenience. Paul wrote most of the NT and is the only author in the NT that is confirmed. And don't forget Paul never met Jesus, and he never mentioned the gospels either (which were obviously written later). The Bible is Jewish from start to finish.
BIG
Scott Peterson was convicted of two murders for the death of his pregnant wife. How can that be if the fetus was not a person entitled to protection?>>
DAR
Wiki has:
"Peterson was convicted of first-degree murder with special circumstances for killing Laci and second-degree murder for killing the fetus she carried."
She was eight months pregnant so probably this was taken into consideration, as it should have been. Roe v. Wade also takes viability into consideration, this is why it is such a reasonable compromise. He is up for the death penalty which would not be the case if he had only killed the fetus. He probably wouldn't even have been charged with murder two for that except that he killed the mother and this was such a heinous and publicized case.
BIG: The law contradicts itself and it...>>
DAR
Sometimes our society and our laws do have contradictions (as with the laws in the Bible). This is why we have judges to interpret laws.
If Lacie had terminated her pregnancy, she would not be charged with murder. I am not for other people being able to kill someone else's fetus without their permission.
D.
***
DAR
You really want to defend this JUNK? Okay, I'll bite.
BIG: "certificate of live birth"
DAR
Yes, that's specifically what snopes said it was. I didn't read the whole article because I can't bring myself to even read a rebuttal to such nonsense. And I can stomach a lot of nonsense.
Consider:
***
This [conspiracy] view was rejected by the state authorities, the media and independent factchecking organizations. FactCheck.org was invited to view the Obama campaign's hard copy of the candidate's Certification of Live Birth and concluded:
t meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.[15]
The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health, Chiyome Fukino, issued a statement confirming that the state held Obama's "original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures".[1][2] Noting "there have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate", Fukino explained that the department was prohibited by state law from releasing it to "persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record." She stated: "No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai'i.
...
A birth notice for Barack Obama was published in two local newspapers in August 1961.[50][15] Such notices were sent to newspapers routinely by the Hawaii Department of Health.[50]
17 cases have been filed:
"No such suit has yet resulted in the grant of any relief to the plaintiffs by any court."
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Oba ... y_theories
Holy cow, just how deep and how wide is this conspiracy?!
D.
***
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - June 30)
MAY 21, 2009
***
DAR
Dream on. It's not "party registration," it's one, cherry picked, poll.
Here's Gallop, Monday:
"GOP Losses Span Nearly All Demographic Groups"
"So far in 2009, aggregated Gallup Poll data show the divide on leaned party identification is 53% Democratic and 39% Republican -- a marked change from 2001, when the parties were evenly matched, according to an average of all of that year's Gallup Polls. That represents a loss of five points for the Republicans and a gain of eight points for the Democrats."
See the charts, here:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118528/GOP-L ... roups.aspx
Note:
In 1984, Reagan won 59% of the youth vote. Four years later, H.W. Bush won 52% of voters in this age group. It’s been downhill for the GOP ever since, and now only 25% of 17- to 29-year-old voters identify themselves as Republican.
Here's what the future holds:
"Gore won the youth vote (19-29) by 1%.
Kerry won it by 15%
Obama won it by... 35%.
Obama didn't just win an election, he won a generation."
D.
***
DAR
I can't complain. I am refinancing 215k with B of A right now at 4.6%. This is going to save me $200 a month, 140k in total and shave 3 years off the loan.
GM is too much of an American institution to let them go without an attempted life line. I didn't think it work. The overall loss to the US dwarfs this 15b. What's that, five weeks in Iraq?
GM spent more on health care than on steel. It's hard for the US companies to compete because they have to feed a wasteful, unworkable, bloated, health-care machine.
D.
***
"The Annenberg Foundation also has given $14.6 million to the conservative Hoover Institution, $12.3 million to the Reagan library and $3.1 million to the George H.W. Bush library."
Are these sources not to be trusted because of this?
The fact is, the Annenberg Foundation gives money to all sorts of groups without advising them on what to say.
Your second to last link also claims that Obama's sister is "forged" and his mother is "forged" too. This is not a credible source.
To quote:
D.
***
BLK: And yet you do not believe nor do you take the verses to heart. Why not, D?>>
DAR
The same reason you don't believe or take to heart the verses in the Koran.
BLK: Shouldn’t you “earnestly contend for the faith’?>>
DAR
It's not my faith. And faith is never a good reason to believe in something. Better to have good reasons, good evidence. Everybody knows this is true but they go to church and for a couple hours, pretend it isn't true.
faith n.
1. unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence
-- Webster's New World Dictionary -- Third College Edition
D.
------------------
"Tell a devout Christian man that by eating frozen yogurt, he can become invisible - he requires evidence as much as anyone else" - but tell him that a certain book he keeps by his bed is written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for an eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he requires no evidence whatsoever."
--Sam Harris, "The End of Faith"
***
BIGD: You claim society has determined that a fetus is not a person. No, the courts and the legislators have decided this.>>
DAR
Those courts and legislators where put in place by our society.
BIGD: Many states were opposed to abortion and were forced to allow it after Roe.>>
DAR
That's part of the deal when you sign up to be a state in the "United States." You follow the constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS.
BIGD: 51% of the country is anti abortion.>>
DAR
Let me check that.
Gallup Poll. May 7-10, 2009. N=1,015 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?"
Answer:
22% legal under any
53% legal only under certain
23% illegal in all
Dar: This means, 75% believe abortion should be legal at least in certain circumstances.
Regarding Roe v Wade:
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 14-17, 2009. N=1,010 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
Poll question:
"The 1973 Roe versus Wade decision established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?"
Answer: (5/14-17/09)
30% yes overturn
68% no, do not overturn
1% not sure
Dar< This means Roe v. Wade overwhelming represents the will of the people.
BIGD: There is no specific portion that deals with abortion and the killing of children in the womb is a punishment from God.">>
DAR
Or so say the priests of the time. Religious people like to claim they get their commands to kill other people and steal their land, from God. This ruse is still very popular today. I don't believe them then and I don't believe them now.
It's a good policy not to take books with talking animals in them too seriously.
BIGD: I oppose it [abortion].>>
DAR
I understand.
BIGD: Since you used the Bible in the abortion example, it also allows the death penalty.>>
DAR
I am not aware of any verses that could be construed to allow our government to put people to death. The Hebrew Scriptures were of course, as you know, directed at the Hebrew people (and for that we can be thankful).
As Robert Ingersoll said a hundred years ago:
"If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament he would be a criminal. If he would strictly follow the teachings of the New, he would be insane."
No one strictly follows either, or we lock them up for our safety and their own.
BIGD: Society also is in favor of the death penalty.>>
DAR
Society was also in favor of slavery. I guess I don't trust the government as much as you do, that is, to always get it right and kill people in my name without making mistakes.
Over 100 people have been taken off of death row because of errors.
And you need to update your files on this. Consider:
***
"Opinion on the death penalty has also shifted in recent years. Although many Americans support the death penalty for murder, when offered a choice between the death penalty and life imprisonment, the two options receive nearly equal support (47 percent to 48 percent) in the Gallup poll. This is a particularly dramatic shift: Just a decade ago, Americans preferred the death penalty over life imprisonment by a margin of more than 2-to-1 (61 percent to 29 percent). Since then support for life imprisonment has increased by 19 points, while support for the death penalty has declined by 13 points."
--http://tinyurl.com/rdan3c
BIGD: you asked somewhere about gay marriage and what the arguments against it were. Does it matter?>>
DAR
Yes. I have never heard a cogent argument for not allowing gays to have equal rights on this issue. I would like to see one.
BIGD: Our society, time and again, has rejected it.>>
DAR
You're right but that's changing really, really fast. Again, this country and the conservatives are behind the curve on this. They are caught on the wrong side and the losing side of history, once again.
I picked up a tract in a church just a few years ago that argued that women shouldn't be allowed to wear pants. Seriously. I still have it. It's called Pantsuits and the Christian Woman."
How do you think that issue is polling today Bigdog?
In a decade or two this whole gay issue will be behind us, they will have their full human rights as they should and those who oppose it will be viewed as being as silly those who think woman shouldn't be allowed to vote or wear pants.
You can eat less crow by joining the progressive side now. Or not. Do you like crow?
D.
----------------
"When a 68-year-old Catholic priest suffered a fatal heart attack inside a Dublin, Ireland, gay sauna, he did not want for spiritual solace. Fr. Liam Cosgrave received last rites on the spot -- from two other priest who were there at the same time."
-–Secular Humanist Bulletin Spring '95
***
[Hippocratic oath comment]
DAR
You're right about Hippocrates. But that was a long time ago (4th century BC) and we have learned a few things since then. They used to think (and the Bible agreed with this error) that thought originated in the heart. Aristotle thought the brain was a radiator to "cool the blood."
And note:
"Most schools administer some form of oath, but the great majority no longer use the original version that forbade abortion, euthanasia, and further forbade general practitioners from surgery. Also missing from the ancient Oath and from many modern versions are the complex ethical issues that face the modern physician."
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
D.
***
BLK: "Katrina was a wake up call for FEMA,..."
DAR
Bush wrecked FEMA, like almost everything he has touched in his life.
Clinton's FEMA director made this observation a year before Katrina:
"I am extremely concerned that the ability of our nation to prepare for and respond to disasters has been sharply eroded,… I hear from emergency managers, local and state leaders, and first responders nearly every day that the FEMA they knew and worked well with has now disappeared. In fact one state emergency manager told me, 'It is like a stake has been driven into the heart of emergency management.'"
--FEMA director James Lee Witt, at a hearing on Capitol Hill March 24, 2004
We had Americans, on American soil, being put to death in hospitals because no one would come for them (the nurses did the right thing and were exonerated). We had Canadians being held up at the American border, and they *still* managed to make it to parts of New Orleans quicker than the US. It was a national disgrace. Bush is a national disgrace.
D.
-------------------
"My thoughts are, we're going to get somebody who knows what they're talking about when it comes to rebuilding cities." —George W. Bush, on rebuilding New Orleans, Biloxi, Miss., Sept. 2, 2005
****
MARK: "Gee, Darrell, it’s not hard to figure why this is happening."
DAR
Well at least we agree it is happening! The biggest reason is probably Bush II. And that many conservative ideas are just not workable for a successful and prosperous country.
MARK: The Republicans have done basically nothing to counter act the leftist takeover of America’s educational and university systems with the political correctness movement.>>
DAR
They have their own TV network, they've bought AM talk radio, the majority talking head guests on ALL networks are republican, they have how many "think tanks" churning out piles of dogma and they can't compete?
You think university systems were a little to the left in the sixties Mark? And the conservatives peaked long after that only to blow it all on the Bush 2 train wreck.
Nope, not buying it.
Conservatives, the hardcore ones, can't compete in the market place of ideas. That's why they wet their pants at even the thought of a "fairness doctrine." Universities will always lean progressive/liberal because any good education has to be open and tolerant of new ideas (indoctrination camps like Hillsdale not included). Note:
Liberal: Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded” --American Heritage
Speaking of Hillsdale college, I have subscribed to their Imprimis magazine for 14 years and it is all rightwing blather all the time. No exceptions. It is regularly filled with all sorts of howlers but no correction or dissenting opinion is ever allowed. They can conduct their school as they wish of course but do they really expect these little goose steppers to be able to defend this stuff when they get out in the real world considering they haven't had any practice?
D.
------------------------------
"Liberal policies made America the freest, wealthiest, most successful and most powerful nation in human history. Conservatism in power always threatens to undo that national progress, and is almost always frustrated by the innate decency and democratic instincts of the American people...
If your workplace is safe; if your children go to school rather than being forced into labor; if you are paid a living wage, including overtime; if you enjoy a 40-hour week and you are allowed to join a union to protect your rights -- you can thank liberals. If your food is not poisoned and your water is drinkable -- you can thank liberals. If your parents are eligible for Medicare and Social Security, so they can grow old in dignity without bankrupting your family -- you can thank liberals. If our rivers are getting cleaner and our air isn't black with pollution; if our wilderness is protected and our countryside is still green -- you can thank liberals. If people of all races can share the same public facilities; if everyone has the right to vote; if couples fall in love and marry regardless of race; if we have finally begun to transcend a segregated society -- you can thank liberals. Progressive innovations like those and so many others were achieved
by long, difficult struggles against entrenched power. What defined conservatism, and conservatives, was their opposition to every one of those advances.
The country we know and love today was built by those victories for liberalism -- with the support of the American people." -- Joe Conason
***
DAR
Liberals haven't been liberal, and conservatives (i.e. republicans) haven't been conservative. This is what happens when people isolate themselves a little too much in their little cult-like groups, left or right. They start to give special meaning to words, and stop making sense.
MARK: ...political correctness is actually a Marxist movement; there’s nothing liberal about it ( see my next post.).>>
DAR
I am against political correctness most of the time. The problem with throwing around terms like marxist, socialist, nazi (not you) around to easily is that then you have nothing more outrageous to go to. Best to let people label themselves, within reason. You should avoid such hyperbole.
MARK: If “liberals,” I call them leftists, actually believe in free speech, then why do they constantly shout conservatives down in attempts to silence them,...>>
DAR
Conservatives never do that. Bill O'Reilly doesn't do that. This phenomenon occurs on both sides. When I think of those most interested in supporting free speech, I think of the ACLU and liberals. It was the Bush people required loyalty oaths to attend events. I have to struggle to find right-wing blogs that won't censor my comments.
MARK: why be threatened by one conservative network when all the rest lean to the left,...>>
DAR
Saying right or left really means nothing unless you have a reference point on your simple two dimensional scale. For instance you are so far to the right you almost come around the other side. Everyone seems left to you.
I on the other hand, am all over the place. The left/right, black/white dichotomy doesn't work so well for me. You seem to be a very consistent far right conservative.
And do notice that I referred to a rather objective measurement of left/right on the networks. Add up the republicans and demos that get talking time on each network. They all have more republicans than demos. This is not consistent with your belief that "the rest lean to the left." But you will mostly continue to experience them in this way because of your place on the left/right scale.
MARK: "...why the fear of conservative talk radio when you have universities, TV and the film industry in your pocket?>>
DAR
I don't fear con. talk radio. I enjoy intellectually stimulating conversation so it would be nice to be able to tune something in on the AM dial that wasn't a ranting rightwing fool interested in making people angry. That was in the 90's though, I have satellite radio now.
MARK: If universities are only a little to the left, why did Harvard fire Lawrence Summers for questioning dogma that isn’t backed up by research?>>
DAR
He received a mild censure and had lots of support at Harvard. Read his wiki blurb. His hero is libertarian Milton Friedman. Obama made him his director of the White House National Economic Council. Obama must be a left wing nut.
MARK: P.S. Why would you subscribe to Imprimis for all these years if it’s just blather.>>
DAR
Because they send it to me at it's true value. It's free. And because I like to read and consider all sides, to see what has merit. I read it because I am a fair person interested in having my beliefs accord with the truth, reality, whatever that is. Sometimes they get it just right. The vast majority of the time it is just nutty stupid. All of it is right-wing, all the time. No dissent allowed. You would like it.
D.
****
DAR
I don't expect a mayor of a city to be a disaster expert. I do expect the head of FEMA to be a disaster expert.
Nagin made mistakes of course. The people judged his performance, he's still mayor.
D.
------------------
"Considering the dire circumstances that we have in New Orleans, virtually a city that has been destroyed, things are going relatively well."
–FEMA Director Michael Brown, Sept. 1, 2005
"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." –President Bush, to FEMA director Michael Brown, while touring hurricane-ravaged Mississippi, Sept. 2, 2005
"What didn't go right?'"
–President Bush, as quoted by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), after she urged him to fire FEMA Director Michael Brown "because of all that went wrong, of all that didn't go right" in the Hurricane Katrina relief effort
***
Darrel says:
Wednesday May 20th, 2009 at 22:44
“YOU can do more to prevent the spread of disease by washing your hands frequently.”
DAR
Absolutely right. I also think the cultural tradition of shaking hands needs to go. It’s just not smart.
BD: “Millions have AIDS and we can’t get them to wear condoms.”
DAR
Good point. Make sure and send in your Planned Parenthood donation like I did. And the pope needs to shut it.
D.
***
BLK: "or them to go spend the amount of money they did at the Fountainbleau Hotel in Miami, where the cheapest room begins at 400 a night, was a waste of money."
DAR
Actually, that little rightwing lie was debunked live on FOX news. I watched the clip myself.
Here is a transcript:
***
Yesterday Cavuto, trying to pitch the angle that the AFL-CIO's gathering in Miami is a big costly shindig for the wealthy, wound up looking like Elmer Fudd after Bugs has finished him off with a nice little exploding-cigar finale:
Cavuto: All I'm saying, Stuart, is the mixed message part. Right? You're at a great locale, I know that hotel very well, I know that beach very well. And I'm just wondering whether the appearance which you guys knocked, rightly so, when the financial guys were tripping over themselves having massages at a lagoon, to say, look, enough is enough, appearance matters, this matters.
Acuff: Appearance does matter. That's right, Neil. And that's why I'm on the program with you today. And that's why I'm explaining that we got a room rate for less than $200 a room, and that our staying here is the result of negotiations that happened three years ago that promotes an awful lot of good union jobs.
Cavuto: Wait a minute, wait a minute. The most expensive room is $200?
Acuff: Excuse me?
Cavuto: The most expensive room for your members attending is $200?
Acuff: Under $200.
Cavuto: Really. [Pause] All right, then everything's off. You did OK.
All right -- ah. Stuart, seriously. Very good having you. You did a good job.
Acuff: Thank you so much.
Cavuto: If I could get one of those deals -- that's not bad!
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert ... -fox-beck-
***
DAR
Of course, this didn't stop the right-wing echo chamber from spreading it all over the place. Beck continued to run with it even after the debunk. He must not watch Cavuto's show, or he doesn't care about truth.
So we can look forward to you making a little adjustment in your mental file on this Blake?
Good.
BLK: "but I can tell you for sure that if you want to see government in healthcare, go to any VA"
DAR
I lived in Canada for 21 years and I have lived in the US for 21 years. I know what government in health care looks like. Canadians are very proud of their system and I can bury you in reasons why they should be.
If you would like to tango on this one, let me know. It's a bit of a specialty of mine.
D.
------------------
"Did you know that Canada ranks above the United States in virtually every measure of health--including outcomes for heart disease, cancer and diabetes? Woldwide, Canada ranks ninth compared to 17th for the United States. To make the issue even more confusing, the US spends 13.7 percent of its gross domestic product on health, while Canada only spends 8.7 percent. And despite spending 13.7 percent of GDP on health care, 15.6 percent of the American population is uninsured." [and many more under-insured]
--NWA Times or Demo Gazette, pg. 8D, 7/3/05
***
BIGD: The people who put the patients to death committed murder.>>
DAR
Actually, setting your personal unsupported opinion aside, it was ruled that they did not. It's called euthanasia and it is something we have the decency to offer animals when they are suffering and dying. The idea that humans don't deserve a similar degree of respect, is bizarre. Or as we say when people are this cruel to animals: inhumane.
BIGD: Bush did not wreck FEMA, a nonsense argument.>>
DAR
Okay, if you say so. I'll take a former directors opinion over yours. Not a close call.
BIGD: FEMA had issues but it was there in the appropriate amount of time.>>
DAR
It seems to me that if that were the case, nurses wouldn't be putting patients to death, legally, because no one would come for them. This is not around the world. This is ON, AMERICAN, SOIL.
How idiotic and irresponsible would a republican president have to be before you could see it?
D.
---------------
“Bush's people fired the Mining Safety expert with 20 year's experience afterclaiming he was off $28 on his expense vouncher and in his place, they put a friendly coal lobbyist. So the rules got relaxed enough that this particular mine had 205 safety violations in 2005. Just like Katrina - deny all funding for safety and back-up systems, then act surprised when it crashes. That's how the Bush Family Evil Empire works. Dismantle all safety precautions and then warn, "Don't play the blame game" when the people die.” --bartcop.com
***
***
DAR
Dream on. It's not "party registration," it's one, cherry picked, poll.
Here's Gallop, Monday:
"GOP Losses Span Nearly All Demographic Groups"
"So far in 2009, aggregated Gallup Poll data show the divide on leaned party identification is 53% Democratic and 39% Republican -- a marked change from 2001, when the parties were evenly matched, according to an average of all of that year's Gallup Polls. That represents a loss of five points for the Republicans and a gain of eight points for the Democrats."
See the charts, here:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118528/GOP-L ... roups.aspx
Note:
In 1984, Reagan won 59% of the youth vote. Four years later, H.W. Bush won 52% of voters in this age group. It’s been downhill for the GOP ever since, and now only 25% of 17- to 29-year-old voters identify themselves as Republican.
Here's what the future holds:
"Gore won the youth vote (19-29) by 1%.
Kerry won it by 15%
Obama won it by... 35%.
Obama didn't just win an election, he won a generation."
D.
***
DAR
I can't complain. I am refinancing 215k with B of A right now at 4.6%. This is going to save me $200 a month, 140k in total and shave 3 years off the loan.
GM is too much of an American institution to let them go without an attempted life line. I didn't think it work. The overall loss to the US dwarfs this 15b. What's that, five weeks in Iraq?
GM spent more on health care than on steel. It's hard for the US companies to compete because they have to feed a wasteful, unworkable, bloated, health-care machine.
D.
***
"The Annenberg Foundation also has given $14.6 million to the conservative Hoover Institution, $12.3 million to the Reagan library and $3.1 million to the George H.W. Bush library."
Are these sources not to be trusted because of this?
The fact is, the Annenberg Foundation gives money to all sorts of groups without advising them on what to say.
Your second to last link also claims that Obama's sister is "forged" and his mother is "forged" too. This is not a credible source.
To quote:
I am sorry, I can't take this stuff seriously. It's embarrassing to hear adults talk in such a way."Clearly the ugly 'Obama' doesn't resemble anyone, not even Davis, as they threw away the key when he was made. So with that in mind compare below Stanley Ann, sweet child, and the Devil's horrible creation, 'Obama'."
D.
***
BLK: And yet you do not believe nor do you take the verses to heart. Why not, D?>>
DAR
The same reason you don't believe or take to heart the verses in the Koran.
BLK: Shouldn’t you “earnestly contend for the faith’?>>
DAR
It's not my faith. And faith is never a good reason to believe in something. Better to have good reasons, good evidence. Everybody knows this is true but they go to church and for a couple hours, pretend it isn't true.
faith n.
1. unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence
-- Webster's New World Dictionary -- Third College Edition
D.
------------------
"Tell a devout Christian man that by eating frozen yogurt, he can become invisible - he requires evidence as much as anyone else" - but tell him that a certain book he keeps by his bed is written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for an eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he requires no evidence whatsoever."
--Sam Harris, "The End of Faith"
***
BIGD: You claim society has determined that a fetus is not a person. No, the courts and the legislators have decided this.>>
DAR
Those courts and legislators where put in place by our society.
BIGD: Many states were opposed to abortion and were forced to allow it after Roe.>>
DAR
That's part of the deal when you sign up to be a state in the "United States." You follow the constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS.
BIGD: 51% of the country is anti abortion.>>
DAR
Let me check that.
Gallup Poll. May 7-10, 2009. N=1,015 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?"
Answer:
22% legal under any
53% legal only under certain
23% illegal in all
Dar: This means, 75% believe abortion should be legal at least in certain circumstances.
Regarding Roe v Wade:
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 14-17, 2009. N=1,010 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
Poll question:
"The 1973 Roe versus Wade decision established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?"
Answer: (5/14-17/09)
30% yes overturn
68% no, do not overturn
1% not sure
Dar< This means Roe v. Wade overwhelming represents the will of the people.
BIGD: There is no specific portion that deals with abortion and the killing of children in the womb is a punishment from God.">>
DAR
Or so say the priests of the time. Religious people like to claim they get their commands to kill other people and steal their land, from God. This ruse is still very popular today. I don't believe them then and I don't believe them now.
It's a good policy not to take books with talking animals in them too seriously.
BIGD: I oppose it [abortion].>>
DAR
I understand.
BIGD: Since you used the Bible in the abortion example, it also allows the death penalty.>>
DAR
I am not aware of any verses that could be construed to allow our government to put people to death. The Hebrew Scriptures were of course, as you know, directed at the Hebrew people (and for that we can be thankful).
As Robert Ingersoll said a hundred years ago:
"If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament he would be a criminal. If he would strictly follow the teachings of the New, he would be insane."
No one strictly follows either, or we lock them up for our safety and their own.
BIGD: Society also is in favor of the death penalty.>>
DAR
Society was also in favor of slavery. I guess I don't trust the government as much as you do, that is, to always get it right and kill people in my name without making mistakes.
Over 100 people have been taken off of death row because of errors.
And you need to update your files on this. Consider:
***
"Opinion on the death penalty has also shifted in recent years. Although many Americans support the death penalty for murder, when offered a choice between the death penalty and life imprisonment, the two options receive nearly equal support (47 percent to 48 percent) in the Gallup poll. This is a particularly dramatic shift: Just a decade ago, Americans preferred the death penalty over life imprisonment by a margin of more than 2-to-1 (61 percent to 29 percent). Since then support for life imprisonment has increased by 19 points, while support for the death penalty has declined by 13 points."
--http://tinyurl.com/rdan3c
BIGD: you asked somewhere about gay marriage and what the arguments against it were. Does it matter?>>
DAR
Yes. I have never heard a cogent argument for not allowing gays to have equal rights on this issue. I would like to see one.
BIGD: Our society, time and again, has rejected it.>>
DAR
You're right but that's changing really, really fast. Again, this country and the conservatives are behind the curve on this. They are caught on the wrong side and the losing side of history, once again.
I picked up a tract in a church just a few years ago that argued that women shouldn't be allowed to wear pants. Seriously. I still have it. It's called Pantsuits and the Christian Woman."
How do you think that issue is polling today Bigdog?
In a decade or two this whole gay issue will be behind us, they will have their full human rights as they should and those who oppose it will be viewed as being as silly those who think woman shouldn't be allowed to vote or wear pants.
You can eat less crow by joining the progressive side now. Or not. Do you like crow?
D.
----------------
"When a 68-year-old Catholic priest suffered a fatal heart attack inside a Dublin, Ireland, gay sauna, he did not want for spiritual solace. Fr. Liam Cosgrave received last rites on the spot -- from two other priest who were there at the same time."
-–Secular Humanist Bulletin Spring '95
***
[Hippocratic oath comment]
DAR
You're right about Hippocrates. But that was a long time ago (4th century BC) and we have learned a few things since then. They used to think (and the Bible agreed with this error) that thought originated in the heart. Aristotle thought the brain was a radiator to "cool the blood."
And note:
"Most schools administer some form of oath, but the great majority no longer use the original version that forbade abortion, euthanasia, and further forbade general practitioners from surgery. Also missing from the ancient Oath and from many modern versions are the complex ethical issues that face the modern physician."
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
D.
***
BLK: "Katrina was a wake up call for FEMA,..."
DAR
Bush wrecked FEMA, like almost everything he has touched in his life.
Clinton's FEMA director made this observation a year before Katrina:
"I am extremely concerned that the ability of our nation to prepare for and respond to disasters has been sharply eroded,… I hear from emergency managers, local and state leaders, and first responders nearly every day that the FEMA they knew and worked well with has now disappeared. In fact one state emergency manager told me, 'It is like a stake has been driven into the heart of emergency management.'"
--FEMA director James Lee Witt, at a hearing on Capitol Hill March 24, 2004
We had Americans, on American soil, being put to death in hospitals because no one would come for them (the nurses did the right thing and were exonerated). We had Canadians being held up at the American border, and they *still* managed to make it to parts of New Orleans quicker than the US. It was a national disgrace. Bush is a national disgrace.
D.
-------------------
"My thoughts are, we're going to get somebody who knows what they're talking about when it comes to rebuilding cities." —George W. Bush, on rebuilding New Orleans, Biloxi, Miss., Sept. 2, 2005
****
MARK: "Gee, Darrell, it’s not hard to figure why this is happening."
DAR
Well at least we agree it is happening! The biggest reason is probably Bush II. And that many conservative ideas are just not workable for a successful and prosperous country.
MARK: The Republicans have done basically nothing to counter act the leftist takeover of America’s educational and university systems with the political correctness movement.>>
DAR
They have their own TV network, they've bought AM talk radio, the majority talking head guests on ALL networks are republican, they have how many "think tanks" churning out piles of dogma and they can't compete?
You think university systems were a little to the left in the sixties Mark? And the conservatives peaked long after that only to blow it all on the Bush 2 train wreck.
Nope, not buying it.
Conservatives, the hardcore ones, can't compete in the market place of ideas. That's why they wet their pants at even the thought of a "fairness doctrine." Universities will always lean progressive/liberal because any good education has to be open and tolerant of new ideas (indoctrination camps like Hillsdale not included). Note:
Liberal: Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded” --American Heritage
Speaking of Hillsdale college, I have subscribed to their Imprimis magazine for 14 years and it is all rightwing blather all the time. No exceptions. It is regularly filled with all sorts of howlers but no correction or dissenting opinion is ever allowed. They can conduct their school as they wish of course but do they really expect these little goose steppers to be able to defend this stuff when they get out in the real world considering they haven't had any practice?
D.
------------------------------
"Liberal policies made America the freest, wealthiest, most successful and most powerful nation in human history. Conservatism in power always threatens to undo that national progress, and is almost always frustrated by the innate decency and democratic instincts of the American people...
If your workplace is safe; if your children go to school rather than being forced into labor; if you are paid a living wage, including overtime; if you enjoy a 40-hour week and you are allowed to join a union to protect your rights -- you can thank liberals. If your food is not poisoned and your water is drinkable -- you can thank liberals. If your parents are eligible for Medicare and Social Security, so they can grow old in dignity without bankrupting your family -- you can thank liberals. If our rivers are getting cleaner and our air isn't black with pollution; if our wilderness is protected and our countryside is still green -- you can thank liberals. If people of all races can share the same public facilities; if everyone has the right to vote; if couples fall in love and marry regardless of race; if we have finally begun to transcend a segregated society -- you can thank liberals. Progressive innovations like those and so many others were achieved
by long, difficult struggles against entrenched power. What defined conservatism, and conservatives, was their opposition to every one of those advances.
The country we know and love today was built by those victories for liberalism -- with the support of the American people." -- Joe Conason
***
DAR
Liberals haven't been liberal, and conservatives (i.e. republicans) haven't been conservative. This is what happens when people isolate themselves a little too much in their little cult-like groups, left or right. They start to give special meaning to words, and stop making sense.
MARK: ...political correctness is actually a Marxist movement; there’s nothing liberal about it ( see my next post.).>>
DAR
I am against political correctness most of the time. The problem with throwing around terms like marxist, socialist, nazi (not you) around to easily is that then you have nothing more outrageous to go to. Best to let people label themselves, within reason. You should avoid such hyperbole.
MARK: If “liberals,” I call them leftists, actually believe in free speech, then why do they constantly shout conservatives down in attempts to silence them,...>>
DAR
Conservatives never do that. Bill O'Reilly doesn't do that. This phenomenon occurs on both sides. When I think of those most interested in supporting free speech, I think of the ACLU and liberals. It was the Bush people required loyalty oaths to attend events. I have to struggle to find right-wing blogs that won't censor my comments.
MARK: why be threatened by one conservative network when all the rest lean to the left,...>>
DAR
Saying right or left really means nothing unless you have a reference point on your simple two dimensional scale. For instance you are so far to the right you almost come around the other side. Everyone seems left to you.
I on the other hand, am all over the place. The left/right, black/white dichotomy doesn't work so well for me. You seem to be a very consistent far right conservative.
And do notice that I referred to a rather objective measurement of left/right on the networks. Add up the republicans and demos that get talking time on each network. They all have more republicans than demos. This is not consistent with your belief that "the rest lean to the left." But you will mostly continue to experience them in this way because of your place on the left/right scale.
MARK: "...why the fear of conservative talk radio when you have universities, TV and the film industry in your pocket?>>
DAR
I don't fear con. talk radio. I enjoy intellectually stimulating conversation so it would be nice to be able to tune something in on the AM dial that wasn't a ranting rightwing fool interested in making people angry. That was in the 90's though, I have satellite radio now.
MARK: If universities are only a little to the left, why did Harvard fire Lawrence Summers for questioning dogma that isn’t backed up by research?>>
DAR
He received a mild censure and had lots of support at Harvard. Read his wiki blurb. His hero is libertarian Milton Friedman. Obama made him his director of the White House National Economic Council. Obama must be a left wing nut.
MARK: P.S. Why would you subscribe to Imprimis for all these years if it’s just blather.>>
DAR
Because they send it to me at it's true value. It's free. And because I like to read and consider all sides, to see what has merit. I read it because I am a fair person interested in having my beliefs accord with the truth, reality, whatever that is. Sometimes they get it just right. The vast majority of the time it is just nutty stupid. All of it is right-wing, all the time. No dissent allowed. You would like it.
D.
****
DAR
I don't expect a mayor of a city to be a disaster expert. I do expect the head of FEMA to be a disaster expert.
Nagin made mistakes of course. The people judged his performance, he's still mayor.
D.
------------------
"Considering the dire circumstances that we have in New Orleans, virtually a city that has been destroyed, things are going relatively well."
–FEMA Director Michael Brown, Sept. 1, 2005
"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." –President Bush, to FEMA director Michael Brown, while touring hurricane-ravaged Mississippi, Sept. 2, 2005
"What didn't go right?'"
–President Bush, as quoted by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), after she urged him to fire FEMA Director Michael Brown "because of all that went wrong, of all that didn't go right" in the Hurricane Katrina relief effort
***
Darrel says:
Wednesday May 20th, 2009 at 22:44
“YOU can do more to prevent the spread of disease by washing your hands frequently.”
DAR
Absolutely right. I also think the cultural tradition of shaking hands needs to go. It’s just not smart.
BD: “Millions have AIDS and we can’t get them to wear condoms.”
DAR
Good point. Make sure and send in your Planned Parenthood donation like I did. And the pope needs to shut it.
D.
***
BLK: "or them to go spend the amount of money they did at the Fountainbleau Hotel in Miami, where the cheapest room begins at 400 a night, was a waste of money."
DAR
Actually, that little rightwing lie was debunked live on FOX news. I watched the clip myself.
Here is a transcript:
***
Yesterday Cavuto, trying to pitch the angle that the AFL-CIO's gathering in Miami is a big costly shindig for the wealthy, wound up looking like Elmer Fudd after Bugs has finished him off with a nice little exploding-cigar finale:
Cavuto: All I'm saying, Stuart, is the mixed message part. Right? You're at a great locale, I know that hotel very well, I know that beach very well. And I'm just wondering whether the appearance which you guys knocked, rightly so, when the financial guys were tripping over themselves having massages at a lagoon, to say, look, enough is enough, appearance matters, this matters.
Acuff: Appearance does matter. That's right, Neil. And that's why I'm on the program with you today. And that's why I'm explaining that we got a room rate for less than $200 a room, and that our staying here is the result of negotiations that happened three years ago that promotes an awful lot of good union jobs.
Cavuto: Wait a minute, wait a minute. The most expensive room is $200?
Acuff: Excuse me?
Cavuto: The most expensive room for your members attending is $200?
Acuff: Under $200.
Cavuto: Really. [Pause] All right, then everything's off. You did OK.
All right -- ah. Stuart, seriously. Very good having you. You did a good job.
Acuff: Thank you so much.
Cavuto: If I could get one of those deals -- that's not bad!
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert ... -fox-beck-
***
DAR
Of course, this didn't stop the right-wing echo chamber from spreading it all over the place. Beck continued to run with it even after the debunk. He must not watch Cavuto's show, or he doesn't care about truth.
So we can look forward to you making a little adjustment in your mental file on this Blake?
Good.
BLK: "but I can tell you for sure that if you want to see government in healthcare, go to any VA"
DAR
I lived in Canada for 21 years and I have lived in the US for 21 years. I know what government in health care looks like. Canadians are very proud of their system and I can bury you in reasons why they should be.
If you would like to tango on this one, let me know. It's a bit of a specialty of mine.
D.
------------------
"Did you know that Canada ranks above the United States in virtually every measure of health--including outcomes for heart disease, cancer and diabetes? Woldwide, Canada ranks ninth compared to 17th for the United States. To make the issue even more confusing, the US spends 13.7 percent of its gross domestic product on health, while Canada only spends 8.7 percent. And despite spending 13.7 percent of GDP on health care, 15.6 percent of the American population is uninsured." [and many more under-insured]
--NWA Times or Demo Gazette, pg. 8D, 7/3/05
***
BIGD: The people who put the patients to death committed murder.>>
DAR
Actually, setting your personal unsupported opinion aside, it was ruled that they did not. It's called euthanasia and it is something we have the decency to offer animals when they are suffering and dying. The idea that humans don't deserve a similar degree of respect, is bizarre. Or as we say when people are this cruel to animals: inhumane.
BIGD: Bush did not wreck FEMA, a nonsense argument.>>
DAR
Okay, if you say so. I'll take a former directors opinion over yours. Not a close call.
BIGD: FEMA had issues but it was there in the appropriate amount of time.>>
DAR
It seems to me that if that were the case, nurses wouldn't be putting patients to death, legally, because no one would come for them. This is not around the world. This is ON, AMERICAN, SOIL.
How idiotic and irresponsible would a republican president have to be before you could see it?
D.
---------------
“Bush's people fired the Mining Safety expert with 20 year's experience afterclaiming he was off $28 on his expense vouncher and in his place, they put a friendly coal lobbyist. So the rules got relaxed enough that this particular mine had 205 safety violations in 2005. Just like Katrina - deny all funding for safety and back-up systems, then act surprised when it crashes. That's how the Bush Family Evil Empire works. Dismantle all safety precautions and then warn, "Don't play the blame game" when the people die.” --bartcop.com
***
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - June 30)
MAY 22, 2009
***
BLK: In that speech he did not rule out bringing some of the terrorists at Gitmo to the United States.>>
DAR: Not "rule out?" He specifically said they are coming. Better hide.
BLK: How could the ones in jail be a danger?>>
DAR
He was speaking of the current attempt of guys like you trying to scare people by pretending these people will be a danger when they escape super max prisons.
BLK: what happens if they are found not guilty?>>
DAR
What do you think should happen to people who are found not guilty? Shoot them in the knees?
BLK: He is finding out that it is not very easy to get rid of the people at Gitmo or Bush would have done so.>>
DAR
"The effort to shut down the facility, however, began during Bush's second term, promoted by Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates."
"One of the things that would help a lot is, in the discussions that we have with the states of which they (detainees) are nationals, if we could get some of those countries to take them back," Rice said in a Dec. 12, 2007 , interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. "So we need help in closing Guantanamo."
--http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090 ... hy/3237981
BLK: It was interesting listening to him because he blamed everything on George Bush..>>
DAR
Well if he did (he didn't) he would have gotten that part right.
BLK: and then said that Gitmo was used as a recruiting tool for the terrorists and that we are less safe because of the place.>>
DAR
Obviously true and confirmed over and over. See below.
BLK: Right, and the fact that we have not been attacked since 9/11 is proof that we are less safe.>>
DAR
No, it proves they like to take a break between attacks while they plan. That we were attacked on 9/11 proves Bush/Cheney were asleep on the job. Cheney was the chairman of a anti-terrorist "task force." He didn't chair a single meeting.
BLK: The best news of the day is that Dick Cheney gave a speech at the same time...>>
DAR
And the claims Cheney made were immediately ripped to shreds. Lie after lie is exposed and this time they are so blatant, so patently false, so absurd, even mainstream news sources are not hesitating go after his claims for what they are. Lies. It's actually refreshing to see the news actually calling a spade a spade for a change. See it all here:
"Cheney's speech contained omissions, misstatements"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090 ... hy/3237981
They take nine specific claims from Cheney, and they debunk them, substantively, factually. It's a beautiful thing to behold.
D.
****
BLK: "He repeatedly said he wasn’t pointing fingers,"
DAR
A search of the transcript shows the word "finger" only occurred once in the speech:
"I understand that it is no secret that there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another."
Try again.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/2 ... 06189.html
D.
****
DAR
Thank you Big Dog for allowing dissent and a relatively free exchange of ideas (with understandable restrictions) on your busy forum. It makes your site much more interesting and informative than a sterile site that censors people for their opinions.
D.
****
Bigd: [Pope doesn't get to have free speech?]
DAR
The Pope can have his opinion, the problem is, there are a great number of people who (at least on some topics) think that whatever he says is true. Infallible. I knew a catholic lady who said she would believe whatever the Pope says.
But sometimes he's just wrong. See:
Pope 'distorting condom science'
"One of the world's most prestigious medical journals, the Lancet, has accused Pope Benedict XVI of distorting science in his remarks on condom use."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7967173.stm
*****
BLK: "...he [Obama] prevaricated about the terror situation,..."
DAR
If you think you can back that up with an example, I would be pleased to examine it.
Cheney quote: "We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source.>>
DAR
How come we are always hearing that there were no attacks during Bush/Cheney? Which is it?
BLK: It is no accident that Dick Cheney’s popularity is growing as more and more...>>
DAR
When he goes away, people hate him a little less. Here are the numbers:
"Fifty-five percent of people questioned in the poll say they have an unfavorable opinion of the former vice president. Thirty-seven percent say they have a favorable opinion of Cheney, up 8 percentage points from January when he left office."
--http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/21/cheney.poll/
I think the GOP should keep him as a mascot. These smart republicans think otherwise:
***
"A National Journal poll of top GOP political insiders and strategists finds that Republicans believe former Vice President Dick Cheney has hurt the party since leaving office.
Of 100 insiders polled, fully 57 percent believe Cheney has hurt the party, and only 33 percent believe he has helped."
Quotes:
--http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/1 ... 03872.html
D.
-----------------------
Dowd opines:
"Cheney has replaced Sarah Palin as Rogue Diva. Just as Jeb Bush and other Republicans are trying to get kinder and gentler, Cheney has popped out of his dungeon, scary organ music blaring, to carry on his nasty campaign of fear and loathing.
The man who never talked is now the man who won't shut up. The man who wouldn't list his office in the federal jobs directory, who had the vice president's residence blocked on Google Earth, who went to the Supreme Court to keep from revealing which energy executives helped him write the nation's energy policy, is now endlessly yelping about how President Obama is holding back documents that should be made public."
****
DAR: media matters rips them a new one daily.
GMR… can you substantiate that with dates, facts and figures?>>
DAR
Of course. I can bury you in specific, substantive, examples. How many would you like?
***
DAR: Olbermann, Maddow, debunk the junk daily, on the fly
GMR… can you substantiate that, times, places and specific debunks each day?>>
DAR
Of course, or you can tune them in yourself.
***
DAR: Any one who takes FOX seriously is hardly one who can be taken seriously.
GMR…really? can you provide IQ data for the watchers so that the rest of us can ascertain that NO ONE who watches them has the intellectual capacity to be taken seriously>>
DAR
As you acknowledge, I didn't say anything about IQ or intellectual capacity. I lost faith in the ability of IQ tests when I met a fellow from mensa who believed the moon landing was a hoax. Doing well on IQ tests, or even being bright doesn't mean a person knows how to think well or that they have good discernment or critical thinking skills. A good understanding of cults and human nature show us that time and again people choose to isolate themselves in cult like groups, political and religious, and they get trapped into believing absurdities. It doesn't mean they are dumb. It just means they are stuck.
***
DAR: It’s our national propaganda channel. Everybody knows that.
GMR… oh really (again - this is getting tiring Darrell)? I didn’t know that and I have a couple of liberal friends that watch FOX religiously if for no other reason than to be able to do some opposition research.>>
DAR
Watching for "opposition research" is not incompatible with my claim (an opinion), that FOX is a propaganda channel.
***
DAR: With FOX watchers realize we are dealing with people so simple.
GMR… really? Want to match My IQ with yours or Marks with yours?>>
DAR
I thought that's what we were doing.
GMR: statististics alone says I have only a 1.5% chance of having one lower than yours?>>
DAR
If you're so smart, why did you put a question mark at the end of that sentence? After you've met a few dumb dumb's with Ph.D.'s you become less impressed with such tests.
***
DAR: Even Bush didn’t know this when he hired him to roast him
GMR… you know this for a fact that Bush hired him or that someone else didn’t not knowing about Colbert? >>
DAR
You're suggesting that Bush may have delegated this task to someone so clueless they hired Colbert without "knowing about Colbert?" That's even worse.
I don't doubt that he delegated the task. But:
a) That's passing the buck
b) I don't doubt that he would have done it himself.
I say this because, as this study shows, conservatives just don't seem to understand that Colbert is making fun of them. And that's absolutely amazing to me. An interesting quirk in human nature.
See:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/2 ... 91899.html
GMR: ...try to be a little less antagonistic and obnoxious will you?>>
DAR
A fellow below my post just noted that everyone "who voted for Obama and doesn't regret" it is an "idiot or a socialist pig." In contrast, I try to keep my points substantive and relevant, with very little on the name calling or ad hominem side. You're probably not going to like my opinion at times. This doesn't make it "obnoxious."
D.
****
JMB: "Anyone who voted for Obama, and has not learned to regret it, is either an idiot, or a socialist pig,...">>
DAR
It's safe to say republican Pat Buchanan didn't vote for Obama but he did give him a rating of "A" on his first hundred days. Do you think that makes him an "idiot" or a "socialist pig?"
D.
----------------
Fox News Caught Repeatedly Cropping, Manipulating Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC2DJR8I ... r_embedded
3 min.
***
BLK: "As to the prevarication,just look at the terms they want to use- “man caused disaster”- what’s up with this mealy mouthed stuff?>>
DAR
A search of the transcript shows "man caused" does not occur. The term "disaster" does occur once. Here is the comment, in context:
***
"We have re-energized a global non-proliferation regime to deny the world's most dangerous people access to the world's deadliest weapons, and launched an effort to secure all loose nuclear materials within four years. We are better protecting our border, and increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural disaster. We are building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates."
It's not too much to ask you to be honest and accurate in your criticisms.
BLK:
Oh- it’s not a War On Terror- it’s now an “Overseas Contingency Operation” What?>>
DAR
GW Bush said it was misnamed. What did he think it should be called? I think we should ask him. He is what he said:
"We actually misnamed the war on terror. It ought to be the Struggle Against Ideological Extremists Who Do Not Believe in Free Societies Who Happen to Use Terror as a Weapon to Try to Shake the Conscience of the Free World."
—George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004
That's an genuine quote. I think you should use that title.
BLK: "...but then they [nut-job liberals] have had a lot of practice cherry- picking facts and distorting half truths.>>
DAR
While I do acknowledge your obvious expertise in the area of "cherry-picking facts" and distorting half truths," let me inform you that there is a difference between making such a claim and actually demonstrating it. While you are good at making claims, I am better at demonstration. You should try adopting my method. It works much better in the long run.
BLK: "...ignorance is a real problem in this country when it comes to reality.>>
DAR
Oh, I couldn't agree more. You've hit the nail on the head. But I can help you with this, and already have.
D.
***
BLK: Oh, and those “republicans” you refer to? ... they should turn in their Republican creds if they are ashamed of Cheney...>>
DAR
Good point. Make your tent even smaller. What you need to do is purge those moderates (the Demo's will take them), and make your party more pure.
D.
---------------
"GOP Right Strengthen Democrats
Washington Post
The PA Conservatives were targeting him, so to survive, Specter will switch parties. This means that the Democrats can now pass anything they like, with no check, for the next two years.
This has happened before. Every time the very conservative wing of the party helps defeat or drive out a RINO, they don't strengthen the GOP, they strengthen the Democrats.
It happened when the GOP right ganged up on liberal Senator Ed Brooke in Massachusetts. The result was Paul Tsongas, followed by John Kerry. This was an improvement over Brooke?
The Republicans lost control of the senate when the conservatives drove out Jim Jeffords of Vermont.
We will eventually make the party so pure that we win no elections."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix ... id=topnews
***
Let's review:
***
BLK: “…he prevaricated about the terror situation,…”
DAR
If you think you can back that up with an example, I would be pleased to examine it.
***
BLK: As to the prevarication,just look at the terms they want to use- “man caused disaster”>>
DAR
I asked you to back up your claim with an example. You provided one. Only you made one up that didn't exist.
Did you think I wouldn't notice?
D.
-----------
"Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow; He who would search for pearls must dive below." --John Dryden (1631-1700)
****
BLK: "you are right- you will win no elections.">>
DAR
If you read the article carefully, you will see the author is providing evidence and making a cogent argument for the republican party, not the Demo's.
You do know that saying things, doesn't make them true?
BLK: We have you where we want you.>>
DAR: The conservatives had it all, the conservatives lost it all, and the Demo's are in control.
And this is right where where you wanted them.
Got it.
D.
---------------
[after Arthur's cut off both of the Black Knight's arms]
Look, you stupid B**. You've got no arms left.
Black Knight: Yes I have.
King Arthur: *Look*!
Black Knight: It's just a flesh wound."
--Monty Python
***
BIGD: They did not debunk Cheney.>>
DAR
Yes they did. Nine specific comments, responded to directly, point by point.
In another thread, Blake said Obama prevaricated in his speech. I asked him for an example. He then made something up that Obama didn't even say in the speech (he did that twice actually).
BIGD: They claimed he [Cheney] had omissions and misstatements.>>
DAR
And they showed it. He lied by ommission and "misstatements" is polite talk for lie. Cheney can't be *that* misinformed.
I would really like to be more conservative on some issues. I am a swing voter. But I have a real problem with the blatant dishonesty in your party right now. You can read those 9 examples and not have a problem with that? If Obama had one of those in his speech I would squirm. If he had a couple it would be a real problem. But nine?!
One example:
***
Cheney accused Obama of "the selective release" of documents on Bush administration detainee policies, charging that Obama withheld records that Cheney claimed prove that information gained from the harsh interrogation methods prevented terrorist attacks.
"I've formally asked that (the information) be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained," Cheney said. "Last week, that request was formally rejected."
Response:
"However, the decision to withhold the documents was announced by the CIA, which said that it was obliged to do so by a 2003 executive order issued by former President George W. Bush prohibiting the release of materials that are the subject of lawsuits."
***
Read the CIA response here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/1 ... 03596.html
BIGD: However, it is clear that he was on target.>>
DAR
If you make that many misstatements of fact in one speech, and this is your idea of "on target" I suggest you need to adjust your scope or raise you standards.
BIGD: Did you read all of Obama and Biden’s lies from similar sites before you voted?>>
DAR: "all of" their "lies?"
Oh please, do share one with me. Hit me with your best shot. Get one that's right "on target."
D.
****
***
BLK: In that speech he did not rule out bringing some of the terrorists at Gitmo to the United States.>>
DAR: Not "rule out?" He specifically said they are coming. Better hide.
BLK: How could the ones in jail be a danger?>>
DAR
He was speaking of the current attempt of guys like you trying to scare people by pretending these people will be a danger when they escape super max prisons.
BLK: what happens if they are found not guilty?>>
DAR
What do you think should happen to people who are found not guilty? Shoot them in the knees?
BLK: He is finding out that it is not very easy to get rid of the people at Gitmo or Bush would have done so.>>
DAR
"The effort to shut down the facility, however, began during Bush's second term, promoted by Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates."
"One of the things that would help a lot is, in the discussions that we have with the states of which they (detainees) are nationals, if we could get some of those countries to take them back," Rice said in a Dec. 12, 2007 , interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. "So we need help in closing Guantanamo."
--http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090 ... hy/3237981
BLK: It was interesting listening to him because he blamed everything on George Bush..>>
DAR
Well if he did (he didn't) he would have gotten that part right.
BLK: and then said that Gitmo was used as a recruiting tool for the terrorists and that we are less safe because of the place.>>
DAR
Obviously true and confirmed over and over. See below.
BLK: Right, and the fact that we have not been attacked since 9/11 is proof that we are less safe.>>
DAR
No, it proves they like to take a break between attacks while they plan. That we were attacked on 9/11 proves Bush/Cheney were asleep on the job. Cheney was the chairman of a anti-terrorist "task force." He didn't chair a single meeting.
BLK: The best news of the day is that Dick Cheney gave a speech at the same time...>>
DAR
And the claims Cheney made were immediately ripped to shreds. Lie after lie is exposed and this time they are so blatant, so patently false, so absurd, even mainstream news sources are not hesitating go after his claims for what they are. Lies. It's actually refreshing to see the news actually calling a spade a spade for a change. See it all here:
"Cheney's speech contained omissions, misstatements"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090 ... hy/3237981
They take nine specific claims from Cheney, and they debunk them, substantively, factually. It's a beautiful thing to behold.
D.
****
BLK: "He repeatedly said he wasn’t pointing fingers,"
DAR
A search of the transcript shows the word "finger" only occurred once in the speech:
"I understand that it is no secret that there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another."
Try again.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/2 ... 06189.html
D.
****
DAR
Thank you Big Dog for allowing dissent and a relatively free exchange of ideas (with understandable restrictions) on your busy forum. It makes your site much more interesting and informative than a sterile site that censors people for their opinions.
D.
****
Bigd: [Pope doesn't get to have free speech?]
DAR
The Pope can have his opinion, the problem is, there are a great number of people who (at least on some topics) think that whatever he says is true. Infallible. I knew a catholic lady who said she would believe whatever the Pope says.
But sometimes he's just wrong. See:
Pope 'distorting condom science'
"One of the world's most prestigious medical journals, the Lancet, has accused Pope Benedict XVI of distorting science in his remarks on condom use."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7967173.stm
*****
BLK: "...he [Obama] prevaricated about the terror situation,..."
DAR
If you think you can back that up with an example, I would be pleased to examine it.
Cheney quote: "We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source.>>
DAR
How come we are always hearing that there were no attacks during Bush/Cheney? Which is it?
BLK: It is no accident that Dick Cheney’s popularity is growing as more and more...>>
DAR
When he goes away, people hate him a little less. Here are the numbers:
"Fifty-five percent of people questioned in the poll say they have an unfavorable opinion of the former vice president. Thirty-seven percent say they have a favorable opinion of Cheney, up 8 percentage points from January when he left office."
--http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/21/cheney.poll/
I think the GOP should keep him as a mascot. These smart republicans think otherwise:
***
"A National Journal poll of top GOP political insiders and strategists finds that Republicans believe former Vice President Dick Cheney has hurt the party since leaving office.
Of 100 insiders polled, fully 57 percent believe Cheney has hurt the party, and only 33 percent believe he has helped."
Quotes:
"Cheney represents the grumpy intolerance that has come to characterize the GOP. Get off the stage!""Anything that reminds the public of the Bush administration harms the party's ability to turn the page. If he'd had any concern for his public image when he was in office, he wouldn't have to worry as much about defending his reputation now."
"There is nothing Dick Cheney can say or do to help the Republican Party today. The best thing he can do is disappear for the next 10 years."
"Let's face it: The guy doesn't know anything about winning elections outside of Wyoming."
"Not even a close call. With Cheney out there, Obama doesn't even need to remind the American people about the mess that was the Bush years."
--http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/1 ... 03872.html
D.
-----------------------
Dowd opines:
"Cheney has replaced Sarah Palin as Rogue Diva. Just as Jeb Bush and other Republicans are trying to get kinder and gentler, Cheney has popped out of his dungeon, scary organ music blaring, to carry on his nasty campaign of fear and loathing.
The man who never talked is now the man who won't shut up. The man who wouldn't list his office in the federal jobs directory, who had the vice president's residence blocked on Google Earth, who went to the Supreme Court to keep from revealing which energy executives helped him write the nation's energy policy, is now endlessly yelping about how President Obama is holding back documents that should be made public."
****
DAR: media matters rips them a new one daily.
GMR… can you substantiate that with dates, facts and figures?>>
DAR
Of course. I can bury you in specific, substantive, examples. How many would you like?
***
DAR: Olbermann, Maddow, debunk the junk daily, on the fly
GMR… can you substantiate that, times, places and specific debunks each day?>>
DAR
Of course, or you can tune them in yourself.
***
DAR: Any one who takes FOX seriously is hardly one who can be taken seriously.
GMR…really? can you provide IQ data for the watchers so that the rest of us can ascertain that NO ONE who watches them has the intellectual capacity to be taken seriously>>
DAR
As you acknowledge, I didn't say anything about IQ or intellectual capacity. I lost faith in the ability of IQ tests when I met a fellow from mensa who believed the moon landing was a hoax. Doing well on IQ tests, or even being bright doesn't mean a person knows how to think well or that they have good discernment or critical thinking skills. A good understanding of cults and human nature show us that time and again people choose to isolate themselves in cult like groups, political and religious, and they get trapped into believing absurdities. It doesn't mean they are dumb. It just means they are stuck.
***
DAR: It’s our national propaganda channel. Everybody knows that.
GMR… oh really (again - this is getting tiring Darrell)? I didn’t know that and I have a couple of liberal friends that watch FOX religiously if for no other reason than to be able to do some opposition research.>>
DAR
Watching for "opposition research" is not incompatible with my claim (an opinion), that FOX is a propaganda channel.
***
DAR: With FOX watchers realize we are dealing with people so simple.
GMR… really? Want to match My IQ with yours or Marks with yours?>>
DAR
I thought that's what we were doing.
GMR: statististics alone says I have only a 1.5% chance of having one lower than yours?>>
DAR
If you're so smart, why did you put a question mark at the end of that sentence? After you've met a few dumb dumb's with Ph.D.'s you become less impressed with such tests.
***
DAR: Even Bush didn’t know this when he hired him to roast him
GMR… you know this for a fact that Bush hired him or that someone else didn’t not knowing about Colbert? >>
DAR
You're suggesting that Bush may have delegated this task to someone so clueless they hired Colbert without "knowing about Colbert?" That's even worse.
I don't doubt that he delegated the task. But:
a) That's passing the buck
b) I don't doubt that he would have done it himself.
I say this because, as this study shows, conservatives just don't seem to understand that Colbert is making fun of them. And that's absolutely amazing to me. An interesting quirk in human nature.
See:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/2 ... 91899.html
GMR: ...try to be a little less antagonistic and obnoxious will you?>>
DAR
A fellow below my post just noted that everyone "who voted for Obama and doesn't regret" it is an "idiot or a socialist pig." In contrast, I try to keep my points substantive and relevant, with very little on the name calling or ad hominem side. You're probably not going to like my opinion at times. This doesn't make it "obnoxious."
D.
****
JMB: "Anyone who voted for Obama, and has not learned to regret it, is either an idiot, or a socialist pig,...">>
DAR
It's safe to say republican Pat Buchanan didn't vote for Obama but he did give him a rating of "A" on his first hundred days. Do you think that makes him an "idiot" or a "socialist pig?"
D.
----------------
Fox News Caught Repeatedly Cropping, Manipulating Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC2DJR8I ... r_embedded
3 min.
***
BLK: "As to the prevarication,just look at the terms they want to use- “man caused disaster”- what’s up with this mealy mouthed stuff?>>
DAR
A search of the transcript shows "man caused" does not occur. The term "disaster" does occur once. Here is the comment, in context:
***
"We have re-energized a global non-proliferation regime to deny the world's most dangerous people access to the world's deadliest weapons, and launched an effort to secure all loose nuclear materials within four years. We are better protecting our border, and increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural disaster. We are building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates."
It's not too much to ask you to be honest and accurate in your criticisms.
BLK:
Oh- it’s not a War On Terror- it’s now an “Overseas Contingency Operation” What?>>
DAR
GW Bush said it was misnamed. What did he think it should be called? I think we should ask him. He is what he said:
"We actually misnamed the war on terror. It ought to be the Struggle Against Ideological Extremists Who Do Not Believe in Free Societies Who Happen to Use Terror as a Weapon to Try to Shake the Conscience of the Free World."
—George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004
That's an genuine quote. I think you should use that title.
BLK: "...but then they [nut-job liberals] have had a lot of practice cherry- picking facts and distorting half truths.>>
DAR
While I do acknowledge your obvious expertise in the area of "cherry-picking facts" and distorting half truths," let me inform you that there is a difference between making such a claim and actually demonstrating it. While you are good at making claims, I am better at demonstration. You should try adopting my method. It works much better in the long run.
BLK: "...ignorance is a real problem in this country when it comes to reality.>>
DAR
Oh, I couldn't agree more. You've hit the nail on the head. But I can help you with this, and already have.
D.
***
BLK: Oh, and those “republicans” you refer to? ... they should turn in their Republican creds if they are ashamed of Cheney...>>
DAR
Good point. Make your tent even smaller. What you need to do is purge those moderates (the Demo's will take them), and make your party more pure.
D.
---------------
"GOP Right Strengthen Democrats
Washington Post
The PA Conservatives were targeting him, so to survive, Specter will switch parties. This means that the Democrats can now pass anything they like, with no check, for the next two years.
This has happened before. Every time the very conservative wing of the party helps defeat or drive out a RINO, they don't strengthen the GOP, they strengthen the Democrats.
It happened when the GOP right ganged up on liberal Senator Ed Brooke in Massachusetts. The result was Paul Tsongas, followed by John Kerry. This was an improvement over Brooke?
The Republicans lost control of the senate when the conservatives drove out Jim Jeffords of Vermont.
We will eventually make the party so pure that we win no elections."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix ... id=topnews
***
Let's review:
***
BLK: “…he prevaricated about the terror situation,…”
DAR
If you think you can back that up with an example, I would be pleased to examine it.
***
BLK: As to the prevarication,just look at the terms they want to use- “man caused disaster”>>
DAR
I asked you to back up your claim with an example. You provided one. Only you made one up that didn't exist.
Did you think I wouldn't notice?
D.
-----------
"Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow; He who would search for pearls must dive below." --John Dryden (1631-1700)
****
BLK: "you are right- you will win no elections.">>
DAR
If you read the article carefully, you will see the author is providing evidence and making a cogent argument for the republican party, not the Demo's.
You do know that saying things, doesn't make them true?
BLK: We have you where we want you.>>
DAR: The conservatives had it all, the conservatives lost it all, and the Demo's are in control.
And this is right where where you wanted them.
Got it.
D.
---------------
[after Arthur's cut off both of the Black Knight's arms]
Look, you stupid B**. You've got no arms left.
Black Knight: Yes I have.
King Arthur: *Look*!
Black Knight: It's just a flesh wound."
--Monty Python
***
BIGD: They did not debunk Cheney.>>
DAR
Yes they did. Nine specific comments, responded to directly, point by point.
In another thread, Blake said Obama prevaricated in his speech. I asked him for an example. He then made something up that Obama didn't even say in the speech (he did that twice actually).
BIGD: They claimed he [Cheney] had omissions and misstatements.>>
DAR
And they showed it. He lied by ommission and "misstatements" is polite talk for lie. Cheney can't be *that* misinformed.
I would really like to be more conservative on some issues. I am a swing voter. But I have a real problem with the blatant dishonesty in your party right now. You can read those 9 examples and not have a problem with that? If Obama had one of those in his speech I would squirm. If he had a couple it would be a real problem. But nine?!
One example:
***
Cheney accused Obama of "the selective release" of documents on Bush administration detainee policies, charging that Obama withheld records that Cheney claimed prove that information gained from the harsh interrogation methods prevented terrorist attacks.
"I've formally asked that (the information) be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained," Cheney said. "Last week, that request was formally rejected."
Response:
"However, the decision to withhold the documents was announced by the CIA, which said that it was obliged to do so by a 2003 executive order issued by former President George W. Bush prohibiting the release of materials that are the subject of lawsuits."
***
Read the CIA response here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/1 ... 03596.html
BIGD: However, it is clear that he was on target.>>
DAR
If you make that many misstatements of fact in one speech, and this is your idea of "on target" I suggest you need to adjust your scope or raise you standards.
BIGD: Did you read all of Obama and Biden’s lies from similar sites before you voted?>>
DAR: "all of" their "lies?"
Oh please, do share one with me. Hit me with your best shot. Get one that's right "on target."
D.
****
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - June 30)
MAY 23, 2009
***
BLK: "As Bjorn Lomborg, the author...>>
DAR
Bjorn Lomborg is a profoundly dishonest person. One of his books has 300 lies in it. See this documented over and over, here:
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/
Chapter by chapter errors here:
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/skeptical.htm
He may be right about this simple claim, but you always have to check the guy. He's very sneaky.
BLK: companies and other interested groups had hired 2,430 lobbyists last year, and that was up 300% from a year ago. So much for no lobbyists in the Barama administration, huh?">>
DAR
Obama can control how many lobbyists are hired by private industry?
Did Obama say he would or could control how many lobbyists are hired by private industry?
Don't you think such a claim insults the intelligence of your readers?
D.
*****
BIGD: Bush was accused of being in bed with big business, particularly Big Oil.>>
DAR
Just accused? LOL.
BIGD: Obama is in bed with big business, particularly Big Green.>>
DAR
You may be right on this. Invest accordingly. One president reveled in the waste and pollution of a dead end resource, the other will help America compete by reducing waste and pollution and improving efficiency. And that's a very good thing.
BIGD: The nation has gotten cooler and there are too many scientists who say sunspot activity is the issue, not CO2.>>
DAR
If you ever want to go to the mat and try and defend your unscientific anti-climate change beliefs, just let me know. And no, there aren't "too many" scientists who think sunspots explain our warming, there are hardly any and almost without exception, they are NOT climate scientists. Regarding the sunspots, begin here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -sunspots/
Regarding the "nation [has] gotten cooler," look at a hundred year graph, not a cherry-picked couple of years.
BIGD: Mars is warming, guess the Martians have SUVs.>>
DAR
Actually, that's complete rubbish. Take a moment and learn the truth from an award winning science site (no politics) written by climatoligists:
"Global warming on Mars?"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
Excerpt:
"Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data."
D.
****
DAR
You can't be serious.
Blake says: "...companies and other interested groups had hired [x number]" of lobbyists. And then concludes:
"So much for no lobbyists in the Barama administration, huh?"
My point is, companies and interest groups hiring lobbyists has nothing, *No Thing,* to do with Obama or what has said he will do or even can do. But Blake pretends he can blame private industry hiring practices on Obama? That's insultingly absurd. And you want to defend that?
BIGD: "...the reality is that Obama said he would have no lobbyists in his administration and that lobbyists would not influence his administration.">>
DAR
When you start a sentence with "the reality is" it's best to be dealing with reality.
If Obama said:
a) "he would have no lobbyists in his administration"
b) "lobbyists would not influence his administration."
Then you shouldn't have any trouble quoting him saying exactly this.
Now he did make strong claims regarding lobbyist reform and setting high standards. And he has carried a great deal of them out. There have been exceptions. Lets look at the details:
***
"Obama's executive order on ethics sets these limits on former lobbyists: they can't leave the administration and lobby on matters they dealt with in the administration for two years; and lobbyists can't join agencies they lobbied in the two previous years."
There have been three waviers of this rule:
"The White House has issued three waivers lifting its ban on former registered lobbyists working in the administration. The first was to Bill Lynn, a former lobbyist for Raytheon, so he could become deputy Defense secretary; Jocelyn Frye, former general counsel of the National Partnership for Women and Families; and Cecilia Munoz, the former vice president of the National Council for La Raza. Frye is now the director of policy and projects for first lady Michelle Obama, and Munoz is the director of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs."
Here are his rules. Strict and unprecedented:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15515.html
Here is Norm Ornstein praising them:
***
Statement of Norm Ornstein
American Enterprise Institute
"Restoring trust in government is a prerequisite to enacting good policy and the tough choices the country needs. This ethics policy for the transition is a far-reaching, bold and constructive step to do just that. The policy may exclude some good people with deep experience in their fields, but it will also exclude those who see government service as a springboard to financial success, or who are more intent on pleasing future potential employers or clients than making tough choices in the public interest. As much as anything, this ethics policy is a statement about the tone and tenor of the Obama administration. It is a good sign."
--ibid
****
ADAM: "Obama is president elected with a firm majority...">>
DAR
Let me back that up a little. The country voted for Obama by such a margin that he could have spotted McCain California AND New York and he still would have won.
And these guys think if only... McCain would have been more to the right.
D.
-----------------
"...the political numbers that are truly striking. Obama has a 66 percent approval rating, which is the highest this poll has recorded, while the GOP's favorability is at 31 percent, the lowest the poll has recorded in 25 years of asking the question. Arguably more remarkable still is that, asked whether Obama or the GOP Congress would be more likely to make "the right decisions about the nation's economy," respondents broke for Obama 63 percent to 20 percent. That means that even within the 31 percent rump that holds a positive view of the GOP, at least a third trust Obama's instincts on the economy equally or more. And why shouldn't they? Despite Rush Limbaugh's best efforts just 2 percent of respondents blame Obama for the state of the economy, compared to 33 percent who blame George W. Bush."
--New Republic, April 7, 2009
****
INON: "He [Dar] is so full of hate."
DAR
This is called projection. You behave a certain way and then project and attribute your behavior onto others.
I don't act like you. Ever.
When you remove the hate, vitriol, personal attacks and insults from "Inonitnot's" posts, there is nothing left. And that's too bad. It's a wasted opportunity and not an effective way of getting any point across.
D.
****
BIGD: "Obama misled people in that speech.">>
DAR
Still waiting for one example. Blake made a few attempts but as I showed he had to resort to completely making them up.
Quote Obama "in that speech," show how/where he "misled people." Make your case. Let's see what you've got.
You've brought a squirt gun to a gun fight, but did you bring any water?
D.
****
DAR
This Pelosi story presents an interesting conundrum for conservatives (other than it's usefulness as a distraction from their policies of torture).
They pretend she should have done something to stop this. So to the extent they make noise about this, they are admitting there was something wrong that needed to be stopped.
A couple of points. She was minority leader at the time and being briefed in a way that allowed no notes, no cross-examination and no counter point. You sit, you listen, and you can't talk about it because it's top secret. And because you can't have a record of the event, you can't show you have or have not been told, anything.
And you're minority leader so you have very little power if any, anyway (ask Boehner about that).
Now comes along this wholly baseless claim:
BIGD: "She has lied about her knowledge of waterboarding being used..."
DAR
Show this. I ask this knowing you cannot.
All you have is an awkward press conference where she fumbled over herself. Big whoop.
Before I post something I have a policy of asking myself if my claims are true. It's a good policy and I recommend you give this method a try.
D.
-----------------
"Sen. Bob Graham backs up Pelosi and says he was never briefed on waterboarding by the CIA"
"Former Sen.(D)Bob Graham, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee told David Shuster that he never was briefed about waterboarding by the CIA on MSNBC. He also said that he was never allowed to take real notes about the CIA briefings, but he did log the topics and the amount of times he was briefed. They don't match up with the CIA's version."
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/se ... nd-says-he
****
BLK: "Obama said that lobbyists would HAVE NO INFLUENCE in his administration."
DAR
What an absurd claim. Lobbying, even by paid individuals is an important part of our governing process and representative feedback system.
When are you going to show, cite, reference this statement that you say Obama said? You will need to do this to build your case for a "lie."
It's becoming clear that don't have basic skills in how to snoop around and find evidence to back up your claims. I'm pretty good at it so I did a bit of checking for you. If such a quote existed it would be very easy to find.
It doesn't exist.
Try again.
D.
*****
BIGD: since she [Pelosi] did not say anything she agreed with it.>>
DAR
But no one has shown, or even can show, she was told waterboarding was occurring.
BIGD: Even the minority leader can bring the objection up...>>
DAR
Why would she bring it up if she wasn't told? Because of the secrecy, you can do no better than "he said she said."
BIGD: I wonder how many of people like you thought the whole Plame issue was worth pursuing..>>
DAR
When a spy is outed by it's own government, reasonable people would say it is worth pursuing.
BIGD: when Bush was not involved,>>
DAR
Then he should pay closer attention and/or not surround himself with people who keep things from him and lie to him. Scott McClelland, Bush's press secretary knows about being lied to by this bunch.
BIGD: Plame was not covert,>>
DAR
The prosecutor said she was. Let me know if you want the quote.
BIGD: and the leaker was someone who did not agree with Bush on war policy.>>
DAR
That doesn't narrow it down much.
BIGD: Also, the specials prosecutor knew who it was after 3 days of investigation.>>
DAR
But Scooter did his best to obstruct justice in the case, as the jury decided.
BIGD: The CIA said she was briefed and SHE said she was briefed after several denials.>>
DAR
Of course she was briefed. The question is what was she briefed on. This is what is in question.
Best to not call someone a liar unless you can back it up. That's not too much to ask. I was pretty rough on GW Bush over the years but I rarely if ever claimed that he was a liar. This is because I know that to show a lie you have to show someone intentionally said something untrue. It's hard to show intent.
BIGD: And you cite a Democrat as her alibi? That is credible.>>
DAR
Yes, it is. James Fallows of The Atlantic addresses this:
***
Part of the payoff of reaching age 72 and having spent 38 years in public office, as Graham has, is that people have had a chance to judge your reputation. Graham has a general reputation for honesty. In my eyes he has a specific reputation for very good judgment: he was one of a handful of Senators actually to read the full classified intelligence report about the "threats" posed by Saddam Hussein. On the basis of reading it, despite a career as a conservative/centrist Democrat, he voted against the war and fervently urged his colleagues to do the same. "Blood is going to be on your hands," he warned those who voted yes.
More relevant in this case, Graham also has a specific reputation for keeping detailed daily records of people he met and things they said. He's sometimes been mocked for this compulsive practice, but he's never been doubted about the completeness or accuracy of what he compiles. (In the fine print of those records would be an indication that I had interviewed him about Iraq war policy while he was in the Senate and recently spent time with him when he was on this side of the world.)
So if he says he never got the briefing, he didn't. And if the CIA or anyone acting on its behalf challenges him, they are stupid and incompetent as well as being untrustworthy. This doesn't prove that the accounts of briefing Pelosi are also inaccurate. But it shifts the burden of proof."
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/arc ... am_how.php
***
DAR
I don't trust the Moonie times. I did see this:
"CIA said it stood by its record of the 2002 briefing that showed, based on recollections of agency employees..."
So we have nobody allowed to take notes, and people babbling about what they think they "recollect" from 7 years ago. This story is going nowhere. Nice try though.
Water boarding is of course torture and it is a millstone that will be hung around the GOP's neck for a very long time.
D.
***
BIGD: And if you ask yourself if claims are true why do you cite things that are incorrect?>>
DAR
When did I do that?
BD: Just because you cite places that are sympathetic to liberal views does not make them accurate.>>
DAR
Of course.
BD: Like Snopes and the COLB which is not a birth certificate.>>
DAR
The snopes article I cited specifically referred to the "Certificate of Live Birth."
BIGD: Or that Obama never said what he did about lobbyists.>>
DAR
Show he said what you claim he said. Back it up. That's in another thread. I'll get to it in a minute.
D.
***
BIGD: In the 1970s the big fear was an ice age and we can see how that turned out.>>
DAR
No, that's false. A lie peddled by dishonest commentators like George Will (who I usually like).
For starters, see:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2 ... -1970s.php
And:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
For a debunk of Will's latest howlers on this see:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04 ... ts_wmo.php
BIGD: There are plenty of scientists who do not believe in GW...>>
DAR
Right-wing weathermen, are not climate scientists. Let's check:
****
"According to a recent article in Eos (Doran and Zimmermann, 'Examining the Scientific consensus on Climate Change', Volume 90, Number 3, 2009; p. 22-23 - only available for AGU members - update: a public link to the article is here), about 58% of the general public in the US thinks that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing the mean global temperature, as opposed to 97% of specialists surveyed. The disproportion between these numbers is a concern, and one possible explanation may be that the <B>science literacy among the general public is low."
Note: "Not one single, solitary scientific professional or honorific science organization has dissented from the consensus opinion on climate change. Not one. And it’s been examined in minute detail by the NAS, AGU and a veritable alphabet soup of scientists [and science organizations].
BIGD: and many who believe in sunspot activity.>>
DAR
Actually your GW denier material is out of date. This isn't even brought up anymore and when it was, it was be people who weren't climate scientists.
BIGD: To say the issue is settled is a slap in the face to real science...>>
DAR
Science doesn't give us certainty, it gives us probabilities. We have about 95% confidence that the claims held by the climate scientists regarding mankind's influence in warming the earth, current and in the future, are accurate.
You could be right. It could be some unknown cause we have not recognized. But this is not very likely.
BIGD: Stopping the debate with inane suggestions that the science is settled, especially since it has yet to be proved, is careless.>>
DAR
Don't stop the debate but give some good reasons to doubt the consensus position. Sunspots, cooling in the 70's, we breath CO2, doesn't get it. Here is a standard FAQ on this. You no doubt have a few more of these floating around because you have heard them but not checked them out. Check out the debunk before you pass along GW denier material. There are probably 80 in this list:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2 ... ceptic.php
BIGD: Al Gore stands to make a ton of money on a hoax.>>
DAR
His investments in green technology are given to a non-profit (FOX dishonestly edited that part out of his video testimony). See:
"Fox News Caught Repeatedly Cropping, Manipulating Video"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC2DJR8I ... r_embedded
BIGD: Green technology is a way to make special people rich at our expense.>>
DAR
Anyone can invest. I encourage you to. My computer is running on solar power right now. I bought four 15 watt panels at Tractor Supply for $299 and the battery for $69. They probably won't pay for themselves because energy is still far too cheap. This will change. I charge tools and play with them for fun.
BIGD: Oil is here for a reason and that reason is for us to use. There is a lot of it and a lot of natural gas.>>
DAR
There used to be a lot of it. We are going to use it, every bit of it, but we need to be smart. 12 mpg is not smart. Driving a hummer is not smart and giving a $100,000 tax benefit to encourage the purchase of heavier vehicles is stupidity on stilts. We will need that last bit of oil to lube the gears on my grandsons electric vehicle. And we need oil for our fertilizers.
BIGD: They keep finding oil fields and we have not run out yet.>>
DAR
All the big ones have been found and many of those are in major decline. I encourage you to read up on this. I have put this rather concise collection together:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1873&p=9426&hilit=peak#p9277
BIGD: I also don’t want to be poor and without power while a guy who flies in private jets and uses more electricity...>>
DAR
More rubbish about Al Gore. Make your claims specific and I'll roast them.
And your smears are out of date. As I posted over a year ago:
"Gore makes Nashville home more 'green'
* Home now has solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating
* Highest rating possible "short of tearing it down," says U.S. Green Building Council
The CNN article is gone but I copied it all here:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4451&p=13623&hilit= ... rgy#p13623
Half way down my post.
Excerpt:
"The Green Building Council's certification program has four levels, with platinum being the highest followed by gold. Gore's home was one of 14 to earn gold status and the only Tennessee home to earn any certification....
...his natural gas use has dropped 93 percent in the three months since the geothermal pump was activated."
D.
***
DAR [re lobbying]
The yahoo article is good. I encourage people to read it. Eight thousand people hired, and he it shows what, 12 waviers?
As your Yahoo News article quotes:
“Any good set of ethics rules has the opportunity for waivers, but if the waivers become the rule, rather than the exception, then you have to look at whether the waivers are being sought too frequently or whether there’s a problem with the rule,”
If Obama has an excellent qualified person in front of him he can choose to throw them away to strictly follow something he said, or he can in very rare occasions, set aside his own rule.
I don't want a president that is so ridge he can't make exceptions on occasion. What does twelve represent out of 8,000? .15 %
The quote from "Des Moines" quote is vague and is further detailed in his rules regarding lobbyists. His claim regarding funding was specifically, according to his rules, with regard to federally registered lobbyists.
Your "Roll Call" article makes this point and refutes yours (while noting that Obama had 40 donations and McCain 440). To quote:
"The Obama campaign said it has not changed its policy regarding lobbyist contributions and that it continues to take steps to ensure such contributions are returned."
And: "“Because of a law championed by Sen. Obama, lobbyists are now required to disclose their contributions, which gives us another chance to make sure we haven’t taken any money from lobbyists,” Vietor said. “Any contributions from lobbyists that weren’t already returned will be soon.” --Roll Call, ibid
DAR
You should read the articles you cite. Using a persons own source against them (by careful reading) is a bit of a specialty of mine.
D.
***
BIGD: "OK, then I don’t trust any of the liberal publications you cited for any argument..>>
DAR
Sorry, Moonie Times is junk. Quote Pelosi, (even from them, I can check that) that's fine, Moonie Times opinion/spin, not a reputable source.
BIGD: Under the law waterboarding was not torture when it was done in 2002.>>
DAR
You like to change the subject a lot. If you want to defend "water boarding is not torture" lets go. I'll roast you to a crisp.
BIGD: Let me ask, do you think the people who waterboarded the terrorists intended to hurt them or just make them talk?>>
DAR
Probably both. I don't see why "intent" would bear upon the question of whether the action is torture. Water boarding is torture. Always has been, always will be. See below.
BIGD: Was the intent to inflict damage to them?>>
DAR
I have no idea and the question is irrelevant. If I have a car battery hooked up to your reproductive organs, does my intent really matter? Does it matter if I want to hurt you or just make you talk? No.
D.
--------------------
Waterboarding
Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences drowning and is caused to believe they are about to die.[1] It is considered a form of torture by legal experts,[2][3] politicians, war veterans,[4][5] medical experts in the treatment of torture victims,[6][7] intelligence officials,[8] military judges,[9] and human rights organizations.[10][11] As early as the Spanish Inquisition it was used for interrogation purposes, to punish and intimidate, and to force confessions.[12]
In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex.[13] The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage. It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, ultimately, death.[2] Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_boarding
As I am sure you have heard, conservative radio commentator "Man Cow" who sang the company line that it is not torture, had the testes to have it done on him. A light version, no sleep deprivation, no restraints, friends all around. Just a little exercise. He made it 6 seconds. Result?
"Absolutely torture." --Man Cow
Six, seconds.
Hannity offered to do it for charity:
"Sure," Hannity said. "I'll do it for charity ... I'll do it for the troops' families."
Olbermann offered $1,000 per second and now has doubled it. No response from Hannity.
I haven't really gotten concerned about these these three we know about. More important would be the people the US has tortured to death (who we know were innocent) and sent to Syria and Egypt for god knows what (This was discovered because they accidentally sent an innocent Canadian). See "Taxi to the Dark Side."
A blurb:
"Taxi to the Dark Side is a 2007 documentary film directed by American filmmaker Alex Gibney, and produced by Eva Orner and Susannah Shipman, which won the 2007 Academy Award for Documentary Feature.[1]
The film focuses on the murder in custody of an Afghan taxi driver named Dilawar.[2] Dilawar was beaten to death by American soldiers while being held in extrajudicial detention at the Bagram Air Base."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi_to_the_Dark_Side
****
BIGD: "Snopes said the COLB was proof of citizenship.">>
The article I cited is here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/bi ... ficate.asp
It says no such thing. The word "proof" does not occur in the article.
D.
****
BIGD: "If she supported a letter objecting to the use of these techniques then it means she knew."
DAR
Non sequitur. Your "then" doesn't follow from your "if."
BIGD: "...either way she looks like a liar."
DAR
She has handled this poorly and picking a fight with the CIA was dumb and unnecessary. But as Senator Boxer has said, these briefings are handled very poorly and are a big of a joke. And obviously, they can be used to try to string you up but because of the no notes, no recordings rules.
D.
------------
Trying to be more concise.
****
BLK: "and will your friends let you charge at their house if you run low?>>
DAR
Yes, they will. The nice thing is, electricity is ubiquitous in our society. And it's cheap (for a little while longer).
BLK: That will cost probably 50 bucks, perhaps more after cap and trade.>>
DAR
I owned a business selling electric vehicles in 2006 (lost about $15 grand too) so I know a little about the cost to charge them. My (E-max) full size 2,000 watt, 48 volt scooter (eight 12 volt batts in two strings) would take a full size adult almost 30 miles. The cost to charge it is about 30 cents.
I was considering the plug in hybrid GM Volt which may never happen now. I have a service business (besides the goats, which are pets) which requires about 20k of driving per year. If I was to charge my GM volt at a customers home I would meter it and pay them for their electricity of course.
I suspect it would be considerably less than a dollar. Electricity is quite cheap and electric motors are about 90% efficient.
The problem is the batteries.
D.
***
BIGD: "Chavez and Saddam Hussein receive 98% of the votes...">>
DAR
I know you are using hyperbole here but, let's see what the real numbers are:
In 1998 Chavez won the election "with 56% of the votes."
In 2006 he won the election "with 63% of the vote,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez
Learn something new every day.
****
I'll just unpack the first two sentences:
BIGD: It has been shown that Bush [the election] won over and over.>>
DAR
Actually no. Consider:
***
[A] consortium [Tribune Co., owner of the Times; Associated Press; CNN; the New York Times; the Palm Beach Post; the St. Petersburg Times; the Wall Street Journal; and the Washington Post] hired the NORC [National Opinion Research Center, a nonpartisan research organization affiliated with the University of Chicago] to view each untallied ballot and gather information about how it was marked. The media organizations then used computers to sort and tabulate votes, based on varying scenarios that had been raised during the post-election scramble in Florida. Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, Mr. Gore erased Mr. Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes.
--Donald Lambro, “Recount Provides No Firm Answers,” Washington Times, November 12, 2001.
BIGD: Gore only wanted some places recounted so he would win.>>
DAR
Not true either:
“The review found that the result would have been different if every canvassing board in every county had examined every undervote, a situation that no election or court authority had ordered. Gore had called for such a statewide manual recount if Bush would agree, but Bush rejected the idea and there was no mechanism in place to conduct one.”
--Martin Merzer, “Review of Ballots Finds Bush's Win Would Have Endured Manual Recount,” Miami Herald, April 4, 2001
http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films ... .php?id=16
The nice thing about Michael is he is so good at backing up nearly every claim in his movies with a reference.
***
ADAM: "...your side is full of irrational people who think that ACORN’s faulty registrations added up to enough actual fraudulent votes to swing an election...>>
DAR
When you say "enough actual fraudulent votes" this almost suggests that they have more than one. That's far too kind.
There isn't any evidence of that.
The ACORN issue is a complete fraud and a phoney from top to bottom. See the roast here:
http://site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ads_fraud
Just the other day Glen Beck's show tried to sandbag Barney Frank with some anti-ACORN nonsense. Frank, being smarter than the average bear, had his way with the guy, as follows:
***
Frank: As you know, the Bush administration, every year of the eight years of the Bush administration gave them well over a million dollars for housing counseling, and nobody has shown me any sign that any of that federal money was misspent. You know, I think people are being somewhat unfair to President Bush and his secretaries of HUD who consistently funded ACORN for, as I said, for a total of about 14 million dollars during the Bush years. If someone has evidence that the money that President Bush made available was misspent -- that's what I have jurisdiction over, I don't have jurisdiction over election activities by another ACORN organization -- but if anyone has any evidence, and no one has sent it to me yet, that the Bush administration ignored the misspending of that $14 million, I'll look into it.
Griff: Yes, sir, but would you hold hearings or an investigation ...?
Frank: I think you're being very unfair to President Bush."
--viewtopic.php?f=1&t=538&start=600#p18973
***
No, *Bush* is a "cowboy" who is "all hat and no cattle."
I grew up on a 180 acre dairy farm and helped milk 40 head, twice a day. We had lots of cattle. I know the difference.
Regarding guns, I have lots of them and am a bit of a marksman. So again, you don't know what you are talking about.
D.
-----------------
“You know I could run for governor but I'm basically a media creation. I've never done anything. I've worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But that's not the kind of profile you have to have to get elected to public office.” -George W. Bush, 1989
****
Bigd: [As an example of a "lie" Bigd says Obama lied because he didn't mention the US over threw Iranian leader in a speech on memorial day]
DAR
Blame America First eh?
Sneaky bugger! You're trying to be sensible and throw me off my game. Of course America's history is a mixed bag. You could give an hour lecture on the good stuff and one at least as long on the bad stuff.
Unfortunately, most Americans don't know about the three examples you give above and if they bring them up, they are accused of being anti-American and "blaming America first."
Should have Obama worded his sentence this way?
"From Europe to the Pacific, we’ve been the nation that has shut down torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law, well except for Iran, Guatemala and Indonesia, and a few others where we screwed the pooch."
Really, is that the time to get into that sort of detail? Of course not. That would be viewed as insane.
For once the GOP would have something substantive to get him on!
Is Obama's comment true? Can we find many instances where "from Europe to the Pacific" the US has "shut down torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law." In fact, has there been a country that has done it more effectively?
You have found some instances that turned out very poorly (I've used that list before on right-wing nutbars who think the US has done no wrong) but you haven't shown Obama's claim to be false and in fact, it's manifestly true. That sentence doesn't mean the US is "as pure as the driven snow" it just means what it says, that is, the US has been the nation at the fore front of "shut[ing] down torture chambers and replac[ing] tyranny with the rule of law."
WWII alone would make the case. South Korea and pushing the Soviets over the edge do too.
I do appreciate the attempt though.
D.
***
***
***
BLK: "As Bjorn Lomborg, the author...>>
DAR
Bjorn Lomborg is a profoundly dishonest person. One of his books has 300 lies in it. See this documented over and over, here:
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/
Chapter by chapter errors here:
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/skeptical.htm
He may be right about this simple claim, but you always have to check the guy. He's very sneaky.
BLK: companies and other interested groups had hired 2,430 lobbyists last year, and that was up 300% from a year ago. So much for no lobbyists in the Barama administration, huh?">>
DAR
Obama can control how many lobbyists are hired by private industry?
Did Obama say he would or could control how many lobbyists are hired by private industry?
Don't you think such a claim insults the intelligence of your readers?
D.
*****
BIGD: Bush was accused of being in bed with big business, particularly Big Oil.>>
DAR
Just accused? LOL.
BIGD: Obama is in bed with big business, particularly Big Green.>>
DAR
You may be right on this. Invest accordingly. One president reveled in the waste and pollution of a dead end resource, the other will help America compete by reducing waste and pollution and improving efficiency. And that's a very good thing.
BIGD: The nation has gotten cooler and there are too many scientists who say sunspot activity is the issue, not CO2.>>
DAR
If you ever want to go to the mat and try and defend your unscientific anti-climate change beliefs, just let me know. And no, there aren't "too many" scientists who think sunspots explain our warming, there are hardly any and almost without exception, they are NOT climate scientists. Regarding the sunspots, begin here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -sunspots/
Regarding the "nation [has] gotten cooler," look at a hundred year graph, not a cherry-picked couple of years.
BIGD: Mars is warming, guess the Martians have SUVs.>>
DAR
Actually, that's complete rubbish. Take a moment and learn the truth from an award winning science site (no politics) written by climatoligists:
"Global warming on Mars?"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
Excerpt:
"Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data."
D.
****
DAR
You can't be serious.
Blake says: "...companies and other interested groups had hired [x number]" of lobbyists. And then concludes:
"So much for no lobbyists in the Barama administration, huh?"
My point is, companies and interest groups hiring lobbyists has nothing, *No Thing,* to do with Obama or what has said he will do or even can do. But Blake pretends he can blame private industry hiring practices on Obama? That's insultingly absurd. And you want to defend that?
BIGD: "...the reality is that Obama said he would have no lobbyists in his administration and that lobbyists would not influence his administration.">>
DAR
When you start a sentence with "the reality is" it's best to be dealing with reality.
If Obama said:
a) "he would have no lobbyists in his administration"
b) "lobbyists would not influence his administration."
Then you shouldn't have any trouble quoting him saying exactly this.
Now he did make strong claims regarding lobbyist reform and setting high standards. And he has carried a great deal of them out. There have been exceptions. Lets look at the details:
***
"Obama's executive order on ethics sets these limits on former lobbyists: they can't leave the administration and lobby on matters they dealt with in the administration for two years; and lobbyists can't join agencies they lobbied in the two previous years."
There have been three waviers of this rule:
"The White House has issued three waivers lifting its ban on former registered lobbyists working in the administration. The first was to Bill Lynn, a former lobbyist for Raytheon, so he could become deputy Defense secretary; Jocelyn Frye, former general counsel of the National Partnership for Women and Families; and Cecilia Munoz, the former vice president of the National Council for La Raza. Frye is now the director of policy and projects for first lady Michelle Obama, and Munoz is the director of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs."
Here are his rules. Strict and unprecedented:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15515.html
Here is Norm Ornstein praising them:
***
Statement of Norm Ornstein
American Enterprise Institute
"Restoring trust in government is a prerequisite to enacting good policy and the tough choices the country needs. This ethics policy for the transition is a far-reaching, bold and constructive step to do just that. The policy may exclude some good people with deep experience in their fields, but it will also exclude those who see government service as a springboard to financial success, or who are more intent on pleasing future potential employers or clients than making tough choices in the public interest. As much as anything, this ethics policy is a statement about the tone and tenor of the Obama administration. It is a good sign."
--ibid
****
ADAM: "Obama is president elected with a firm majority...">>
DAR
Let me back that up a little. The country voted for Obama by such a margin that he could have spotted McCain California AND New York and he still would have won.
And these guys think if only... McCain would have been more to the right.
D.
-----------------
"...the political numbers that are truly striking. Obama has a 66 percent approval rating, which is the highest this poll has recorded, while the GOP's favorability is at 31 percent, the lowest the poll has recorded in 25 years of asking the question. Arguably more remarkable still is that, asked whether Obama or the GOP Congress would be more likely to make "the right decisions about the nation's economy," respondents broke for Obama 63 percent to 20 percent. That means that even within the 31 percent rump that holds a positive view of the GOP, at least a third trust Obama's instincts on the economy equally or more. And why shouldn't they? Despite Rush Limbaugh's best efforts just 2 percent of respondents blame Obama for the state of the economy, compared to 33 percent who blame George W. Bush."
--New Republic, April 7, 2009
****
INON: "He [Dar] is so full of hate."
DAR
This is called projection. You behave a certain way and then project and attribute your behavior onto others.
I don't act like you. Ever.
When you remove the hate, vitriol, personal attacks and insults from "Inonitnot's" posts, there is nothing left. And that's too bad. It's a wasted opportunity and not an effective way of getting any point across.
D.
****
BIGD: "Obama misled people in that speech.">>
DAR
Still waiting for one example. Blake made a few attempts but as I showed he had to resort to completely making them up.
Quote Obama "in that speech," show how/where he "misled people." Make your case. Let's see what you've got.
You've brought a squirt gun to a gun fight, but did you bring any water?
D.
****
DAR
This Pelosi story presents an interesting conundrum for conservatives (other than it's usefulness as a distraction from their policies of torture).
They pretend she should have done something to stop this. So to the extent they make noise about this, they are admitting there was something wrong that needed to be stopped.
A couple of points. She was minority leader at the time and being briefed in a way that allowed no notes, no cross-examination and no counter point. You sit, you listen, and you can't talk about it because it's top secret. And because you can't have a record of the event, you can't show you have or have not been told, anything.
And you're minority leader so you have very little power if any, anyway (ask Boehner about that).
Now comes along this wholly baseless claim:
BIGD: "She has lied about her knowledge of waterboarding being used..."
DAR
Show this. I ask this knowing you cannot.
All you have is an awkward press conference where she fumbled over herself. Big whoop.
Before I post something I have a policy of asking myself if my claims are true. It's a good policy and I recommend you give this method a try.
D.
-----------------
"Sen. Bob Graham backs up Pelosi and says he was never briefed on waterboarding by the CIA"
"Former Sen.(D)Bob Graham, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee told David Shuster that he never was briefed about waterboarding by the CIA on MSNBC. He also said that he was never allowed to take real notes about the CIA briefings, but he did log the topics and the amount of times he was briefed. They don't match up with the CIA's version."
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/se ... nd-says-he
****
BLK: "Obama said that lobbyists would HAVE NO INFLUENCE in his administration."
DAR
What an absurd claim. Lobbying, even by paid individuals is an important part of our governing process and representative feedback system.
When are you going to show, cite, reference this statement that you say Obama said? You will need to do this to build your case for a "lie."
It's becoming clear that don't have basic skills in how to snoop around and find evidence to back up your claims. I'm pretty good at it so I did a bit of checking for you. If such a quote existed it would be very easy to find.
It doesn't exist.
Try again.
D.
*****
BIGD: since she [Pelosi] did not say anything she agreed with it.>>
DAR
But no one has shown, or even can show, she was told waterboarding was occurring.
BIGD: Even the minority leader can bring the objection up...>>
DAR
Why would she bring it up if she wasn't told? Because of the secrecy, you can do no better than "he said she said."
BIGD: I wonder how many of people like you thought the whole Plame issue was worth pursuing..>>
DAR
When a spy is outed by it's own government, reasonable people would say it is worth pursuing.
BIGD: when Bush was not involved,>>
DAR
Then he should pay closer attention and/or not surround himself with people who keep things from him and lie to him. Scott McClelland, Bush's press secretary knows about being lied to by this bunch.
BIGD: Plame was not covert,>>
DAR
The prosecutor said she was. Let me know if you want the quote.
BIGD: and the leaker was someone who did not agree with Bush on war policy.>>
DAR
That doesn't narrow it down much.
BIGD: Also, the specials prosecutor knew who it was after 3 days of investigation.>>
DAR
But Scooter did his best to obstruct justice in the case, as the jury decided.
BIGD: The CIA said she was briefed and SHE said she was briefed after several denials.>>
DAR
Of course she was briefed. The question is what was she briefed on. This is what is in question.
Best to not call someone a liar unless you can back it up. That's not too much to ask. I was pretty rough on GW Bush over the years but I rarely if ever claimed that he was a liar. This is because I know that to show a lie you have to show someone intentionally said something untrue. It's hard to show intent.
BIGD: And you cite a Democrat as her alibi? That is credible.>>
DAR
Yes, it is. James Fallows of The Atlantic addresses this:
***
Part of the payoff of reaching age 72 and having spent 38 years in public office, as Graham has, is that people have had a chance to judge your reputation. Graham has a general reputation for honesty. In my eyes he has a specific reputation for very good judgment: he was one of a handful of Senators actually to read the full classified intelligence report about the "threats" posed by Saddam Hussein. On the basis of reading it, despite a career as a conservative/centrist Democrat, he voted against the war and fervently urged his colleagues to do the same. "Blood is going to be on your hands," he warned those who voted yes.
More relevant in this case, Graham also has a specific reputation for keeping detailed daily records of people he met and things they said. He's sometimes been mocked for this compulsive practice, but he's never been doubted about the completeness or accuracy of what he compiles. (In the fine print of those records would be an indication that I had interviewed him about Iraq war policy while he was in the Senate and recently spent time with him when he was on this side of the world.)
So if he says he never got the briefing, he didn't. And if the CIA or anyone acting on its behalf challenges him, they are stupid and incompetent as well as being untrustworthy. This doesn't prove that the accounts of briefing Pelosi are also inaccurate. But it shifts the burden of proof."
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/arc ... am_how.php
***
DAR
I don't trust the Moonie times. I did see this:
"CIA said it stood by its record of the 2002 briefing that showed, based on recollections of agency employees..."
So we have nobody allowed to take notes, and people babbling about what they think they "recollect" from 7 years ago. This story is going nowhere. Nice try though.
Water boarding is of course torture and it is a millstone that will be hung around the GOP's neck for a very long time.
D.
***
BIGD: And if you ask yourself if claims are true why do you cite things that are incorrect?>>
DAR
When did I do that?
BD: Just because you cite places that are sympathetic to liberal views does not make them accurate.>>
DAR
Of course.
BD: Like Snopes and the COLB which is not a birth certificate.>>
DAR
The snopes article I cited specifically referred to the "Certificate of Live Birth."
BIGD: Or that Obama never said what he did about lobbyists.>>
DAR
Show he said what you claim he said. Back it up. That's in another thread. I'll get to it in a minute.
D.
***
BIGD: In the 1970s the big fear was an ice age and we can see how that turned out.>>
DAR
No, that's false. A lie peddled by dishonest commentators like George Will (who I usually like).
For starters, see:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2 ... -1970s.php
And:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
For a debunk of Will's latest howlers on this see:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04 ... ts_wmo.php
BIGD: There are plenty of scientists who do not believe in GW...>>
DAR
Right-wing weathermen, are not climate scientists. Let's check:
****
"According to a recent article in Eos (Doran and Zimmermann, 'Examining the Scientific consensus on Climate Change', Volume 90, Number 3, 2009; p. 22-23 - only available for AGU members - update: a public link to the article is here), about 58% of the general public in the US thinks that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing the mean global temperature, as opposed to 97% of specialists surveyed. The disproportion between these numbers is a concern, and one possible explanation may be that the <B>science literacy among the general public is low."
Note: "Not one single, solitary scientific professional or honorific science organization has dissented from the consensus opinion on climate change. Not one. And it’s been examined in minute detail by the NAS, AGU and a veritable alphabet soup of scientists [and science organizations].
BIGD: and many who believe in sunspot activity.>>
DAR
Actually your GW denier material is out of date. This isn't even brought up anymore and when it was, it was be people who weren't climate scientists.
BIGD: To say the issue is settled is a slap in the face to real science...>>
DAR
Science doesn't give us certainty, it gives us probabilities. We have about 95% confidence that the claims held by the climate scientists regarding mankind's influence in warming the earth, current and in the future, are accurate.
You could be right. It could be some unknown cause we have not recognized. But this is not very likely.
BIGD: Stopping the debate with inane suggestions that the science is settled, especially since it has yet to be proved, is careless.>>
DAR
Don't stop the debate but give some good reasons to doubt the consensus position. Sunspots, cooling in the 70's, we breath CO2, doesn't get it. Here is a standard FAQ on this. You no doubt have a few more of these floating around because you have heard them but not checked them out. Check out the debunk before you pass along GW denier material. There are probably 80 in this list:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2 ... ceptic.php
BIGD: Al Gore stands to make a ton of money on a hoax.>>
DAR
His investments in green technology are given to a non-profit (FOX dishonestly edited that part out of his video testimony). See:
"Fox News Caught Repeatedly Cropping, Manipulating Video"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC2DJR8I ... r_embedded
BIGD: Green technology is a way to make special people rich at our expense.>>
DAR
Anyone can invest. I encourage you to. My computer is running on solar power right now. I bought four 15 watt panels at Tractor Supply for $299 and the battery for $69. They probably won't pay for themselves because energy is still far too cheap. This will change. I charge tools and play with them for fun.
BIGD: Oil is here for a reason and that reason is for us to use. There is a lot of it and a lot of natural gas.>>
DAR
There used to be a lot of it. We are going to use it, every bit of it, but we need to be smart. 12 mpg is not smart. Driving a hummer is not smart and giving a $100,000 tax benefit to encourage the purchase of heavier vehicles is stupidity on stilts. We will need that last bit of oil to lube the gears on my grandsons electric vehicle. And we need oil for our fertilizers.
BIGD: They keep finding oil fields and we have not run out yet.>>
DAR
All the big ones have been found and many of those are in major decline. I encourage you to read up on this. I have put this rather concise collection together:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1873&p=9426&hilit=peak#p9277
BIGD: I also don’t want to be poor and without power while a guy who flies in private jets and uses more electricity...>>
DAR
More rubbish about Al Gore. Make your claims specific and I'll roast them.
And your smears are out of date. As I posted over a year ago:
"Gore makes Nashville home more 'green'
* Home now has solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating
* Highest rating possible "short of tearing it down," says U.S. Green Building Council
The CNN article is gone but I copied it all here:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4451&p=13623&hilit= ... rgy#p13623
Half way down my post.
Excerpt:
"The Green Building Council's certification program has four levels, with platinum being the highest followed by gold. Gore's home was one of 14 to earn gold status and the only Tennessee home to earn any certification....
...his natural gas use has dropped 93 percent in the three months since the geothermal pump was activated."
D.
***
DAR [re lobbying]
The yahoo article is good. I encourage people to read it. Eight thousand people hired, and he it shows what, 12 waviers?
As your Yahoo News article quotes:
“Any good set of ethics rules has the opportunity for waivers, but if the waivers become the rule, rather than the exception, then you have to look at whether the waivers are being sought too frequently or whether there’s a problem with the rule,”
If Obama has an excellent qualified person in front of him he can choose to throw them away to strictly follow something he said, or he can in very rare occasions, set aside his own rule.
I don't want a president that is so ridge he can't make exceptions on occasion. What does twelve represent out of 8,000? .15 %
The quote from "Des Moines" quote is vague and is further detailed in his rules regarding lobbyists. His claim regarding funding was specifically, according to his rules, with regard to federally registered lobbyists.
Your "Roll Call" article makes this point and refutes yours (while noting that Obama had 40 donations and McCain 440). To quote:
"The Obama campaign said it has not changed its policy regarding lobbyist contributions and that it continues to take steps to ensure such contributions are returned."
And: "“Because of a law championed by Sen. Obama, lobbyists are now required to disclose their contributions, which gives us another chance to make sure we haven’t taken any money from lobbyists,” Vietor said. “Any contributions from lobbyists that weren’t already returned will be soon.” --Roll Call, ibid
DAR
You should read the articles you cite. Using a persons own source against them (by careful reading) is a bit of a specialty of mine.
D.
***
BIGD: "OK, then I don’t trust any of the liberal publications you cited for any argument..>>
DAR
Sorry, Moonie Times is junk. Quote Pelosi, (even from them, I can check that) that's fine, Moonie Times opinion/spin, not a reputable source.
BIGD: Under the law waterboarding was not torture when it was done in 2002.>>
DAR
You like to change the subject a lot. If you want to defend "water boarding is not torture" lets go. I'll roast you to a crisp.
BIGD: Let me ask, do you think the people who waterboarded the terrorists intended to hurt them or just make them talk?>>
DAR
Probably both. I don't see why "intent" would bear upon the question of whether the action is torture. Water boarding is torture. Always has been, always will be. See below.
BIGD: Was the intent to inflict damage to them?>>
DAR
I have no idea and the question is irrelevant. If I have a car battery hooked up to your reproductive organs, does my intent really matter? Does it matter if I want to hurt you or just make you talk? No.
D.
--------------------
Waterboarding
Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences drowning and is caused to believe they are about to die.[1] It is considered a form of torture by legal experts,[2][3] politicians, war veterans,[4][5] medical experts in the treatment of torture victims,[6][7] intelligence officials,[8] military judges,[9] and human rights organizations.[10][11] As early as the Spanish Inquisition it was used for interrogation purposes, to punish and intimidate, and to force confessions.[12]
In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex.[13] The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage. It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, ultimately, death.[2] Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_boarding
As I am sure you have heard, conservative radio commentator "Man Cow" who sang the company line that it is not torture, had the testes to have it done on him. A light version, no sleep deprivation, no restraints, friends all around. Just a little exercise. He made it 6 seconds. Result?
"Absolutely torture." --Man Cow
Six, seconds.
Hannity offered to do it for charity:
"Sure," Hannity said. "I'll do it for charity ... I'll do it for the troops' families."
Olbermann offered $1,000 per second and now has doubled it. No response from Hannity.
I haven't really gotten concerned about these these three we know about. More important would be the people the US has tortured to death (who we know were innocent) and sent to Syria and Egypt for god knows what (This was discovered because they accidentally sent an innocent Canadian). See "Taxi to the Dark Side."
A blurb:
"Taxi to the Dark Side is a 2007 documentary film directed by American filmmaker Alex Gibney, and produced by Eva Orner and Susannah Shipman, which won the 2007 Academy Award for Documentary Feature.[1]
The film focuses on the murder in custody of an Afghan taxi driver named Dilawar.[2] Dilawar was beaten to death by American soldiers while being held in extrajudicial detention at the Bagram Air Base."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi_to_the_Dark_Side
****
BIGD: "Snopes said the COLB was proof of citizenship.">>
The article I cited is here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/bi ... ficate.asp
It says no such thing. The word "proof" does not occur in the article.
D.
****
BIGD: "If she supported a letter objecting to the use of these techniques then it means she knew."
DAR
Non sequitur. Your "then" doesn't follow from your "if."
BIGD: "...either way she looks like a liar."
DAR
She has handled this poorly and picking a fight with the CIA was dumb and unnecessary. But as Senator Boxer has said, these briefings are handled very poorly and are a big of a joke. And obviously, they can be used to try to string you up but because of the no notes, no recordings rules.
D.
------------
Trying to be more concise.
****
BLK: "and will your friends let you charge at their house if you run low?>>
DAR
Yes, they will. The nice thing is, electricity is ubiquitous in our society. And it's cheap (for a little while longer).
BLK: That will cost probably 50 bucks, perhaps more after cap and trade.>>
DAR
I owned a business selling electric vehicles in 2006 (lost about $15 grand too) so I know a little about the cost to charge them. My (E-max) full size 2,000 watt, 48 volt scooter (eight 12 volt batts in two strings) would take a full size adult almost 30 miles. The cost to charge it is about 30 cents.
I was considering the plug in hybrid GM Volt which may never happen now. I have a service business (besides the goats, which are pets) which requires about 20k of driving per year. If I was to charge my GM volt at a customers home I would meter it and pay them for their electricity of course.
I suspect it would be considerably less than a dollar. Electricity is quite cheap and electric motors are about 90% efficient.
The problem is the batteries.
D.
***
BIGD: "Chavez and Saddam Hussein receive 98% of the votes...">>
DAR
I know you are using hyperbole here but, let's see what the real numbers are:
In 1998 Chavez won the election "with 56% of the votes."
In 2006 he won the election "with 63% of the vote,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez
Learn something new every day.
****
I'll just unpack the first two sentences:
BIGD: It has been shown that Bush [the election] won over and over.>>
DAR
Actually no. Consider:
***
[A] consortium [Tribune Co., owner of the Times; Associated Press; CNN; the New York Times; the Palm Beach Post; the St. Petersburg Times; the Wall Street Journal; and the Washington Post] hired the NORC [National Opinion Research Center, a nonpartisan research organization affiliated with the University of Chicago] to view each untallied ballot and gather information about how it was marked. The media organizations then used computers to sort and tabulate votes, based on varying scenarios that had been raised during the post-election scramble in Florida. Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, Mr. Gore erased Mr. Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes.
--Donald Lambro, “Recount Provides No Firm Answers,” Washington Times, November 12, 2001.
BIGD: Gore only wanted some places recounted so he would win.>>
DAR
Not true either:
“The review found that the result would have been different if every canvassing board in every county had examined every undervote, a situation that no election or court authority had ordered. Gore had called for such a statewide manual recount if Bush would agree, but Bush rejected the idea and there was no mechanism in place to conduct one.”
--Martin Merzer, “Review of Ballots Finds Bush's Win Would Have Endured Manual Recount,” Miami Herald, April 4, 2001
http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films ... .php?id=16
The nice thing about Michael is he is so good at backing up nearly every claim in his movies with a reference.
***
ADAM: "...your side is full of irrational people who think that ACORN’s faulty registrations added up to enough actual fraudulent votes to swing an election...>>
DAR
When you say "enough actual fraudulent votes" this almost suggests that they have more than one. That's far too kind.
There isn't any evidence of that.
The ACORN issue is a complete fraud and a phoney from top to bottom. See the roast here:
http://site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ads_fraud
Just the other day Glen Beck's show tried to sandbag Barney Frank with some anti-ACORN nonsense. Frank, being smarter than the average bear, had his way with the guy, as follows:
***
Frank: As you know, the Bush administration, every year of the eight years of the Bush administration gave them well over a million dollars for housing counseling, and nobody has shown me any sign that any of that federal money was misspent. You know, I think people are being somewhat unfair to President Bush and his secretaries of HUD who consistently funded ACORN for, as I said, for a total of about 14 million dollars during the Bush years. If someone has evidence that the money that President Bush made available was misspent -- that's what I have jurisdiction over, I don't have jurisdiction over election activities by another ACORN organization -- but if anyone has any evidence, and no one has sent it to me yet, that the Bush administration ignored the misspending of that $14 million, I'll look into it.
Griff: Yes, sir, but would you hold hearings or an investigation ...?
Frank: I think you're being very unfair to President Bush."
--viewtopic.php?f=1&t=538&start=600#p18973
***
No, *Bush* is a "cowboy" who is "all hat and no cattle."
I grew up on a 180 acre dairy farm and helped milk 40 head, twice a day. We had lots of cattle. I know the difference.
Regarding guns, I have lots of them and am a bit of a marksman. So again, you don't know what you are talking about.
D.
-----------------
“You know I could run for governor but I'm basically a media creation. I've never done anything. I've worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But that's not the kind of profile you have to have to get elected to public office.” -George W. Bush, 1989
****
Bigd: [As an example of a "lie" Bigd says Obama lied because he didn't mention the US over threw Iranian leader in a speech on memorial day]
DAR
Blame America First eh?
Sneaky bugger! You're trying to be sensible and throw me off my game. Of course America's history is a mixed bag. You could give an hour lecture on the good stuff and one at least as long on the bad stuff.
Unfortunately, most Americans don't know about the three examples you give above and if they bring them up, they are accused of being anti-American and "blaming America first."
Should have Obama worded his sentence this way?
"From Europe to the Pacific, we’ve been the nation that has shut down torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law, well except for Iran, Guatemala and Indonesia, and a few others where we screwed the pooch."
Really, is that the time to get into that sort of detail? Of course not. That would be viewed as insane.
For once the GOP would have something substantive to get him on!
Is Obama's comment true? Can we find many instances where "from Europe to the Pacific" the US has "shut down torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law." In fact, has there been a country that has done it more effectively?
You have found some instances that turned out very poorly (I've used that list before on right-wing nutbars who think the US has done no wrong) but you haven't shown Obama's claim to be false and in fact, it's manifestly true. That sentence doesn't mean the US is "as pure as the driven snow" it just means what it says, that is, the US has been the nation at the fore front of "shut[ing] down torture chambers and replac[ing] tyranny with the rule of law."
WWII alone would make the case. South Korea and pushing the Soviets over the edge do too.
I do appreciate the attempt though.
D.
***
***
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - June 30)
MAY 24, 2009
***
BLK: "If these [liberal] views were popular, they would already BE on the radio.>>
DAR
Right-wingers buy stations (sinclair, clear channel) and use our public airwaves for uncountered propaganda. Limbaugh's show was given to stations for free. They can do this but it is a little tiresome and more than a little embarrassing when adults from grown-up countries come to visit.
A little sample from rightwing radio:
"Clear Channel hosts likened African outfit worn by Obama to "the kind of garb you often see Osama bin Laden in" and to "Somali warlord garb"
Cunningham alleged that "Obama wants to gas the Jews"
In the days before the election, media figures have repeatedly compared Obama to Hitler
Newman: "[T]here will be an invasion of Muslim terrorists" if Obama becomes president"
Radio Sickness: It's not Just Limbaugh
So about the level of quality of your material Blake.
BLK: The failure of liberal Air America radio proves there is no market for their drivel.>>
DAR
Air America is on the air and doing fine. They have some excellent programming (Thom Hartmann) and lots of crap.
They had some birthing troubles because some lunatic libertarians owned it and it was very poorly managed at the beginning.
Rightwingers can have their AM talk. It has become farce. It obviously didn't keep the GOP from falling off the cliff and probably helped push it. The "Fairness Doctrine" (oh my, "fairness?" you mean there is more than one side to these issues?) is going no where and is a rightwing bogey man. On a level playing field where free exchange is allowed, such as the internet, right-wingers can't keep up. They can't even compete.
BLK: "where certain stations would be stripped from the rightful owners,..">>
DAR: Where do you get such nonsense? Your bottom or perhaps... the radio? It's not helpful to have a nation being constantly lied to by blowhards with microphones. You are perfect example of this. You may be a perfectly sensible on some topics but with regard to politics, your beliefs are irrational, indefensible and you are devoted to them with a cult-like faith.
BLAKE: there will be onerous taxes on the ammo...>>
DAR
Impossible. It's too easy to make at home. Like pot.
BLK: Second Amendment,>>
DAR
Gun issues are dead for now. Not going anywhere. The American bloodbath will continue (the gun issue is a bit of a specialty of mine).
BLK: But under Barama,... taxed to within an inch of your life.>>
DAR
Then Reagan was a Pinko Commie because we had higher tax rates under him. See it all detailed here:
"Pinko Commie Reagan had higher tax rates"
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5648#p18109
BLK: ...the blind refusal to drill off of our coasts,>>
DAR
We drill off of our coasts. The Gulf alone has right now about 850 manned platforms, not counting the unmanned ones. We are squeezing the last drops from our nations reserves. All the easy stuff is gone. You are profoundly misinformed about our planets situation regarding oil.
Take a few moments to get informed:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5106&start=0&hilit=peak+oil
This is more specific:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1873&hilit=oil#p9277
BLK: B’s onerous taxes,>>
DAR
More delusion. He lowered taxes on the vast majority and went back to the level's we had under Clinton. The rich (and everyone else) did far better under Clinton than they did under Bush. If the stock market increased under Bush at the rate it did under Clinton, it would be at 35,000 points today. It's not one fourth of that.
If the S & P had increased under Bush as it did under Clinton it would be well over 4,000. It closed at 887 Friday.
Every measure that we use to judge the success and health of our country was better under Clinton than Bush. Bush left each category worse. See it all laid out here:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3475
Thanks for the post Blake.
Darrel.
****
[wikipedia bashing]
DAR
Wikipedia allows no original research. All of the claims I cited were referenced from standard sources (I left the footnotes in for you to see them). If you would prefer me to cut and past all of that stuff rather than just give the link, I can do that.
Every line on any contentious subject on wiki is battled over behind the scenes. Any one can go and view these battles. I recommend it. What comes out of that process is a pretty good consensus of what can hold up to scrutiny.
You say according to "Obama’s AG, we did not torture them."
Could you cite this for me please?
You say: "Alberto Gonzales wrote the memo that said it was not torture because no one intended to hurt anyone."
That's laughable on it's face.
I haven't read that much on the water boarding / torture issue because I find it hard to consider the idea that it's not torture seriously.
If a government takes an American soldier (perhaps your sister) and does this procedure to her 180 times, it's **mind boggling** that you would consider it "not torture."
I'll look into the strictly "legal" status.
Hitchens was a strong supporter and defender of every aspect of Bush's wars against terrorism. Here is his experience:
***
In May 2008 the journalist Christopher Hitchens voluntarily experienced waterboarding. He managed to resist for twelve seconds the first time, and, embarrassed at his poor performance, he asked to try again. He then managed to resist for 19 seconds.[43] He later told the BBC: "There is a common misconception that waterboarding simulates the sensation of drowning, but you are to all intents and purposes actually drowning".[43] He said that although he was somewhat prepared for his ordeal, he had not been prepared for what came later: "I have been waking up with sensations of being smothered".[43] Hitchens concluded, "if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture. Believe me. It's torture".
--wiki
DAR
If it's not torture, why can't the police do it?
Oh, here's what happens when they do:
***
Use by law enforcement
In 1983 Texas sheriff James Parker and three of his deputies were convicted for conspiring to force confessions. The complaint said they "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions....[72] The sheriff was sentenced to ten years in prison, and the deputies to four years.[72][79]
***
See "waterboarding" at wiki.
D.
****
BLK: "the lie [global cooling] was not peddled by Will-"
DAR
Will has been peddling the "70's cooling" whopper for years. His latest howlers are documented at the link I provided. I like and respect George Will but he has made an utter fool of himself on this one (and a few other issues).
BLK: He had nothing to do with the Newsweek cover depicting the Earth as a ball of ice.>>
DAR
A piece of advice: Don't appeal, to a single article, in a non-science, non-peer reviewed, coffee table news magazine written 36 years ago for the lay public. That's not where science is done.
As one fellow put it:
"There was some speculation on the part of some scientists, and it got picked up in the popular press. But there was no serious peer-reviewed work which supported this speculation.
To imply any similarity, let alone equivalence, between such relatively unsupported speculation back in the 60's and 70's and the massive volume of peer-reviewed work on global warming today is dishonest in the extreme."
D.
****
BLK: Don’t play the typical Dem that parses verbs, or says that he only lied .15%. A lie is a lie.">>
DAR
Getting beyond the irony of this coming from you... I will proceed.
It does not follow that saying something, and then doing something else, is a lie. You would have to show that the person intended to not follow through on their claim when they made it.
People change their minds. Circumstances change. If you do this a lot, people will rightfully call you a flip flopper.
I have explained why any reasonable person would not consider Obama's tiny fraction of exceptions to his rule a problem.
Oh that you could be consistent and accurate as often.
It's ironic that those on the right chide people for considering Obama some kind of saint. Yet, when if he does something that falls very so slightly short of sainthood, they are quick to pretend he is some kind of a demon.
D.
ps. You keep saying "out of context" but you never provide or demonstrate an example. It's not clear that you know what it means to take something "out of context." It's as if this is just something you've heard and repeat it as a rebuttal. If you are going to make the charge, back it up. Otherwise, it's meaningless.
****
BLK: "he [Gore] stands to make about 100 million dollars."
DAR
If that were true I would say good, people who invest wisely should make money. Feel free to join in. But you can't back up your claim. Gore comes from old money, there is no evidence that this is his motivation. Rightwingers constantly accuse him of doing his book and movie for money. He and his wife are (have):
"...devoting 100 percent of the profits from the book and the movie to a new bipartisan educational campaign to further spread the message about global warming."
<url=http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archi ... >LINK</url>
BIGD: "Bush’s ranch had geothermal for a long time"
DAR: That's true. People should follow his example. Hot Rock geothermal technology holds tremendous potential for America.
You say: "It does not matter what Gore did to his house.">>
DAR
He bought an historic house and rather than tear it down, invested much time and effort into making it efficient. As the link I gave cited: "Gore's home was one of 14 to earn gold status and the only Tennessee home to earn any certification."
Have you ever thought that talking reasonably about these issues might be more effective?
D.
****
BIGD: "lets... use a software developer to make the point. [about GW]>>
DAR
No, lets not. Do you call a piano tuner to fix a broken pipe? Knowledge is very specialized. You know about this with your medical background. When people talk outside of their field they get lost and make fools of themselves, quickly.
Twice I thought I figured out an illness I had. Damn, if I only didn't have to go to the doctor to get a prescription! Why can't I get this stuff myself? I go to the doctor. In about 30 seconds he tells me what I have and it is nothing remotely like I thought.
Figuring out medical problems is not a specialty of mine.
Knowledge is very specialized these days.
My knowledge specialty is pianos. When people talk about pianos, they usually don't know what they are talking about and this includes salesmen and world class pianists.
Climatology is a very specialized science. Realclimate.org is an award winning science site written by climate scientists without politics. If you want to check something about this science, start there.
I don't know who your Coby is but you have not been getting good information but rather someone confirming bias you want to hear. This is a common problem.
D.
****
BIGD: There are about 50 factual errors in F9/11.>>
DAR
Show me one I haven't swatted down before. Hit me with your best shot.
BIGD: He also spliced two Heston speeches together to make it look like one.>>
DAR
Oh the horror. He edited his movie. Movies/docs typically have sections where scenes last less than a second, jumping from one area/location to another.
BIGD: He takes stuff out if it does not agree with his POV and he splices stuff so it will.>>
DAR
Are you suggesting he edits his movies in such a way that they promote his point of view?
Preposterous!
D.
ps. Not so interested in the Gore v. Bush debate now that the national nightmare is over.
pps. He has a new movie coming out this fall. I hope it's a doosey.
****
***
BLK: "If these [liberal] views were popular, they would already BE on the radio.>>
DAR
Right-wingers buy stations (sinclair, clear channel) and use our public airwaves for uncountered propaganda. Limbaugh's show was given to stations for free. They can do this but it is a little tiresome and more than a little embarrassing when adults from grown-up countries come to visit.
A little sample from rightwing radio:
"Clear Channel hosts likened African outfit worn by Obama to "the kind of garb you often see Osama bin Laden in" and to "Somali warlord garb"
Cunningham alleged that "Obama wants to gas the Jews"
In the days before the election, media figures have repeatedly compared Obama to Hitler
Newman: "[T]here will be an invasion of Muslim terrorists" if Obama becomes president"
Radio Sickness: It's not Just Limbaugh
So about the level of quality of your material Blake.
BLK: The failure of liberal Air America radio proves there is no market for their drivel.>>
DAR
Air America is on the air and doing fine. They have some excellent programming (Thom Hartmann) and lots of crap.
They had some birthing troubles because some lunatic libertarians owned it and it was very poorly managed at the beginning.
Rightwingers can have their AM talk. It has become farce. It obviously didn't keep the GOP from falling off the cliff and probably helped push it. The "Fairness Doctrine" (oh my, "fairness?" you mean there is more than one side to these issues?) is going no where and is a rightwing bogey man. On a level playing field where free exchange is allowed, such as the internet, right-wingers can't keep up. They can't even compete.
BLK: "where certain stations would be stripped from the rightful owners,..">>
DAR: Where do you get such nonsense? Your bottom or perhaps... the radio? It's not helpful to have a nation being constantly lied to by blowhards with microphones. You are perfect example of this. You may be a perfectly sensible on some topics but with regard to politics, your beliefs are irrational, indefensible and you are devoted to them with a cult-like faith.
BLAKE: there will be onerous taxes on the ammo...>>
DAR
Impossible. It's too easy to make at home. Like pot.
BLK: Second Amendment,>>
DAR
Gun issues are dead for now. Not going anywhere. The American bloodbath will continue (the gun issue is a bit of a specialty of mine).
BLK: But under Barama,... taxed to within an inch of your life.>>
DAR
Then Reagan was a Pinko Commie because we had higher tax rates under him. See it all detailed here:
"Pinko Commie Reagan had higher tax rates"
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5648#p18109
BLK: ...the blind refusal to drill off of our coasts,>>
DAR
We drill off of our coasts. The Gulf alone has right now about 850 manned platforms, not counting the unmanned ones. We are squeezing the last drops from our nations reserves. All the easy stuff is gone. You are profoundly misinformed about our planets situation regarding oil.
Take a few moments to get informed:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5106&start=0&hilit=peak+oil
This is more specific:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1873&hilit=oil#p9277
BLK: B’s onerous taxes,>>
DAR
More delusion. He lowered taxes on the vast majority and went back to the level's we had under Clinton. The rich (and everyone else) did far better under Clinton than they did under Bush. If the stock market increased under Bush at the rate it did under Clinton, it would be at 35,000 points today. It's not one fourth of that.
If the S & P had increased under Bush as it did under Clinton it would be well over 4,000. It closed at 887 Friday.
Every measure that we use to judge the success and health of our country was better under Clinton than Bush. Bush left each category worse. See it all laid out here:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3475
Thanks for the post Blake.
Darrel.
****
[wikipedia bashing]
DAR
Wikipedia allows no original research. All of the claims I cited were referenced from standard sources (I left the footnotes in for you to see them). If you would prefer me to cut and past all of that stuff rather than just give the link, I can do that.
Every line on any contentious subject on wiki is battled over behind the scenes. Any one can go and view these battles. I recommend it. What comes out of that process is a pretty good consensus of what can hold up to scrutiny.
You say according to "Obama’s AG, we did not torture them."
Could you cite this for me please?
You say: "Alberto Gonzales wrote the memo that said it was not torture because no one intended to hurt anyone."
That's laughable on it's face.
I haven't read that much on the water boarding / torture issue because I find it hard to consider the idea that it's not torture seriously.
If a government takes an American soldier (perhaps your sister) and does this procedure to her 180 times, it's **mind boggling** that you would consider it "not torture."
I'll look into the strictly "legal" status.
Hitchens was a strong supporter and defender of every aspect of Bush's wars against terrorism. Here is his experience:
***
In May 2008 the journalist Christopher Hitchens voluntarily experienced waterboarding. He managed to resist for twelve seconds the first time, and, embarrassed at his poor performance, he asked to try again. He then managed to resist for 19 seconds.[43] He later told the BBC: "There is a common misconception that waterboarding simulates the sensation of drowning, but you are to all intents and purposes actually drowning".[43] He said that although he was somewhat prepared for his ordeal, he had not been prepared for what came later: "I have been waking up with sensations of being smothered".[43] Hitchens concluded, "if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture. Believe me. It's torture".
--wiki
DAR
If it's not torture, why can't the police do it?
Oh, here's what happens when they do:
***
Use by law enforcement
In 1983 Texas sheriff James Parker and three of his deputies were convicted for conspiring to force confessions. The complaint said they "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions....[72] The sheriff was sentenced to ten years in prison, and the deputies to four years.[72][79]
***
See "waterboarding" at wiki.
D.
****
BLK: "the lie [global cooling] was not peddled by Will-"
DAR
Will has been peddling the "70's cooling" whopper for years. His latest howlers are documented at the link I provided. I like and respect George Will but he has made an utter fool of himself on this one (and a few other issues).
BLK: He had nothing to do with the Newsweek cover depicting the Earth as a ball of ice.>>
DAR
A piece of advice: Don't appeal, to a single article, in a non-science, non-peer reviewed, coffee table news magazine written 36 years ago for the lay public. That's not where science is done.
As one fellow put it:
"There was some speculation on the part of some scientists, and it got picked up in the popular press. But there was no serious peer-reviewed work which supported this speculation.
To imply any similarity, let alone equivalence, between such relatively unsupported speculation back in the 60's and 70's and the massive volume of peer-reviewed work on global warming today is dishonest in the extreme."
D.
****
BLK: Don’t play the typical Dem that parses verbs, or says that he only lied .15%. A lie is a lie.">>
DAR
Getting beyond the irony of this coming from you... I will proceed.
It does not follow that saying something, and then doing something else, is a lie. You would have to show that the person intended to not follow through on their claim when they made it.
People change their minds. Circumstances change. If you do this a lot, people will rightfully call you a flip flopper.
I have explained why any reasonable person would not consider Obama's tiny fraction of exceptions to his rule a problem.
Oh that you could be consistent and accurate as often.
It's ironic that those on the right chide people for considering Obama some kind of saint. Yet, when if he does something that falls very so slightly short of sainthood, they are quick to pretend he is some kind of a demon.
D.
ps. You keep saying "out of context" but you never provide or demonstrate an example. It's not clear that you know what it means to take something "out of context." It's as if this is just something you've heard and repeat it as a rebuttal. If you are going to make the charge, back it up. Otherwise, it's meaningless.
****
BLK: "he [Gore] stands to make about 100 million dollars."
DAR
If that were true I would say good, people who invest wisely should make money. Feel free to join in. But you can't back up your claim. Gore comes from old money, there is no evidence that this is his motivation. Rightwingers constantly accuse him of doing his book and movie for money. He and his wife are (have):
"...devoting 100 percent of the profits from the book and the movie to a new bipartisan educational campaign to further spread the message about global warming."
<url=http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archi ... >LINK</url>
BIGD: "Bush’s ranch had geothermal for a long time"
DAR: That's true. People should follow his example. Hot Rock geothermal technology holds tremendous potential for America.
You say: "It does not matter what Gore did to his house.">>
DAR
He bought an historic house and rather than tear it down, invested much time and effort into making it efficient. As the link I gave cited: "Gore's home was one of 14 to earn gold status and the only Tennessee home to earn any certification."
Have you ever thought that talking reasonably about these issues might be more effective?
D.
****
BIGD: "lets... use a software developer to make the point. [about GW]>>
DAR
No, lets not. Do you call a piano tuner to fix a broken pipe? Knowledge is very specialized. You know about this with your medical background. When people talk outside of their field they get lost and make fools of themselves, quickly.
Twice I thought I figured out an illness I had. Damn, if I only didn't have to go to the doctor to get a prescription! Why can't I get this stuff myself? I go to the doctor. In about 30 seconds he tells me what I have and it is nothing remotely like I thought.
Figuring out medical problems is not a specialty of mine.
Knowledge is very specialized these days.
My knowledge specialty is pianos. When people talk about pianos, they usually don't know what they are talking about and this includes salesmen and world class pianists.
Climatology is a very specialized science. Realclimate.org is an award winning science site written by climate scientists without politics. If you want to check something about this science, start there.
I don't know who your Coby is but you have not been getting good information but rather someone confirming bias you want to hear. This is a common problem.
D.
****
BIGD: There are about 50 factual errors in F9/11.>>
DAR
Show me one I haven't swatted down before. Hit me with your best shot.
BIGD: He also spliced two Heston speeches together to make it look like one.>>
DAR
Oh the horror. He edited his movie. Movies/docs typically have sections where scenes last less than a second, jumping from one area/location to another.
BIGD: He takes stuff out if it does not agree with his POV and he splices stuff so it will.>>
DAR
Are you suggesting he edits his movies in such a way that they promote his point of view?
Preposterous!
D.
ps. Not so interested in the Gore v. Bush debate now that the national nightmare is over.
pps. He has a new movie coming out this fall. I hope it's a doosey.
****
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - June 30)
MAY 24 [may be slightly out of order]
***
I didn't quote the "The National Enquirer" but do make a note that slamming them doesn't work like it used to. They have actually changed their style and done some good investigative work lately. After all, they busted Limbaugh the dope and John Edwards the slut.
I have found wikipedia to be a useful resource and when I quote them notice I am actually referring to their references to standard sources. The claims are very well referenced.
I do not say something is false because it appears in the Moonie Times. That's the genetic fallacy. I think their Pelosi quotes are accurate. What I am not interested in is their spin and opinion about those quotes. I am skeptical of their opinions because they are a highly partisan source, and highly partisan sources, far-left or far-right, are always suspect.
D.
****
DAR
This is astonishing. He [Obama] apologizes, (and the only example given above is: "We sometimes make mistakes. We are not perfect.”)
And you suggest he does this because he wants people to believe "he will not make a mistake or do something wrong."
He admits we make mistakes to make the point that he/we will not make mistakes.
Wow.
I told you to find an example of a lie in the speech and you couldn't but you complained that (on Memorial Day weekend) he didn't remember to bash America and speak about some of our worst war disasters. Which flatly contradicts many of your statements above.
D.
***
BLK: "...but if they can’t play by the Geneva Conventions, why should we?"
DAR
Because we said we would? Because we are better than that? Because we don't let the lowest common denominator terrorist set the bar for *our standards*? Because we want to have the moral high ground?
Because if you don't stand by your principles when they are put to the test, then they really weren't your principles.
D.
***
DAR
All of the troops are volunteers. No exceptions.
I do not assume that no one other than Ventura is an experienced veteran.
It's unfortunate that you weren't water boarded. You would probably have a different opinion.
I read your Holder link. It supports my position, not yours. He is arguing that when we have a training exercise and do a version of waterboarding on our own people to prepare them (for torture by an enemy), it's not torture.
Regarding the law not mentioning "waterboarding," as the wiki article points out, the word was not coined until recently. About 2003.
Before that we just considered it broadly under the category of water torture, which it is. It's always been torture and it's always been wrong because torture is wrong.
D.
***
DAR
I have no problem with people who avoided Vietnam for moral reasons. It was an immoral war. See the documentary of the year "The Fog of War" where the architect, McNamara, admits they knew it was lost early on. See his ten lessons of Vietnam too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War
Cheney and Limbaugh are Chickenhawks, Clinton is not. There is a difference.
My pardon scenario is an excellent solution and your provide nothing in response.
You "hope the next attack to happens in some liberal place." Of course you do. Your hatred has impaired your ability to think.
D.
****
DAR
Get informed:
"Boumediene v. Bush
On June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene v. Bush, that the Military Commissions Act could not remove the right for Guantanamo captives to access the US Federal Court system. And all previous Guantanamo captives' habeas petitions were eligible to be re-instated. The judges considering the captives' habeas petitions would be considering whether the evidence used to compile the allegations the men and boys were enemy combatants justified a classification of "enemy combatant."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatants
***
BLK: "LOTS of crime with them [ACORN]. Fraud."
DAR
I know republicans like to pass around this story, but it's true. Better to be honest.
Observe:
***
"Throughout the election season, supporters of Republican candidates portrayed ACORN's submission of invalid voter registration applications as widespread vote fraud. Republican presidential candidate John McCain claimed in the last presidential debate that ACORN was "on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy." Factcheck.org called the claim "breathtakingly inaccurate".[50] In October 2008, Sen. McCain's campaign released a Web-based advertisement claiming ACORN was responsible for "massive voter fraud", a point repeated in the final presidential debate. The ads also claimed that home loan programs ACORN promoted were partly responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Both claims were found to be exaggerated and inaccurate.[51]"
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associatio ... Reform_Now
***
I have had many of the supposed errors put forward to me. You claim there are about "50 factual errors" in this movie. I have investigated many of these claims, yet have not seen one that can withstand scrutiny. All lies passed around by gullible people with an agenda and a lack of interest in finding out the truth of the matter. Very easy to debunk.
D.
****
Sorry if you misunderstood my sentence.
I said: Obama’s not a cowboy like Bush (”all hat, no cattle”).
Meaning, Bush is a "cowboy" in name only. "All hat, no cattle." It's a term used to describe phony city boys who pretend to be cowboys.
BIGD: "I am just that much better than you."
DAR
I'm sure you think you are. Talk is cheap. I'll let the record of your performance here stand for itself.
Obama: “he would resist any overtures to run for president..."
He changed his mind. Obviously he made the right decision and the country is very glad he did.
D.
------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
—George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
***
DAR
If you found a lie in the speech then you shouldn't have any trouble citing it and showing two things:
1) the claim is false
2) Obama knew the claim is false.
You can't do it.
It is possible to acknowledge a mistake (America has made lots of them as you pointed out) without apologizing. There is a difference.
The days of the phony cowboy prancing around on the world stage are over. This may take some getting used to.
D.
-------------------
“No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one historian. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”
"61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst"
http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html
***
BLK: "if you liberals called North Korea’s nuclear test on Bush’s watch a failure for him you have to do the same for Obama."
DAR
Nope, there's a difference. Clinton left Bush a North Korea that did not have nukes. It's GW Bush's profound foreign policy failure that they obtained nuclear weapons on his watch. He then handed this perilous situation over to Obama. Four months in, it is no surprise they decide to pop another one off. Just another Bush disaster exploding in our face.
D.
-----------
"Let me put it to you bluntly. In a changing world, we want more people to have control over your own life."
—George W. Bush, Annandale, Va, Aug. 9, 2004
***
DAR
It's not accurate to say "water boarding" is one thing "x" and whenever it is done this equals "x" as if there is no difference in the delivery. This pretends there is no difference between Man Cows little experiment:
a)no restraint
b)no sleep deprivation,
c)surrounded and administered by friends,
d)end at your command after six seconds,
e)no psychological terror, or fear of death,
This is similar to when our military does it as a training exercise.
This is *entirely* different than the manner in which it was forced upon these prisoners and it's not fair to pretend there is no difference.
Gov. Jessie Ventura was was waterboarded. Listen to his opinion in this three minute clip from Larry King:
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/hea ... board-dick
Excerpt:
VENTURA: ...I'm bothered over Guantanamo because it seems we have created our own Hanoi Hilton. We can live with that? I have a problem. I will criticize President Obama on this level; it's a good thing I'm not president because I would prosecute every person that was involved in that torture. I would prosecute the people that did it. I would prosecute the people that ordered it. Because torture is against the law.
KING: You were a Navy SEAL.
VENTURA: That's right. I was water boarded, so I know -- at SERE School, Survival Escape Resistance Evasion. It was a required school you had to go to prior to going into the combat zone, which in my era was Vietnam. All of us had to go there. We were all, in essence -- every one of us was water boarded. It is torture.
KING: What was it like?
VENTURA: It's drowning. It gives you the complete sensation that you are drowning. It is no good, because you -- I'll put it to you this way, you give me a water board, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.
KING: Even though you know it's not going to happen -- even though before it, you know you're not going to drown.
VENTURA: You don't know it. If it's -- if it's done wrong, you certainly could drown. You could swallow your tongue. You could do a whole bunch of stuff. If it's it done wrong or -- it's torture, Larry. It's torture.
***
DAR
Again, the water boarding torture of these guys bothers me less than the people the US sent out to be tortured by other countries, and the people the US tortured to death.
****
DAR
I defer to John McCain and those in the military who think we should not torture because this neuters out credibility when we, rightfully, condemn it when others do it to our people.
Regarding it "getting us info," this is dubious at best. See:
http://thinkprogress.org/why-enhanced-i ... on-failed/
And the Baptists have weighed in now:
http://erlc.com/article/sbcs-richard-la ... d-torture/
Excerpt:
"There is no room for torture as part of the United States’ intelligence-gathering process, Richard Land said today. He also said he believes the practice known as “waterboarding” is torture and, as such, is unethical.
Land, president of the SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said there is no circumstance in which torture should be permissible in interrogations by U.S. officials,...
“I believe there are absolutes. There are things we must never do under any circumstances....
“It violates everything we believe in as a country,” Land said,...
“Civilized countries should err on the side of caution. It does cost us something to play by different rules than our enemies, but it would cost us far more if we played by their rules,” Land concluded."
***
BIGD: "Torture is torture and if you call it torture for the terrorist then you have to call it torture for anyone else who has it done."
DAR
You really cannot seen any distinction here? I gave five specific reasons delineating the difference between Man Cow's media stunt and what was done to these to prisoners. I think reasonable people will be able to see through such an equivocation and that there is a difference.
If I have two sons and I give one a new Ford Mustang to drive to college and I give the other one a radio controlled Ford Mustang from Radio Shack, it can be said that "I gave a car to each of my sons." But this is an equivocation and reasonable people, and my sons, can see the difference.
BIGD: "I don’t care what Ventura says..."
DAR
Of course you don't. He is an experienced veteran who has had the procedure done to him, so do I care what he says about this.
BIGD: "Change the law and make it abundantly clear by using the words waterboarding."
DAR
Obama has already banned it. Note:
"In January 2009 U.S. President Barack Obama banned the use of waterboarding. In April 2009 the Department of Defense refused to say whether it was still used for training purposes."
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/a ... rcID=46974
The DOD doesn't need to say whether it is using it as a training exercise because when they do it as a training exercise, on volunteers, it's not torture. Obviously.
Oh, and regarding your claim that Obama's AG says it's not torture. Observe:
"On January 15, 2009 the U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's nominee for Attorney General, Eric Holder, told his Senate confirmation hearing that waterboarding is torture and the President cannot authorize it." [67][68][69][70]
--wiki, waterboarding article
****
DAR
The ticking time bomb makes for childish TV but it is not compelling as a reason to formally allow torture in the US.
There is a simple solution for this if such an unlikely situation were to occur.
The presidents right to pardon is absolute.
Ticking time bomb scenario, someone from the gov. does to them as they wish in an attempt to get this important emergency information.
Outcome:
Nuke is found, city is saved, president pardons gov. person and they become a hero.
Nuke is not found, city is destroyed, president pardons gov. person... "well, we did everything we could."
The ticking time bomb excuse is BOGUS.
BIGD: "what about the people who say it is not torture?"
DAR
Waterboard them and they will change their mind. Start with Sean Hannity who already agreed to do it. (btw, did he lie when he said that Blake?)
Find me someone who has been waterboarded who thinks it isn't torture. I can find lots who have, and do. I'm not so impressed with the chicken hawks (that fill the republican party).
D.
--------------
VENTURA: I don't have a lot of respect for Dick Cheney. Here's a guy who got five deferments from the Vietnam War. Clearly, he's a coward. He wouldn't go when it was his time to go. And now he is a chicken hawk. Now he is this big tough guy who wants this hardcore policy. And he's the guy that sanctioned all this torture by calling it enhanced interrogation.
KING: Do you think Rush Limbaugh's a better Republican than Colin Powell?
VENTURA: No, not at all. In fact, if you compare the two, let's look at Colin Powell, who's a war hero, who strapped it on for his country, and didn't run and hide.
KING: Twice.
VENTURA: And then you look at Dick Cheney who ran and hid. I have no respect for Dick Cheney. I have tremendous respect for General Powell.
--ibid
Happy Memorial day.
*****
Apologizing is actually a sign of strength not weakness.
The one example given of an actual "apology" at your link?
"We sometimes make mistakes. We are not perfect." --Obama
That's not an apology but rather a statement of fact.
Yesterday, when challenged to find a lie in Obama's speech you said he was a liar because, while referring to America's efforts to fight against tyranny, dictators and torture, he didn't mention the times when we made matters worse.
Now when he simply acknowledges: "We sometimes make mistakes. We are not perfect."
This is apologizing too much and going to far.
Unbelievable.
D.
***
***
I didn't quote the "The National Enquirer" but do make a note that slamming them doesn't work like it used to. They have actually changed their style and done some good investigative work lately. After all, they busted Limbaugh the dope and John Edwards the slut.
I have found wikipedia to be a useful resource and when I quote them notice I am actually referring to their references to standard sources. The claims are very well referenced.
I do not say something is false because it appears in the Moonie Times. That's the genetic fallacy. I think their Pelosi quotes are accurate. What I am not interested in is their spin and opinion about those quotes. I am skeptical of their opinions because they are a highly partisan source, and highly partisan sources, far-left or far-right, are always suspect.
D.
****
DAR
This is astonishing. He [Obama] apologizes, (and the only example given above is: "We sometimes make mistakes. We are not perfect.”)
And you suggest he does this because he wants people to believe "he will not make a mistake or do something wrong."
He admits we make mistakes to make the point that he/we will not make mistakes.
Wow.
I told you to find an example of a lie in the speech and you couldn't but you complained that (on Memorial Day weekend) he didn't remember to bash America and speak about some of our worst war disasters. Which flatly contradicts many of your statements above.
D.
***
BLK: "...but if they can’t play by the Geneva Conventions, why should we?"
DAR
Because we said we would? Because we are better than that? Because we don't let the lowest common denominator terrorist set the bar for *our standards*? Because we want to have the moral high ground?
Because if you don't stand by your principles when they are put to the test, then they really weren't your principles.
D.
***
DAR
All of the troops are volunteers. No exceptions.
I do not assume that no one other than Ventura is an experienced veteran.
It's unfortunate that you weren't water boarded. You would probably have a different opinion.
I read your Holder link. It supports my position, not yours. He is arguing that when we have a training exercise and do a version of waterboarding on our own people to prepare them (for torture by an enemy), it's not torture.
Regarding the law not mentioning "waterboarding," as the wiki article points out, the word was not coined until recently. About 2003.
Before that we just considered it broadly under the category of water torture, which it is. It's always been torture and it's always been wrong because torture is wrong.
D.
***
DAR
I have no problem with people who avoided Vietnam for moral reasons. It was an immoral war. See the documentary of the year "The Fog of War" where the architect, McNamara, admits they knew it was lost early on. See his ten lessons of Vietnam too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War
Cheney and Limbaugh are Chickenhawks, Clinton is not. There is a difference.
My pardon scenario is an excellent solution and your provide nothing in response.
You "hope the next attack to happens in some liberal place." Of course you do. Your hatred has impaired your ability to think.
D.
****
DAR
Get informed:
"Boumediene v. Bush
On June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene v. Bush, that the Military Commissions Act could not remove the right for Guantanamo captives to access the US Federal Court system. And all previous Guantanamo captives' habeas petitions were eligible to be re-instated. The judges considering the captives' habeas petitions would be considering whether the evidence used to compile the allegations the men and boys were enemy combatants justified a classification of "enemy combatant."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatants
***
BLK: "LOTS of crime with them [ACORN]. Fraud."
DAR
I know republicans like to pass around this story, but it's true. Better to be honest.
Observe:
***
"Throughout the election season, supporters of Republican candidates portrayed ACORN's submission of invalid voter registration applications as widespread vote fraud. Republican presidential candidate John McCain claimed in the last presidential debate that ACORN was "on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy." Factcheck.org called the claim "breathtakingly inaccurate".[50] In October 2008, Sen. McCain's campaign released a Web-based advertisement claiming ACORN was responsible for "massive voter fraud", a point repeated in the final presidential debate. The ads also claimed that home loan programs ACORN promoted were partly responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Both claims were found to be exaggerated and inaccurate.[51]"
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associatio ... Reform_Now
***
I have had many of the supposed errors put forward to me. You claim there are about "50 factual errors" in this movie. I have investigated many of these claims, yet have not seen one that can withstand scrutiny. All lies passed around by gullible people with an agenda and a lack of interest in finding out the truth of the matter. Very easy to debunk.
D.
****
Sorry if you misunderstood my sentence.
I said: Obama’s not a cowboy like Bush (”all hat, no cattle”).
Meaning, Bush is a "cowboy" in name only. "All hat, no cattle." It's a term used to describe phony city boys who pretend to be cowboys.
BIGD: "I am just that much better than you."
DAR
I'm sure you think you are. Talk is cheap. I'll let the record of your performance here stand for itself.
Obama: “he would resist any overtures to run for president..."
He changed his mind. Obviously he made the right decision and the country is very glad he did.
D.
------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
—George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
***
DAR
If you found a lie in the speech then you shouldn't have any trouble citing it and showing two things:
1) the claim is false
2) Obama knew the claim is false.
You can't do it.
It is possible to acknowledge a mistake (America has made lots of them as you pointed out) without apologizing. There is a difference.
The days of the phony cowboy prancing around on the world stage are over. This may take some getting used to.
D.
-------------------
“No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one historian. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”
"61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst"
http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html
***
BLK: "if you liberals called North Korea’s nuclear test on Bush’s watch a failure for him you have to do the same for Obama."
DAR
Nope, there's a difference. Clinton left Bush a North Korea that did not have nukes. It's GW Bush's profound foreign policy failure that they obtained nuclear weapons on his watch. He then handed this perilous situation over to Obama. Four months in, it is no surprise they decide to pop another one off. Just another Bush disaster exploding in our face.
D.
-----------
"Let me put it to you bluntly. In a changing world, we want more people to have control over your own life."
—George W. Bush, Annandale, Va, Aug. 9, 2004
***
DAR
It's not accurate to say "water boarding" is one thing "x" and whenever it is done this equals "x" as if there is no difference in the delivery. This pretends there is no difference between Man Cows little experiment:
a)no restraint
b)no sleep deprivation,
c)surrounded and administered by friends,
d)end at your command after six seconds,
e)no psychological terror, or fear of death,
This is similar to when our military does it as a training exercise.
This is *entirely* different than the manner in which it was forced upon these prisoners and it's not fair to pretend there is no difference.
Gov. Jessie Ventura was was waterboarded. Listen to his opinion in this three minute clip from Larry King:
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/hea ... board-dick
Excerpt:
VENTURA: ...I'm bothered over Guantanamo because it seems we have created our own Hanoi Hilton. We can live with that? I have a problem. I will criticize President Obama on this level; it's a good thing I'm not president because I would prosecute every person that was involved in that torture. I would prosecute the people that did it. I would prosecute the people that ordered it. Because torture is against the law.
KING: You were a Navy SEAL.
VENTURA: That's right. I was water boarded, so I know -- at SERE School, Survival Escape Resistance Evasion. It was a required school you had to go to prior to going into the combat zone, which in my era was Vietnam. All of us had to go there. We were all, in essence -- every one of us was water boarded. It is torture.
KING: What was it like?
VENTURA: It's drowning. It gives you the complete sensation that you are drowning. It is no good, because you -- I'll put it to you this way, you give me a water board, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.
KING: Even though you know it's not going to happen -- even though before it, you know you're not going to drown.
VENTURA: You don't know it. If it's -- if it's done wrong, you certainly could drown. You could swallow your tongue. You could do a whole bunch of stuff. If it's it done wrong or -- it's torture, Larry. It's torture.
***
DAR
Again, the water boarding torture of these guys bothers me less than the people the US sent out to be tortured by other countries, and the people the US tortured to death.
****
DAR
I defer to John McCain and those in the military who think we should not torture because this neuters out credibility when we, rightfully, condemn it when others do it to our people.
Regarding it "getting us info," this is dubious at best. See:
http://thinkprogress.org/why-enhanced-i ... on-failed/
And the Baptists have weighed in now:
http://erlc.com/article/sbcs-richard-la ... d-torture/
Excerpt:
"There is no room for torture as part of the United States’ intelligence-gathering process, Richard Land said today. He also said he believes the practice known as “waterboarding” is torture and, as such, is unethical.
Land, president of the SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said there is no circumstance in which torture should be permissible in interrogations by U.S. officials,...
“I believe there are absolutes. There are things we must never do under any circumstances....
“It violates everything we believe in as a country,” Land said,...
“Civilized countries should err on the side of caution. It does cost us something to play by different rules than our enemies, but it would cost us far more if we played by their rules,” Land concluded."
***
BIGD: "Torture is torture and if you call it torture for the terrorist then you have to call it torture for anyone else who has it done."
DAR
You really cannot seen any distinction here? I gave five specific reasons delineating the difference between Man Cow's media stunt and what was done to these to prisoners. I think reasonable people will be able to see through such an equivocation and that there is a difference.
If I have two sons and I give one a new Ford Mustang to drive to college and I give the other one a radio controlled Ford Mustang from Radio Shack, it can be said that "I gave a car to each of my sons." But this is an equivocation and reasonable people, and my sons, can see the difference.
BIGD: "I don’t care what Ventura says..."
DAR
Of course you don't. He is an experienced veteran who has had the procedure done to him, so do I care what he says about this.
BIGD: "Change the law and make it abundantly clear by using the words waterboarding."
DAR
Obama has already banned it. Note:
"In January 2009 U.S. President Barack Obama banned the use of waterboarding. In April 2009 the Department of Defense refused to say whether it was still used for training purposes."
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/a ... rcID=46974
The DOD doesn't need to say whether it is using it as a training exercise because when they do it as a training exercise, on volunteers, it's not torture. Obviously.
Oh, and regarding your claim that Obama's AG says it's not torture. Observe:
"On January 15, 2009 the U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's nominee for Attorney General, Eric Holder, told his Senate confirmation hearing that waterboarding is torture and the President cannot authorize it." [67][68][69][70]
--wiki, waterboarding article
****
DAR
The ticking time bomb makes for childish TV but it is not compelling as a reason to formally allow torture in the US.
There is a simple solution for this if such an unlikely situation were to occur.
The presidents right to pardon is absolute.
Ticking time bomb scenario, someone from the gov. does to them as they wish in an attempt to get this important emergency information.
Outcome:
Nuke is found, city is saved, president pardons gov. person and they become a hero.
Nuke is not found, city is destroyed, president pardons gov. person... "well, we did everything we could."
The ticking time bomb excuse is BOGUS.
BIGD: "what about the people who say it is not torture?"
DAR
Waterboard them and they will change their mind. Start with Sean Hannity who already agreed to do it. (btw, did he lie when he said that Blake?)
Find me someone who has been waterboarded who thinks it isn't torture. I can find lots who have, and do. I'm not so impressed with the chicken hawks (that fill the republican party).
D.
--------------
VENTURA: I don't have a lot of respect for Dick Cheney. Here's a guy who got five deferments from the Vietnam War. Clearly, he's a coward. He wouldn't go when it was his time to go. And now he is a chicken hawk. Now he is this big tough guy who wants this hardcore policy. And he's the guy that sanctioned all this torture by calling it enhanced interrogation.
KING: Do you think Rush Limbaugh's a better Republican than Colin Powell?
VENTURA: No, not at all. In fact, if you compare the two, let's look at Colin Powell, who's a war hero, who strapped it on for his country, and didn't run and hide.
KING: Twice.
VENTURA: And then you look at Dick Cheney who ran and hid. I have no respect for Dick Cheney. I have tremendous respect for General Powell.
--ibid
Happy Memorial day.
*****
Apologizing is actually a sign of strength not weakness.
The one example given of an actual "apology" at your link?
"We sometimes make mistakes. We are not perfect." --Obama
That's not an apology but rather a statement of fact.
Yesterday, when challenged to find a lie in Obama's speech you said he was a liar because, while referring to America's efforts to fight against tyranny, dictators and torture, he didn't mention the times when we made matters worse.
Now when he simply acknowledges: "We sometimes make mistakes. We are not perfect."
This is apologizing too much and going to far.
Unbelievable.
D.
***
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - June 30)
MAY 25, 2009
***
The claims of this article are so bizarre it's hard for a non crazy person to grasp them.
Let's see if I get this right:
The US Parks Service is overtly trying to build a monument to honor Islam on the flight 93 crash site?
Oh my.
BLAKE said: "The heck with Islam- this is a Judeo- Christian Nation...">>
DAR
No actually, we're not. There was a treaty drafted under Washington's administration and signed by John Adams. It's quite specific. The pertinent part reads as follows:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen
[Muslims]; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
--Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, signed by John Adams
Our treaties are binding law.
If we are a "Judeo- Christian Nation" why did they completely forget to mention this in our *Godless* constitution?
If we are a "Judeao- Christian Nation," why were none of our first six presidents Christian? Note:
"One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian."
--The Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1968, p. 420.
If you would like to learn more about this "Christian Nation" issue I recommend starting with this short and informative tract:
"Is America a Christian Nation?"
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php
It's a doosey, all true, and you'll learn lots.
D.
---------------
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies."
--Thomas Jefferson, The Jefferson Bible
****
DAR
I really like the Terminator series and saw the latest one on opening night. It was okay. Not the worst and perhaps third from the best.
Ray Kurzweil is undeniably a genius (like Dick Kamen, creator of the Segway). I used to sell Kurzweil synthesizers (digital keyboards) in the late 80's. They were ahead of their time.
But he is a dreamer and he's wrong about AI (unfortunately). Skeptic magazine had a whole issue on this and there is one article that completely, profoundly, demolishes the notion of advanced AI or "thinking" anytime in a long time (not the simple stuff). If there is to be anything like that it is a far bigger problem and far further off than is commonly supposed.
You can read this extensive article here:
"The Futile Quest for Artificial Intelligence"
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/fea ... _awry.html
D.
-----------------------
"For decades now computer scientists and futurists have been telling us that computers will achieve human-level artificial intelligence soon. That day appears to be off in the distant future. Why? In this penetrating skeptical critique of AI, computer scientist Peter Kassan reviews the numerous reasons why this problem is harder than anyone anticipated."
— Michael Shermer
****
GM place:
MARK: "...the ongoing hysteria on the part of the left to close Gitmo down."
DAR
As Colin Powell said yesterday, in closing down Gitmo, he is only doing what Bush SAID he wanted to but didn't have the resolve to follow through on::
POWELL:
"Mr. Cheney is not only disagreeing with President Obama's policy, he is disagreeing with President Bush's policy. President Bush stated repeatedly to international audiences and to the country that he wanted to close Guantanamo."
"This business about making the country less safe by bringing these people to our prison system, we have got two million people in jail in America, the highest incarceration rate in the world. And they all had lawyers. They all had access to the writ of habeas corpus and they're all in jail."
--http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/2 ... 07158.html
It's also interesting and encouraging to see Powell, who represents the direction of the GOP in the future if these is to be one, enjoying such wide support:
"As Colin Powell battles Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh for the future of the Republican party, a new CNN poll has come out that shows Powell enjoys more support from the American public than either Cheney or Limbaugh, and by wide margins. A whopping 70 percent of the public has a favorable approval rating of Powell, while Limbaugh and Cheney hover at 30 and 37 percent, respectively."
Powell has more public support than Cheney and Limbaugh *combined.* Pretty impressive.
Darrel.
****
DAR
Oil is a very fluid commodity Blake, traded worldwide. Saying "Just don't sell them the oil" is so silly it's not possible to make fun of it.
California tried to raise their efficiency standards years ago. Bush and Co. wouldn't let them. How bizarre.
Obama is changing that. So now we will have more efficient vehicles.
D.
----------------
Q Does the President believe that, given the amount of energy Americans consume per capita, how much it exceeds any other citizen in any other country in the world, does the President believe we need to correct our lifestyles to address the energy problem?
MR. FLEISCHER: "That's a big no. The President believes that it's an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one. And we have a bounty of resources in this country. What we need to do is make certain that we're able to get those resources in an efficient way. . ."
--Ari Fleischer, Press briefing, May 7, 2001
****
***
The claims of this article are so bizarre it's hard for a non crazy person to grasp them.
Let's see if I get this right:
The US Parks Service is overtly trying to build a monument to honor Islam on the flight 93 crash site?
Oh my.
BLAKE said: "The heck with Islam- this is a Judeo- Christian Nation...">>
DAR
No actually, we're not. There was a treaty drafted under Washington's administration and signed by John Adams. It's quite specific. The pertinent part reads as follows:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen
[Muslims]; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
--Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, signed by John Adams
Our treaties are binding law.
If we are a "Judeo- Christian Nation" why did they completely forget to mention this in our *Godless* constitution?
If we are a "Judeao- Christian Nation," why were none of our first six presidents Christian? Note:
"One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian."
--The Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1968, p. 420.
If you would like to learn more about this "Christian Nation" issue I recommend starting with this short and informative tract:
"Is America a Christian Nation?"
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php
It's a doosey, all true, and you'll learn lots.
D.
---------------
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies."
--Thomas Jefferson, The Jefferson Bible
****
DAR
I really like the Terminator series and saw the latest one on opening night. It was okay. Not the worst and perhaps third from the best.
Ray Kurzweil is undeniably a genius (like Dick Kamen, creator of the Segway). I used to sell Kurzweil synthesizers (digital keyboards) in the late 80's. They were ahead of their time.
But he is a dreamer and he's wrong about AI (unfortunately). Skeptic magazine had a whole issue on this and there is one article that completely, profoundly, demolishes the notion of advanced AI or "thinking" anytime in a long time (not the simple stuff). If there is to be anything like that it is a far bigger problem and far further off than is commonly supposed.
You can read this extensive article here:
"The Futile Quest for Artificial Intelligence"
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/fea ... _awry.html
D.
-----------------------
"For decades now computer scientists and futurists have been telling us that computers will achieve human-level artificial intelligence soon. That day appears to be off in the distant future. Why? In this penetrating skeptical critique of AI, computer scientist Peter Kassan reviews the numerous reasons why this problem is harder than anyone anticipated."
— Michael Shermer
****
GM place:
MARK: "...the ongoing hysteria on the part of the left to close Gitmo down."
DAR
As Colin Powell said yesterday, in closing down Gitmo, he is only doing what Bush SAID he wanted to but didn't have the resolve to follow through on::
POWELL:
"Mr. Cheney is not only disagreeing with President Obama's policy, he is disagreeing with President Bush's policy. President Bush stated repeatedly to international audiences and to the country that he wanted to close Guantanamo."
"This business about making the country less safe by bringing these people to our prison system, we have got two million people in jail in America, the highest incarceration rate in the world. And they all had lawyers. They all had access to the writ of habeas corpus and they're all in jail."
--http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/2 ... 07158.html
It's also interesting and encouraging to see Powell, who represents the direction of the GOP in the future if these is to be one, enjoying such wide support:
"As Colin Powell battles Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh for the future of the Republican party, a new CNN poll has come out that shows Powell enjoys more support from the American public than either Cheney or Limbaugh, and by wide margins. A whopping 70 percent of the public has a favorable approval rating of Powell, while Limbaugh and Cheney hover at 30 and 37 percent, respectively."
Powell has more public support than Cheney and Limbaugh *combined.* Pretty impressive.
Darrel.
****
DAR
Oil is a very fluid commodity Blake, traded worldwide. Saying "Just don't sell them the oil" is so silly it's not possible to make fun of it.
California tried to raise their efficiency standards years ago. Bush and Co. wouldn't let them. How bizarre.
Obama is changing that. So now we will have more efficient vehicles.
D.
----------------
Q Does the President believe that, given the amount of energy Americans consume per capita, how much it exceeds any other citizen in any other country in the world, does the President believe we need to correct our lifestyles to address the energy problem?
MR. FLEISCHER: "That's a big no. The President believes that it's an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one. And we have a bounty of resources in this country. What we need to do is make certain that we're able to get those resources in an efficient way. . ."
--Ari Fleischer, Press briefing, May 7, 2001
****
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - June 30)
MAY 30, 2009
***
"We need conservatives, of course, to challenge liberal ideas and proposals and to impel us to examine their soundness, but we cannot depend on conservatives to offer constructive new ideas of the sort that might bring about a more just and equitable society or a more peaceful and cooperative world. If we assume that Lincoln, the first Republican president, was a liberal (which he surely was), nothing inspiring has come out of the conservative mind since the age of John Adams.” --George McGovern
***
DAR
The republicans will hold her [Sotomayor] feet to the fire, as they should.
But for fire these days they are holding a small lighter, and it's nearly out of gas.
From what I have read, she seems like an *excellent* choice. And typical Obama, very moderate, very qualified (most judicial experience of a nominee in 70 years). Reasonable.
She'll sail through. He ought to pick another one. He could do that you know.
D.
"Harriet Miers!"
Just kidding.
***
BLK: "Nowhere in that direct quote does he say “Income taxes”- just plain old taxes, and raising any tax is a tax increase, period."
DAR
Right. That's how "out of context" works. When I provide the context, the problem disappears. When you cherry pick the "direct quote" minus context you can make there seem to be a problem.
Don't do that. It's not honest.
D.
***
DAR
I'll take you at your word that a closed mind catches no knowledge.
Regarding Bush connecting Iraq to his war on terror. He was fairly successful with a large number of people. Forty five percent of the people in this poll didn't get this wrong without a lot of effort by Bush and his team.
Note:
DAR
The context clearly shows he [Obama] was referring to income taxes. The clue is provided by the context: "If you make." Income taxes are scaled upon "what you make." His 95% figure refers to income taxes for those "make" less than 250k.
Let's not pretend that this is difficult to understand.
D.
***
[ACORN nonsense]
DAR
I have no problem with voter fraud being aggressively enforced. But it is such a non-issue (other than the constant mock outrage from the right), that it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
A person is going to go to all of this trouble just to cast their one fraudulent vote? Hardly. Where the fraud matters is when it is done in a systemic and organized way. Both parties have engaged in this in the past, but the party interested in vote suppression is invariably the republicans and when they do it in a large way it can have an effect. I can give you many examples.
Do not confuse some hourly wage person having some bogus signatures on a registration form with "voter fraud." One is profoundly insignificant, and the other is rare but potentially significant. There is no comparison whatsoever between the two. Yet republicans make this equivocation *all the time.* In fact, all of the babble about ACORN, every bit of it, is based upon this ridiculous equivocation.
***
BIGD: "How is it undemocratic to have term limits?">>
DAR
Earlier in this thread I said term limits:
"are somewhat undemocratic because they keep the public from re-electing potentially a very good candidate."
I am not arguing for or against them. There is a good and bad side to them. People are free to enact such laws (democracy at work). But the drawback is that sometimes they stop an excellent candidate from being re-elected by a populace that would like to vote and hire them again. In that sense they are "somewhat democratic."
BIGD: "how is it fair for someone to pay more of his income than others?">>
It's called progressive taxation, look it up. Wiki has a good blurb on it. Very few are against it, even the very rich (see Buffet). This is because the rich benefit immensely by having their taxes keep the system working smoothly (and clearly to their profound benefit). The wealth generated by a Wal-Mart for instance doesn't occur in a vacuum. It needs a society, and roads, and utilities, and an educated populace with health care access and a functioning society that can afford to buy their products.
Taxes in the US are relatively low for first world countries. And this shows. We have a much greater disparity between rich and poor than other countries tolerate. Repub's tend to make the problem worse, Dem's tend to level the field more.
***
BIGD: "Empathy is an emotion entirely inappropriate for the court,..."
DAR
Maybe we should just get a computer to make these decisions? Why do we even need humans at all? Just cut the baby in half. That's fair after all.
Regarding this "overturn rate that isn't supreme court material", as I posted in another thread:
***
“In fact, contrary to the claim that a reversal rate of 60 percent is “high,” data compiled by SCOTUSblog since 2004 show that the Supreme Court has reversed more than 60 percent of the federal appeals court cases it considered each year.
The Times reported that “[t]hree of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents.” The article then quoted Wright’s assertion that Sotomayor’s “high reversal rate alone could be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record.” But according to data compiled by SCOTUSblog, Sotomayor’s reported 60 percent reversal rate is lower than the overall Supreme Court reversal rate for all lower court decisions from the 2004 term through the present — both overall and for each individual Supreme Court term.”
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905270038
****
[Church and State]
DAR
The Danbury Baptists wondered about this and Jefferson answered them with his letter. But he wasn't the only fellow to refer to this separation of church and state (he coined the word "wall").
Regarding your claim that there is "no Constitutional provision for separation of church and state." Let's ask James Madison his opinion. I'll limit myself to three examples:
***
1) MARCH 2, 1819
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State.
Source of Information:
Letter to Robert Walsh from James Madison. March 2, 1819 Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, in Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. Vol. III, J. B. Lippincott & Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on Religious Liberty, Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
2) JUNE 3, 1811
"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have other wise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself."
Source of Information:
Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811. Letters And Other Writings of James Madison Fourth President Of The United States In Four Volumes Published By the Order Of Congress, Vol..II, J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, (1865), pp 511-512.
3) 1817-1833
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished in their short history. . . ."
Source of Information:
Madison's Detached Memoranda. This document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, a biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison's hand sometime between 1817 and 1832. The entire document was published by Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946
***
DAR
They teach this stuff in elementary school I am sure, but apparently it cannot counteract an entire Christian Nation industry (David Barton etc.) that has devoted itself to spreading revisionist lies about basic American history.
I have many more examples of course. It's a bit of a specialty.
***
BIGD: "Look up the definition of sexist and tell me how that meets the criteria."
DAR
Bigd, I am for freedom of speech. I am with George Carlin and think you should use whatever words you like. No exceptions. On our freethinker forum we don't ban words.
It' just curious that you find it important to set your filter to not let a person type the word "circumstance" without it being censored and yet you at the same time have no trouble posting the most harsh and demeaning word available to use toward women [the "C" word].
It's just curious behavior.
I am not one who things inserting a few asterisks makes any difference.
****
DAR
It's "cherry picking" to compare her average to all the rest? You're funny.
"...data compiled by SCOTUSblog since 2004 show that the Supreme Court has reversed more than 60 percent of the federal appeals court cases it considered each year."
Nine myths and falsehoods being spread by the right on this is issue, dismantled here:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905270049
Do you research first. Saves time, prevents embarrassment.
***
Actually, that's not right. Observe:
***
(4) MYTH: Liberal judges like Sotomayor are "activist"
CNN's Gloria Borger and Bill Schneider have uncritically repeated Republican claims that Sotomayor is -- in Schneider's words -- a "liberal activist," and in doing so have also advanced the baseless conservative claim that judicial activism is solely a "liberal" practice. But at least two studies -- looking at two different sets of criteria -- have found that the most "conservative" Supreme Court justices have been among the biggest judicial activists.
A 2005 study by Yale University law professor Paul Gewirtz and Yale Law School graduate Chad Golder indicated that among Supreme Court justices at that time, those most frequently labeled "conservative" were among the most frequent practitioners of at least one brand of judicial activism -- the tendency to strike down statutes passed by Congress. Indeed, Gewirtz and Golder found that Thomas "was the most inclined" to do so, "voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws." Additionally, a recently published study by Cass R. Sunstein (recently named by Obama to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) and University of Chicago law professor Thomas Miles used a different measurement of judicial activism -- the tendency of judges to strike down decisions by federal regulatory agencies. Sunstein and Miles found that by this definition, the Supreme Court's "conservative" justices were the most likely to engage in "judicial
activism," while the "liberal" justices were most likely to exercise "judicial restraint."
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905270049
****
DAR
I refer you to your article:
"Lee said she refused to give the staffer the letter."
The secret service has rules about such things and I am sure it involves not accepting things from the public to pass along to anyone.
She was told to leave, she didn't leave, she was removed. That's protocol around the president.
***
DAR
Just curious, thought I would check:
"Fully 96 percent of black voters supported Obama and constituted 13 percent of the electorate, a 2-percentage-point rise in their national turnout. As in past years, black women turned out at a higher rate than black men.
A stunning 54 percent of young white voters supported Obama, compared with 44 percent who went for McCain, the senator from Arizona. In the past three decades, no Democratic presidential nominee has won more than 45 percent of young whites."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15297.html
The above refers to exit polling. Actual may vary.
That youth white vote is what's going to pay dividends in the future.
****
DAR
You forgot The Daily Show which is a far more serious news show than anything on FOX (ten Emmy Awards and two Peabody Awards). In fall of '08 it was pulling in 2 million viewers per night *in a 10:00pm time slot.* Colbert gets about 1.1 million even later and a lot of people also watch online.
What channels a fraction of one percent of the population have the time to watch really matters very little. I do hope FOX gives those on the right some solace as they tune in to be serially misinformed. If they rise to defend and regurgitate the disinformation they have absorbed from such shows they will find that anyone with an interest in truth and accuracy can quickly knock their claims down flat.
What matters is not what a tiny segment of cable viewers watch for entertainment but what the population wants for leadership. And they want Obama.
D.
****
BIGD: "...government run health care along the lines of Medicare and the VA system neither of which is run efficiently."
DAR
Actually they are quite efficient and vastly more efficient than private health care systems which feed a morass of hundreds of health insurance companies and all the waste and paper work that such a mess involves (over 200 billion per year down the pipes).
As I have shown you before:
***
“The total costs to administer claims for Canada's public system eats up about 1% of all health care expenditures. In the US, Medicare claims administration costs take about 2-2.5% (US pays on a per hospital stay basis rather than lump sum budgeting as in Canada.) Total administrative costs in Canada including hospital administration and physician's office costs is about 14% of total spending, as compared to about 25% in the US. Some US insurance costs can devour nearly 1/3 of the dollars spend on health care. Because less money is spend on administration in Canada, Canadians actually get more physician and hospital services than Americans.”
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Healt ... da_KP.html
BIGD: They gave billions of dollars to Chrysler and GM... We will never see that money again.>>
DAR
You don't know that. There is considerable precedent showing that such an investment can pay back handsomely for both parties involved. This happened in the S & L crisis, another banking crisis in the early 90's and when Clinton bailed Mexico out in a crisis. The republicans screamed that it was a waste and a loss but Mexico paid back that money we loaned them, early, and with interest. Win/win.
The gov will hold about 3/4 of GM stock. It's a gamble but one worth taking and not nearly as costly as losing the whole thing right now and having all of those workers and retirees falling on the dole.
BIGD: "Failing dealerships that gave lots of money to Democrats and particularly Obama are not being closed.">>
DAR
What a load.
BIGD: "Health care is available for everyone.">>
DAR
No, expensive, emergency, last minute care is available for everyone. This is no way to deliver health care to the population of a first world country.
If you have a chronic, long term, no instant fix illness that can't be patched up quick (as so many people do), and you don't have insurance, or not enough insurance, in the US, YOU ARE SCREWED.
BIGD: "I am unaware of any provision in our Constitution that says I should be paying for someone else’s health care."
DAR
You already are and you are paying way to much to feed a profoundly bloated and wasteful system.
Again:
***
US Health Care Expensive, Inefficient: Report
"Americans get the poorest health care and yet pay the most compared to five other rich countries. The US health care system ranks last compared with the five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity and outcomes, according to a report released on Tuesday."
http://www.truthout.org/article/us-heal ... ent-report
BigD, did you ever get around to watching this short clip from 60 minutes? I would be interested in hearing, what you think of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4kbag-f3K8
D.
****
BLAKE: "Responsible caretaking of this planet was first mentioned in the Bible...">>
DAR
Yes, Ann Coulter once explained how her brand of conservatives understand that biblical reference. I'll quote her:
"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"
--Fox News; Hannity & Colmes; June 20, 2001
This explains why sensible citizens are leery of trusting you guys with the environment.
BLK: "their cars already get better mileage than ours...">>
DAR
Thank Bush and your team for successfully fighting the battle to keep our vehicles inefficient (and thus uncompetitive) and then also providing a huge tax break/reward for those who bought extra large and inefficient vehicles.
BLK: "Since Barama has been elected, we, as a nation, have no street cred in this world."
DAR
You have it ass backwards again. I can easily post the stats showing the profound plummeting of "US street cred" during the Bush administration and how it has surged even in the short period of Obama's tenure. Would you like me to do that Blake? Just let me know if you would like me to do that.
I notice that almost all of your articles are filled with insults, hate, blather and ranting. I'm not interested in that but I do notice that on the occasions when you do stray into factual areas, you invariably get your facts wrong. Just an observation. I'm not at all interested in the rants, but if you would endeavor to get your facts right, it wouldn't make my job so easy.
Not complaining. I like to help out.
D.
***
DAR
Do you really think it appropriate to use anti-dog comparisons on this site? Careful.
You like to call people liars, but are weak to "complete no show" when it comes to backing up your claims. Care to give it a try?
I am saying Obama is a politician and thus does politically motivated things.
Oh, and quite often, the sky is blue and, let me add, my cat has fleas.
Any other profundities in stock?
D.
****
BIGD: "power corrupts"
DAR
Yes it does. But POA's are voluntary and usually powered by the members no?
This is a well known quote but lessor known is the complete quote, which I like better:
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That unalterable rule applies both to God and man."
[Lord Acton in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, April 5,1887]
I think he was getting a dig in at the Hebrew Scriptures.
***
DAR
Well if they think "they were lied to" then you shouldn't have any trouble at all showing a profound cliff dive in Obama's job approval numbers.
Would you like me to give the knife a twist and do it for you or would you rather withdraw the claim and save the embarrassment? Your choice.
D.
ps For an Arkansas goat farmer with a high school education and a "tumor doing my thinking for me," I'm not doing to bad eh?
***
DAR
You're exactly right Blake.
Let that sink in for a moment.
This is why single payer is not going to happen. The lefties are going to be sorely pissed about that, and especially the fact that there won't even be an attempt. But I am a pragmatist and am interested in what will work. Obama is too, that's why he is going to have to take the heat from the left and bite the bullet to actually work toward something that has a very good chance of passing. The US is not ready for single payer IMO. Too many ninnies wedded to an imaginary ideal of "rugged individualism" and basically, selfishness.
As to when to do it, it's important to get cracking. Old folks hitting medicare age is going to be a profound fiscal burden and cost, and even the rate of increase of costs, have to be brought to sane levels. The US simply cannot afford to keep feeding the trillion dollar health-care beast. We are far too broke.
D.
****
[sotomayor supposed racist comment]
DAR
This is an objection I am unable to take seriously. I tried, I really, really tried.
But I do think the hysterical response by the repubs is a terrible blunder. For instance, as this article is titled:
"POTUS picks "bigot" "liberal" "radical" "racist" "reverse racist" "activist" "socialist" "Marxist" "anti-constitutionalist" "affirmative action" nominee for SCOTUS"
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200905290053
This silly quote has an import of .5 on a scale from 1 to ten, and it won't have any effect whatsoever (I say this having read the context).
And these silly attacks are going to only hurt the repubs more with the growing Hispanic population. That's just DUMB.
D.
***
First we have Obama has done nothing:
"More and more people are losing their homes simply because Barama has done nothing, except throw money away" --BLK
Then we have Obama is doing too much:
"Barama has been so concerned with doing as much as he can in a short time that he has done nothing effectively..." -BLK
Perhaps you can clear this up, but you seem to be criticizing him for doing too much and too little at the same time. Best to take a breath and avoid such a contradiction.
It's a tricky situation. He was left with a profound mess and no one seriously blames the current situation, the current numbers, on him. There are no end of serious experts that think he is doing too much or too little. No one knows for sure. But these experts probably don't suggest he is doing both of these things at the same time.
Lag times. A digression:
I have a letter I put together that documents the historical record of how the country has done, in all major categories we judge success, under the demo/repub presidents respectively. I wrote it just before the election because of all the noise (read lies) that were being spread about the dangers of having a demo president.
Letter shows that the demo's win such a comparison in a land slide. The only serious rebuttal I have heard to this letter, (which references each claim carefully) is lag times. A presidents "record" shouldn't start right away, obviously, because many if not most of his policies don't take effect for some time, often years.
This makes sense. I have heard suggestions of lag times from a few months, to a year, to a couple of years or even a decade (with some programs, of course longer). On GM's place the other day, Mark reached for a quote from a fellow who said it was ridiculous to even judge the results of a president during his term.
That's pretty ridiculous of course. No one thinks Reagan didn't have a lot of results during his term.
My point is, because of the lag time issue, Obama can hardly, honestly, be faulted for the current economic train wreck we are experiencing. In a few years? Then these charges will start to stick. Right now, they don't stick at all.
As Jon Stewart suggested to republicans, "best to pace your outrage."
Lest you run out.
D.
----------------
The letter I refer to above is posted here:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5317
****
[activist judges]
DAR
Then what definition of "activist" are you using? Careful not to be ad hoc here. That is:
They are an "activist" if they overturn laws and you disagree with their decision, and... they are NOT "activists" when they over turn laws and you agree with their decision.
In order to not fall in that self serving trap you need an objective measurement, a standard, of what an activist judge is beforehand and then you look at the record and see what you find.
That's the method my above reference refers to. These guys use an objective measurement and on this criteria find conservative judges being the activists going against precedent and overturning law much more so than the liberals. That would seem to be a normative definition of "activist" judge. If you have a better one, let's see it. I have seen this referenced elsewhere also.
You are right about media matters. Use their material with caution. I don't necessarily agree with their editorial opinions but I have found their factual claims to be consistently correct and well referenced.
D.
****
If voting "against laws that Congress passed" isn't PRECISELY and exactly "legislating from the bench" then pray,...
what would be?!
D.
***
DAR
We have a deficit problem and need new revenue streams. Looking to correct this is a responsible thing to do.
PINK: "still can not believe that a majority of Americans really want to pay higher taxes..."
DAR
I can't believe that either. But I don't need to because it's not true. Under Obama's plan, everyone making less than 200k and 250k as a couple, get a reduction. The tiny group of immensely wealthy that have an adjusted net above that level go back to the brackets we had under Clinton which were LOWER than we had under that (apparently PINK Commie) Reagan.
What part of this is giving you trouble?
And consider:
"Which party is better at “small government” and keeping federal spending down? Since 1959 federal spending has gone up an average $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. So it’s no surprise to find Republican presidents have increased the national debt much faster, more than $200 billion per year, versus less than a $100 billion per year under Democrats. And this is not even counting the second term of G.W. Bush."
Reference:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 5Apr1.html
***
DAR
The idea that Bush's tax cuts went to the middle or the bottom was a howler Bush passed around. But he probably just didn't know, so I am not even going to say he lied.
Note:
"I also dropped the bottom rate from fifteen percent to ten percent, because, by far, the vast majority of the help goes to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder." --G.W. Bush, getting it wrong during the first Gore debate. The bottom 60 percent got 14.7 percent.
Let me know if you would like further detail and reference on this claim.
You are right that the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts will have the effect of increasing taxes. And this is as it should be. Republicans try their best to make a few people very rich, but they end up making a lot of people very poor. Bush II was so bad he even made a lot of wealthy people poor.
The rich did far better during Clinton's time when the stock market went up 3.3 times. It went DOWN 20% under Bush. A profound and nearly unprecedented loss.
I encourage you to read this article that spells out the history on this:
"Republicans Aren’t Even Good for the Rich"
http://hnn.us/articles/8301.html
So many myths, so little time....
D.
****
DAR
It's my understanding we are currently operating under Bush's record budget deficit.
Regarding what Obama and Congress will have to do to keep the foundering ship a float, see my comments about "lag times."
I am not comfortable with these profound deficits and haven't been for a long time. I keep my personal debt very low and operate well in the black. My lowly status as a goat farmer/piano tuner, really doesn't qualify me to know if these levels of spending are the right amount. I hear experts say it's too much and others say it won't be enough.
I don't know. Nobody knows.
I do know these numbers are not sustainable.
And I do know that claims of republicans being good at cutting spending is a pile of, as we say, goat berries.
Goats eat grass, and they make them into berries. Don't step in them.
D.
---------------
[quote]"Today the price tag for America's debt works out to roughly $100,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Twenty years from now, that number may increase ten times." --Republican Joe Scarborough, "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day", pg. 19
"The White House's own numbers best illustrate how shamefully the Party of Reagan has misspent our tax dollars over the last ten years. When comparing its fiscal record to that of the Clinton administration,
George W. Bush's White House loses in a landslide."
-- Republican Joe Scarborough, "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day", pg. 27
"Using the Bush White House's own numbers, the federal government under Bill Clinton grew at an annual rate of 3.4 percent. But over the past four years under George W. Bush and his Republican Congress, the federal government has grown at a staggering rate of 10.4 percent. More damning is the fact that... George Bush never once vetoed a congressional bill." --Republican Joe Scarborough, "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day”, pg. 29 (2004)[/quote]
****
BIGD: The middle class got the biggest tax cuts.>>
DAR
Rubbish.
BIGD: The rich did not make out as great as you haters like to portray.>>
DAR
I specifically said they *did not* do well under Bush. Read for comprehension. No one did. Trillions of dollars of wealth disappeared under Bush. Perhaps 20 trillion. Can't the party that babbles about "personal responsibility" take any responsibility for their actions?
BIGD: The middle class got the biggest tax cuts.>>
DAR
With out "middle class" defined, this means nothing. And it's wrong under any normative understanding of the term.
BIGD: Couple this with the number of lower and middle class who pay absolutely no taxes...>>
DAR
No one in the US pays "absolutely no taxes." The taxes on the poor are better hidden but easy to see when you expose them (as I already did).
BIGD: Walter Williams is much more credible.>>
DAR
I have heard WW many times when he sat in for Limbaugh. He has no credibility. An astonishing fool. I could roast him to a crisp. Course that would never happen because of the time delay and screening and the cowardice of that program.
BIGD: The stock market was up under Clinton until the dot com bubble burst.>>
DAR
The stock market, S&P and DOW, went up 3.3x under Clinton, all bubbles and bursts included. Check your facts before you type.
BIGD: It was up under Bush to over 14k.>>
DAR
For a matter of days. What matters is not some cherry picked peak but how he left it. Bush left it at around 8,000 which is as I said, about 20% LOWER than he inherited it. If it had increased at the same rate it did under Clinton it would be above 33,000 today and I would spend a month in Jamaica rather than two weeks.
BIGD: the government says the middle class made out well under the tax cuts.>>
DAR
Everyone got hammered during Bush's time. Even the rich. My GM stock is 75 cents today. Know how many people were heavily invested in GM?
Toyota today? $80 bucks.
Worst. President. Ever.
BIGD: The only lie is when anyone says the tax cuts were for the rich.>>
DAR
The tax cuts were overwhelmingly for the rich. I will be blunt. Your head is filled with right-wing mush. I can help. Let's fix that now.
Observe:
***
Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: January 8, 2007
WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.
The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.
Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html
Keep the softballs coming.
****
DAR
See Bush's 09 budget here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Unite ... ral_budget
Notice the chart, bottom right. Notice the difference between revenue and expenses.
BIGD: "The budget this year has been blown to smithereens by Obama...">>
DAR
Absolutely right. And this is the hand he was dealt. Revenue is in the crapper because of a destroyed economy and the stimulus may not be enough. Or it may. Experts disagree.
But this is overwhelmingly Bush's fault. See "lag times." Blaming this mess on Obama, at this point, is ridiculous. Laughable.
D.
****
DAR
I lived there from 1966 to 1987. Germany's system is better (and probably several other countries too) so I don't say what I do about Canada's system to be patriotic, but rather to be accurate. The US could/should have a better system rather worse.
I am heavily invested in the US, and the success of the US. This is why I do what I can to swat down the silly bunnies that work to misinform people and make the populace more stupid. The US can not function well with such a high ratio of political, right-wing, cult members.
Mostly I stayed here because I like the weather. My mother and many relatives live here. Father's side is Canadian.
All of my claims can be easily verified.
D.
****
BIGD: "finding it in the Constitution even though it does not exist there">>
DAR
Blatant, self-serving, question begging.
BIGD: "I know you have a hard time understanding the Constitution but that is how it is.">>
DAR
When someone has no argument, their last resort is to say their belief is an axiom: "that is how it is." Which is no argument at all.
So you disagree with her understanding of the 2nd (let's pretend you are accurate about her position). Big whoop. The only people who have an opinion about the constitution, that matter, are the people with fannies sitting on the high court. She'll be there soon so her opinion will matter, yours does not.
BIGD: "If she votes that way she is an activist.">>
DAR
So you provide no objective definition of an "activist" and then proceed to use the exactly useless ad hoc method I warned you about.
If she votes in a way you disagree with, then she's an activist. When Clarence votes to overturn laws and overthrow precedent (as he does more than any other), his action doesn't make him an "activist" judge because... you agree with him.
What a joke.
D.
****
***
"We need conservatives, of course, to challenge liberal ideas and proposals and to impel us to examine their soundness, but we cannot depend on conservatives to offer constructive new ideas of the sort that might bring about a more just and equitable society or a more peaceful and cooperative world. If we assume that Lincoln, the first Republican president, was a liberal (which he surely was), nothing inspiring has come out of the conservative mind since the age of John Adams.” --George McGovern
***
DAR
The republicans will hold her [Sotomayor] feet to the fire, as they should.
But for fire these days they are holding a small lighter, and it's nearly out of gas.
From what I have read, she seems like an *excellent* choice. And typical Obama, very moderate, very qualified (most judicial experience of a nominee in 70 years). Reasonable.
She'll sail through. He ought to pick another one. He could do that you know.
D.
"Harriet Miers!"
Just kidding.
***
BLK: "Nowhere in that direct quote does he say “Income taxes”- just plain old taxes, and raising any tax is a tax increase, period."
DAR
Right. That's how "out of context" works. When I provide the context, the problem disappears. When you cherry pick the "direct quote" minus context you can make there seem to be a problem.
Don't do that. It's not honest.
D.
***
DAR
I'll take you at your word that a closed mind catches no knowledge.
Regarding Bush connecting Iraq to his war on terror. He was fairly successful with a large number of people. Forty five percent of the people in this poll didn't get this wrong without a lot of effort by Bush and his team.
Note:
***The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.
"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.
The numbers
Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year [‘02], attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens.
The answer is zero."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
DAR
The context clearly shows he [Obama] was referring to income taxes. The clue is provided by the context: "If you make." Income taxes are scaled upon "what you make." His 95% figure refers to income taxes for those "make" less than 250k.
Let's not pretend that this is difficult to understand.
D.
***
[ACORN nonsense]
DAR
I have no problem with voter fraud being aggressively enforced. But it is such a non-issue (other than the constant mock outrage from the right), that it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
A person is going to go to all of this trouble just to cast their one fraudulent vote? Hardly. Where the fraud matters is when it is done in a systemic and organized way. Both parties have engaged in this in the past, but the party interested in vote suppression is invariably the republicans and when they do it in a large way it can have an effect. I can give you many examples.
Do not confuse some hourly wage person having some bogus signatures on a registration form with "voter fraud." One is profoundly insignificant, and the other is rare but potentially significant. There is no comparison whatsoever between the two. Yet republicans make this equivocation *all the time.* In fact, all of the babble about ACORN, every bit of it, is based upon this ridiculous equivocation.
***
BIGD: "How is it undemocratic to have term limits?">>
DAR
Earlier in this thread I said term limits:
"are somewhat undemocratic because they keep the public from re-electing potentially a very good candidate."
I am not arguing for or against them. There is a good and bad side to them. People are free to enact such laws (democracy at work). But the drawback is that sometimes they stop an excellent candidate from being re-elected by a populace that would like to vote and hire them again. In that sense they are "somewhat democratic."
BIGD: "how is it fair for someone to pay more of his income than others?">>
It's called progressive taxation, look it up. Wiki has a good blurb on it. Very few are against it, even the very rich (see Buffet). This is because the rich benefit immensely by having their taxes keep the system working smoothly (and clearly to their profound benefit). The wealth generated by a Wal-Mart for instance doesn't occur in a vacuum. It needs a society, and roads, and utilities, and an educated populace with health care access and a functioning society that can afford to buy their products.
Taxes in the US are relatively low for first world countries. And this shows. We have a much greater disparity between rich and poor than other countries tolerate. Repub's tend to make the problem worse, Dem's tend to level the field more.
***
BIGD: "Empathy is an emotion entirely inappropriate for the court,..."
DAR
Maybe we should just get a computer to make these decisions? Why do we even need humans at all? Just cut the baby in half. That's fair after all.
Regarding this "overturn rate that isn't supreme court material", as I posted in another thread:
***
“In fact, contrary to the claim that a reversal rate of 60 percent is “high,” data compiled by SCOTUSblog since 2004 show that the Supreme Court has reversed more than 60 percent of the federal appeals court cases it considered each year.
The Times reported that “[t]hree of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents.” The article then quoted Wright’s assertion that Sotomayor’s “high reversal rate alone could be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record.” But according to data compiled by SCOTUSblog, Sotomayor’s reported 60 percent reversal rate is lower than the overall Supreme Court reversal rate for all lower court decisions from the 2004 term through the present — both overall and for each individual Supreme Court term.”
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905270038
****
[Church and State]
DAR
The Danbury Baptists wondered about this and Jefferson answered them with his letter. But he wasn't the only fellow to refer to this separation of church and state (he coined the word "wall").
Regarding your claim that there is "no Constitutional provision for separation of church and state." Let's ask James Madison his opinion. I'll limit myself to three examples:
***
1) MARCH 2, 1819
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State.
Source of Information:
Letter to Robert Walsh from James Madison. March 2, 1819 Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, in Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. Vol. III, J. B. Lippincott & Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on Religious Liberty, Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
2) JUNE 3, 1811
"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have other wise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself."
Source of Information:
Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811. Letters And Other Writings of James Madison Fourth President Of The United States In Four Volumes Published By the Order Of Congress, Vol..II, J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, (1865), pp 511-512.
3) 1817-1833
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished in their short history. . . ."
Source of Information:
Madison's Detached Memoranda. This document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, a biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison's hand sometime between 1817 and 1832. The entire document was published by Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946
***
DAR
They teach this stuff in elementary school I am sure, but apparently it cannot counteract an entire Christian Nation industry (David Barton etc.) that has devoted itself to spreading revisionist lies about basic American history.
I have many more examples of course. It's a bit of a specialty.
***
BIGD: "Look up the definition of sexist and tell me how that meets the criteria."
DAR
Bigd, I am for freedom of speech. I am with George Carlin and think you should use whatever words you like. No exceptions. On our freethinker forum we don't ban words.
It' just curious that you find it important to set your filter to not let a person type the word "circumstance" without it being censored and yet you at the same time have no trouble posting the most harsh and demeaning word available to use toward women [the "C" word].
It's just curious behavior.
I am not one who things inserting a few asterisks makes any difference.
****
DAR
It's "cherry picking" to compare her average to all the rest? You're funny.
"...data compiled by SCOTUSblog since 2004 show that the Supreme Court has reversed more than 60 percent of the federal appeals court cases it considered each year."
Nine myths and falsehoods being spread by the right on this is issue, dismantled here:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905270049
Do you research first. Saves time, prevents embarrassment.
***
Actually, that's not right. Observe:
***
(4) MYTH: Liberal judges like Sotomayor are "activist
CNN's Gloria Borger and Bill Schneider have uncritically repeated Republican claims that Sotomayor is -- in Schneider's words -- a "liberal activist," and in doing so have also advanced the baseless conservative claim that judicial activism is solely a "liberal" practice. But at least two studies -- looking at two different sets of criteria -- have found that the most "conservative" Supreme Court justices have been among the biggest judicial activists.
A 2005 study by Yale University law professor Paul Gewirtz and Yale Law School graduate Chad Golder indicated that among Supreme Court justices at that time, those most frequently labeled "conservative" were among the most frequent practitioners of at least one brand of judicial activism -- the tendency to strike down statutes passed by Congress. Indeed, Gewirtz and Golder found that Thomas "was the most inclined" to do so, "voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws." Additionally, a recently published study by Cass R. Sunstein (recently named by Obama to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) and University of Chicago law professor Thomas Miles used a different measurement of judicial activism -- the tendency of judges to strike down decisions by federal regulatory agencies. Sunstein and Miles found that by this definition, the Supreme Court's "conservative" justices were the most likely to engage in "judicial
activism," while the "liberal" justices were most likely to exercise "judicial restraint."
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905270049
****
DAR
I refer you to your article:
"Lee said she refused to give the staffer the letter."
The secret service has rules about such things and I am sure it involves not accepting things from the public to pass along to anyone.
She was told to leave, she didn't leave, she was removed. That's protocol around the president.
***
DAR
Just curious, thought I would check:
"Fully 96 percent of black voters supported Obama and constituted 13 percent of the electorate, a 2-percentage-point rise in their national turnout. As in past years, black women turned out at a higher rate than black men.
A stunning 54 percent of young white voters supported Obama, compared with 44 percent who went for McCain, the senator from Arizona. In the past three decades, no Democratic presidential nominee has won more than 45 percent of young whites."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15297.html
The above refers to exit polling. Actual may vary.
That youth white vote is what's going to pay dividends in the future.
****
DAR
You forgot The Daily Show which is a far more serious news show than anything on FOX (ten Emmy Awards and two Peabody Awards). In fall of '08 it was pulling in 2 million viewers per night *in a 10:00pm time slot.* Colbert gets about 1.1 million even later and a lot of people also watch online.
What channels a fraction of one percent of the population have the time to watch really matters very little. I do hope FOX gives those on the right some solace as they tune in to be serially misinformed. If they rise to defend and regurgitate the disinformation they have absorbed from such shows they will find that anyone with an interest in truth and accuracy can quickly knock their claims down flat.
What matters is not what a tiny segment of cable viewers watch for entertainment but what the population wants for leadership. And they want Obama.
D.
****
BIGD: "...government run health care along the lines of Medicare and the VA system neither of which is run efficiently."
DAR
Actually they are quite efficient and vastly more efficient than private health care systems which feed a morass of hundreds of health insurance companies and all the waste and paper work that such a mess involves (over 200 billion per year down the pipes).
As I have shown you before:
***
“The total costs to administer claims for Canada's public system eats up about 1% of all health care expenditures. In the US, Medicare claims administration costs take about 2-2.5% (US pays on a per hospital stay basis rather than lump sum budgeting as in Canada.) Total administrative costs in Canada including hospital administration and physician's office costs is about 14% of total spending, as compared to about 25% in the US. Some US insurance costs can devour nearly 1/3 of the dollars spend on health care. Because less money is spend on administration in Canada, Canadians actually get more physician and hospital services than Americans.”
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Healt ... da_KP.html
BIGD: They gave billions of dollars to Chrysler and GM... We will never see that money again.>>
DAR
You don't know that. There is considerable precedent showing that such an investment can pay back handsomely for both parties involved. This happened in the S & L crisis, another banking crisis in the early 90's and when Clinton bailed Mexico out in a crisis. The republicans screamed that it was a waste and a loss but Mexico paid back that money we loaned them, early, and with interest. Win/win.
The gov will hold about 3/4 of GM stock. It's a gamble but one worth taking and not nearly as costly as losing the whole thing right now and having all of those workers and retirees falling on the dole.
BIGD: "Failing dealerships that gave lots of money to Democrats and particularly Obama are not being closed.">>
DAR
What a load.
BIGD: "Health care is available for everyone.">>
DAR
No, expensive, emergency, last minute care is available for everyone. This is no way to deliver health care to the population of a first world country.
If you have a chronic, long term, no instant fix illness that can't be patched up quick (as so many people do), and you don't have insurance, or not enough insurance, in the US, YOU ARE SCREWED.
BIGD: "I am unaware of any provision in our Constitution that says I should be paying for someone else’s health care."
DAR
You already are and you are paying way to much to feed a profoundly bloated and wasteful system.
Again:
***
US Health Care Expensive, Inefficient: Report
"Americans get the poorest health care and yet pay the most compared to five other rich countries. The US health care system ranks last compared with the five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity and outcomes, according to a report released on Tuesday."
http://www.truthout.org/article/us-heal ... ent-report
BigD, did you ever get around to watching this short clip from 60 minutes? I would be interested in hearing, what you think of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4kbag-f3K8
D.
****
BLAKE: "Responsible caretaking of this planet was first mentioned in the Bible...">>
DAR
Yes, Ann Coulter once explained how her brand of conservatives understand that biblical reference. I'll quote her:
"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"
--Fox News; Hannity & Colmes; June 20, 2001
This explains why sensible citizens are leery of trusting you guys with the environment.
BLK: "their cars already get better mileage than ours...">>
DAR
Thank Bush and your team for successfully fighting the battle to keep our vehicles inefficient (and thus uncompetitive) and then also providing a huge tax break/reward for those who bought extra large and inefficient vehicles.
BLK: "Since Barama has been elected, we, as a nation, have no street cred in this world."
DAR
You have it ass backwards again. I can easily post the stats showing the profound plummeting of "US street cred" during the Bush administration and how it has surged even in the short period of Obama's tenure. Would you like me to do that Blake? Just let me know if you would like me to do that.
I notice that almost all of your articles are filled with insults, hate, blather and ranting. I'm not interested in that but I do notice that on the occasions when you do stray into factual areas, you invariably get your facts wrong. Just an observation. I'm not at all interested in the rants, but if you would endeavor to get your facts right, it wouldn't make my job so easy.
Not complaining. I like to help out.
D.
***
DAR
Do you really think it appropriate to use anti-dog comparisons on this site? Careful.
You like to call people liars, but are weak to "complete no show" when it comes to backing up your claims. Care to give it a try?
I am saying Obama is a politician and thus does politically motivated things.
Oh, and quite often, the sky is blue and, let me add, my cat has fleas.
Any other profundities in stock?
D.
****
BIGD: "power corrupts"
DAR
Yes it does. But POA's are voluntary and usually powered by the members no?
This is a well known quote but lessor known is the complete quote, which I like better:
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That unalterable rule applies both to God and man."
[Lord Acton in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, April 5,1887]
I think he was getting a dig in at the Hebrew Scriptures.
***
DAR
Well if they think "they were lied to" then you shouldn't have any trouble at all showing a profound cliff dive in Obama's job approval numbers.
Would you like me to give the knife a twist and do it for you or would you rather withdraw the claim and save the embarrassment? Your choice.
D.
ps For an Arkansas goat farmer with a high school education and a "tumor doing my thinking for me," I'm not doing to bad eh?
***
DAR
You're exactly right Blake.
Let that sink in for a moment.
This is why single payer is not going to happen. The lefties are going to be sorely pissed about that, and especially the fact that there won't even be an attempt. But I am a pragmatist and am interested in what will work. Obama is too, that's why he is going to have to take the heat from the left and bite the bullet to actually work toward something that has a very good chance of passing. The US is not ready for single payer IMO. Too many ninnies wedded to an imaginary ideal of "rugged individualism" and basically, selfishness.
As to when to do it, it's important to get cracking. Old folks hitting medicare age is going to be a profound fiscal burden and cost, and even the rate of increase of costs, have to be brought to sane levels. The US simply cannot afford to keep feeding the trillion dollar health-care beast. We are far too broke.
D.
****
[sotomayor supposed racist comment]
DAR
This is an objection I am unable to take seriously. I tried, I really, really tried.
But I do think the hysterical response by the repubs is a terrible blunder. For instance, as this article is titled:
"POTUS picks "bigot" "liberal" "radical" "racist" "reverse racist" "activist" "socialist" "Marxist" "anti-constitutionalist" "affirmative action" nominee for SCOTUS"
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200905290053
This silly quote has an import of .5 on a scale from 1 to ten, and it won't have any effect whatsoever (I say this having read the context).
And these silly attacks are going to only hurt the repubs more with the growing Hispanic population. That's just DUMB.
D.
***
First we have Obama has done nothing:
"More and more people are losing their homes simply because Barama has done nothing, except throw money away" --BLK
Then we have Obama is doing too much:
"Barama has been so concerned with doing as much as he can in a short time that he has done nothing effectively..." -BLK
Perhaps you can clear this up, but you seem to be criticizing him for doing too much and too little at the same time. Best to take a breath and avoid such a contradiction.
It's a tricky situation. He was left with a profound mess and no one seriously blames the current situation, the current numbers, on him. There are no end of serious experts that think he is doing too much or too little. No one knows for sure. But these experts probably don't suggest he is doing both of these things at the same time.
Lag times. A digression:
I have a letter I put together that documents the historical record of how the country has done, in all major categories we judge success, under the demo/repub presidents respectively. I wrote it just before the election because of all the noise (read lies) that were being spread about the dangers of having a demo president.
Letter shows that the demo's win such a comparison in a land slide. The only serious rebuttal I have heard to this letter, (which references each claim carefully) is lag times. A presidents "record" shouldn't start right away, obviously, because many if not most of his policies don't take effect for some time, often years.
This makes sense. I have heard suggestions of lag times from a few months, to a year, to a couple of years or even a decade (with some programs, of course longer). On GM's place the other day, Mark reached for a quote from a fellow who said it was ridiculous to even judge the results of a president during his term.
That's pretty ridiculous of course. No one thinks Reagan didn't have a lot of results during his term.
My point is, because of the lag time issue, Obama can hardly, honestly, be faulted for the current economic train wreck we are experiencing. In a few years? Then these charges will start to stick. Right now, they don't stick at all.
As Jon Stewart suggested to republicans, "best to pace your outrage."
Lest you run out.
D.
----------------
The letter I refer to above is posted here:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5317
****
[activist judges]
DAR
Then what definition of "activist" are you using? Careful not to be ad hoc here. That is:
They are an "activist" if they overturn laws and you disagree with their decision, and... they are NOT "activists" when they over turn laws and you agree with their decision.
In order to not fall in that self serving trap you need an objective measurement, a standard, of what an activist judge is beforehand and then you look at the record and see what you find.
That's the method my above reference refers to. These guys use an objective measurement and on this criteria find conservative judges being the activists going against precedent and overturning law much more so than the liberals. That would seem to be a normative definition of "activist" judge. If you have a better one, let's see it. I have seen this referenced elsewhere also.
You are right about media matters. Use their material with caution. I don't necessarily agree with their editorial opinions but I have found their factual claims to be consistently correct and well referenced.
D.
****
If voting "against laws that Congress passed" isn't PRECISELY and exactly "legislating from the bench" then pray,...
what would be?!
D.
***
DAR
We have a deficit problem and need new revenue streams. Looking to correct this is a responsible thing to do.
PINK: "still can not believe that a majority of Americans really want to pay higher taxes..."
DAR
I can't believe that either. But I don't need to because it's not true. Under Obama's plan, everyone making less than 200k and 250k as a couple, get a reduction. The tiny group of immensely wealthy that have an adjusted net above that level go back to the brackets we had under Clinton which were LOWER than we had under that (apparently PINK Commie) Reagan.
What part of this is giving you trouble?
And consider:
"Which party is better at “small government” and keeping federal spending down? Since 1959 federal spending has gone up an average $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. So it’s no surprise to find Republican presidents have increased the national debt much faster, more than $200 billion per year, versus less than a $100 billion per year under Democrats. And this is not even counting the second term of G.W. Bush."
Reference:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 5Apr1.html
***
DAR
The idea that Bush's tax cuts went to the middle or the bottom was a howler Bush passed around. But he probably just didn't know, so I am not even going to say he lied.
Note:
"I also dropped the bottom rate from fifteen percent to ten percent, because, by far, the vast majority of the help goes to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder." --G.W. Bush, getting it wrong during the first Gore debate. The bottom 60 percent got 14.7 percent.
Let me know if you would like further detail and reference on this claim.
You are right that the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts will have the effect of increasing taxes. And this is as it should be. Republicans try their best to make a few people very rich, but they end up making a lot of people very poor. Bush II was so bad he even made a lot of wealthy people poor.
The rich did far better during Clinton's time when the stock market went up 3.3 times. It went DOWN 20% under Bush. A profound and nearly unprecedented loss.
I encourage you to read this article that spells out the history on this:
"Republicans Aren’t Even Good for the Rich"
http://hnn.us/articles/8301.html
So many myths, so little time....
D.
****
DAR
It's my understanding we are currently operating under Bush's record budget deficit.
Regarding what Obama and Congress will have to do to keep the foundering ship a float, see my comments about "lag times."
I am not comfortable with these profound deficits and haven't been for a long time. I keep my personal debt very low and operate well in the black. My lowly status as a goat farmer/piano tuner, really doesn't qualify me to know if these levels of spending are the right amount. I hear experts say it's too much and others say it won't be enough.
I don't know. Nobody knows.
I do know these numbers are not sustainable.
And I do know that claims of republicans being good at cutting spending is a pile of, as we say, goat berries.
Goats eat grass, and they make them into berries. Don't step in them.
D.
---------------
[quote]"Today the price tag for America's debt works out to roughly $100,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Twenty years from now, that number may increase ten times." --Republican Joe Scarborough, "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day", pg. 19
"The White House's own numbers best illustrate how shamefully the Party of Reagan has misspent our tax dollars over the last ten years. When comparing its fiscal record to that of the Clinton administration,
George W. Bush's White House loses in a landslide."
-- Republican Joe Scarborough, "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day", pg. 27
"Using the Bush White House's own numbers, the federal government under Bill Clinton grew at an annual rate of 3.4 percent. But over the past four years under George W. Bush and his Republican Congress, the federal government has grown at a staggering rate of 10.4 percent. More damning is the fact that... George Bush never once vetoed a congressional bill." --Republican Joe Scarborough, "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day”, pg. 29 (2004)[/quote]
****
BIGD: The middle class got the biggest tax cuts.>>
DAR
Rubbish.
BIGD: The rich did not make out as great as you haters like to portray.>>
DAR
I specifically said they *did not* do well under Bush. Read for comprehension. No one did. Trillions of dollars of wealth disappeared under Bush. Perhaps 20 trillion. Can't the party that babbles about "personal responsibility" take any responsibility for their actions?
BIGD: The middle class got the biggest tax cuts.>>
DAR
With out "middle class" defined, this means nothing. And it's wrong under any normative understanding of the term.
BIGD: Couple this with the number of lower and middle class who pay absolutely no taxes...>>
DAR
No one in the US pays "absolutely no taxes." The taxes on the poor are better hidden but easy to see when you expose them (as I already did).
BIGD: Walter Williams is much more credible.>>
DAR
I have heard WW many times when he sat in for Limbaugh. He has no credibility. An astonishing fool. I could roast him to a crisp. Course that would never happen because of the time delay and screening and the cowardice of that program.
BIGD: The stock market was up under Clinton until the dot com bubble burst.>>
DAR
The stock market, S&P and DOW, went up 3.3x under Clinton, all bubbles and bursts included. Check your facts before you type.
BIGD: It was up under Bush to over 14k.>>
DAR
For a matter of days. What matters is not some cherry picked peak but how he left it. Bush left it at around 8,000 which is as I said, about 20% LOWER than he inherited it. If it had increased at the same rate it did under Clinton it would be above 33,000 today and I would spend a month in Jamaica rather than two weeks.
BIGD: the government says the middle class made out well under the tax cuts.>>
DAR
Everyone got hammered during Bush's time. Even the rich. My GM stock is 75 cents today. Know how many people were heavily invested in GM?
Toyota today? $80 bucks.
Worst. President. Ever.
BIGD: The only lie is when anyone says the tax cuts were for the rich.>>
DAR
The tax cuts were overwhelmingly for the rich. I will be blunt. Your head is filled with right-wing mush. I can help. Let's fix that now.
Observe:
***
Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: January 8, 2007
WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.
The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.
Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html
Keep the softballs coming.
****
DAR
See Bush's 09 budget here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Unite ... ral_budget
Notice the chart, bottom right. Notice the difference between revenue and expenses.
BIGD: "The budget this year has been blown to smithereens by Obama...">>
DAR
Absolutely right. And this is the hand he was dealt. Revenue is in the crapper because of a destroyed economy and the stimulus may not be enough. Or it may. Experts disagree.
But this is overwhelmingly Bush's fault. See "lag times." Blaming this mess on Obama, at this point, is ridiculous. Laughable.
D.
****
DAR
I lived there from 1966 to 1987. Germany's system is better (and probably several other countries too) so I don't say what I do about Canada's system to be patriotic, but rather to be accurate. The US could/should have a better system rather worse.
I am heavily invested in the US, and the success of the US. This is why I do what I can to swat down the silly bunnies that work to misinform people and make the populace more stupid. The US can not function well with such a high ratio of political, right-wing, cult members.
Mostly I stayed here because I like the weather. My mother and many relatives live here. Father's side is Canadian.
All of my claims can be easily verified.
D.
****
BIGD: "finding it in the Constitution even though it does not exist there">>
DAR
Blatant, self-serving, question begging.
BIGD: "I know you have a hard time understanding the Constitution but that is how it is.">>
DAR
When someone has no argument, their last resort is to say their belief is an axiom: "that is how it is." Which is no argument at all.
So you disagree with her understanding of the 2nd (let's pretend you are accurate about her position). Big whoop. The only people who have an opinion about the constitution, that matter, are the people with fannies sitting on the high court. She'll be there soon so her opinion will matter, yours does not.
BIGD: "If she votes that way she is an activist.">>
DAR
So you provide no objective definition of an "activist" and then proceed to use the exactly useless ad hoc method I warned you about.
If she votes in a way you disagree with, then she's an activist. When Clarence votes to overturn laws and overthrow precedent (as he does more than any other), his action doesn't make him an "activist" judge because... you agree with him.
What a joke.
D.
****
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - June 30)
MAY 31ish
***
BLAKE: "Maryland can’t get its act together because it is run by liberal Democrats and, like nearly every state run by Democrats, it is run poorly and in the red."
DAR
Actually, you have that ass backwards (big surprise). You guys like to go on about "welfare" and "income distribution" so lets take a look at which states are carrying the weight and which are the moochers, shall we?
***
Check this out:
1. New Mexico- $2.03
2. Mississippi- $2.02
3. Alaska- $1.84
4. Louisiana- $1.78
5. West Virginia- $1.76
6. North Dakota- $1.68
7. Alabama- $1.66
8. South Dakota- $1.53
9. Kentucky- $1.51
9. Virginia- $1.51
10. Montana- $1.47
What is that you ask? That is the Redistribution of Wealth Top Ten.
That’s right.
For each dollar those states pay to the Feds, that’s what they Get Back.
Talk about “Welfare.”
Confused? Seriously? Okay.
For every $1.00 Mississippi pays in Federal Taxes, they Receive $2.02 in Return (That’s Chimpy Math).
Get it Now?
That, is “Wealth Redistribution,” on a National Level.
And you People have the Audacity to Whine about “Socialism?”
Are you... Kidding Me?
Look here, “Red Staters,” without the “Redistribution of Wealth,” your States would have Exactly-
Jack Squat...
Oh, just in case you’re wondering about the Rest of the List.
Eighteen out of the Top 20 Welfare Recipients are “Red States."
And Good Old Commie California?
California gets $0.78 for every Ducket they Pay (That’s 78 Cents).
Yep, those Old Commie Buggers are not only Paying for their Stuff, they’re also Paying for YOURS!
Hardly seems Fair. Especially the way you “Real Americans” constantly Bad Mouth the “anti-American, Leftist Coast.”
...Get It Together, Wingnuts!
If you don’t like “Socialism,” MOVE!
Get a Job, in a CITY!
Get off the Farm, and Return the Subsidy Money.
You have a Problem with the “Redistribution of Wealth?”
Excellent.
Get on the Horn, after reading the rest of this post, and tell your State Rep:
Hey, Bootlicker, we don’t need that New School or that New Bridge…or Roads. The people who Earned the Money Should Get to Keep the Money.
***
Source:
http://fairlane.wordpress.com/2008/10/2 ... n-wearing/
See the order of the states here:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
Notice the BLUE states at the bottom.
D.
****
BLK: "In that session the Democrats raised the state sales tax 20% (from 5 to 6%) and they raised the income tax on the “rich.”>>
DAR
This is profoundly dishonest right-wing math spin. Going from 5% to 6% is raising the tax rate 1% not "20%."
If a $100 product goes on sale for $95 we would say it is a sale of %5 off. If it is further lowered to $90, we say the sales price is 10% off (or we have given another 5% off). We would not say we have lowered the price 100% because we doubled the original 5% rate. That's just stupid.
And regarding taxing the rich. Good. Soak them. I don't judge the success of a country by how many millionaires and billionaires it can create but rather by how robust it's middle class is, how few ghetto's and impoverished it has, and how it treats it's elderly people.
Canada has no ghetto's, and they have enough millionaires. America can do better. The rich will take care of themselves, it's what they do best. The idea that the rich are over taxed in the US is ludicrous. I'll refer to Warren Buffet to teach you about this:
***
Read the rest here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/oct/31/usnews
D.
***
GMPLACE
MARK: If only we could discover truth by conducting polls.>>
DAR
We can discover truth from polls. You're equivocating. The only truth I was referring to regarding my reference to that poll is the truth that Colin Powell has vastly more support from the public than Limbaugh and Cheney. I was not implying that his beliefs are more true or more likely to be true because he has more support. That would be a separate issue.
You keep speaking of this simplistic two dimensional "left" and "right" as if it means something without a reference point. It doesn't. It just reveals that you are so far to the right that nearly everyone else (even in the republican party) is to the left of you. But we knew that already.
With Powell's popularity his support is obviously wider and deeper than "the far left fringe" in this country. And then you serve up the howler that it is the left that doesn't tend to tolerate other points of view.
Did you see where the conservative Liberty University won't allow a democratic student group to exist as they do a republican club? Note:
***
"Liberty University has revoked its recognition of the campus Democratic Party club, saying “we are unable to lend support to a club whose parent organization stands against the moral principles held by” the university....
According to the e-mail, the club must stop using the university’s name, holding meetings on campus, or advertising events. Violators could incur one or more reprimands under the school’s Liberty Way conduct code, and anyone who accumulates 30 reprimands is subject to expulsion."
More: http://www.newsadvance.com/lna/news/loc ... club/16172
***
That's a good dose of conservative "tolerance" isn't it? Find me a liberal college that won't allow a conservative group.
We've already covered how Hillsdale college only allows conservative opinion, all the time no exceptions, in their little tract. This is not because they are tolerant of opposing views.
There are about 900 profoundly intolerant hate groups in America and almost without exception, they are very conservative and usually Christian.
See: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
How many do you have in your state? We have 20 in my state. Nineteen are right-wing and nineteen are Christian. What are the odds eh? And they are quite the opposite of "tolerant."
Please let's not pretend it is the conservatives that are "tolerant" of dissenting opinion.
D.
****
"Barack Obama vowed that 95% of us would not see a tax increase..."
DAR
This is a misrepresentation.
Obama made these tax promises to people in the context of the items listed on a fiscal year tax return. He did this in reference to a tax plan that specifically addresses the income of families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.
If Blake was looking for an example of what it looks like when someone takes something out of context, he has a good example in your claim.
D.
****
DAR
You presume, with no supporting argument, that the "Liberal cities" get most of the money in those red states but how does this explain or even address the different ranking of the states? It doesn't. Sorry. Not buying it.
How is raising taxes on the rich... "UNDEMOCRATIC"? That makes no sense. It's actually called progressive taxation and goes back to 1862 in the US. Our democratic government enacted this.
Here is an exchange John McCain had during a town hall meeting. I'll let him explain it to you:
***
Audience member: "Why is it that someone like my father who goes to school for 13 years gets penalized in a huge tax bracket because he's a doctor."
McCain: "I think it's to some degree because we feel obviously that wealthy people can afford more."
Audience member: "Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism?"
McCain: "Here's what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."
***
BLAKE: The bottom 40% of wage earners pay no taxes...>>
DAR
Actually, that's rubbish. They pay FICA which goes into general revenue and gets used exactly the same as all the rest. Plus, they are taxed on all of it while the wealthy are only taxed up to $102,000. After that, it's clear sailing.
BLAKE: We all derive the same benefit from government so we should pay the same rate.>>
DAR
Thank you for completely agreeing with Warren Buffet's point.
D.
***
Maryland tax revenues falling short
Excerpt:
"Tough economic times have pushed Maryland's tax collections down about 17 percent in April, and general revenue is on pace to fall well short of state forecasts for the rest of this year, according to state Comptroller Peter Franchot... [snip]
And note:
"Corporate-, sales-,and tobacco-tax collections have shown growth, however. Mr. Franchot said those are only because of tax increases passed during the 2007 special session of the General Assembly. So far, corporate-tax revenue is up 6.3 percent, sales-tax revenue is up 1.4 percent, and tobacco- and alcohol-tax revenues are up 17 percent."
Source:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... ing-short/
D.
***
[Ten commandments on supreme court]
DAR
Good points “mother.”
Snopes has a good debunk of a common letter that gets passed around about this. It’s worth checking out because it has pictures of these things too:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp
***
DAR
The idea that the ten commandments were the foundation of "the laws of this nation" is such an old howler (yet we here it today) I am going to back about 115 years and quote Robert Ingersoll who answered this well in his day:
***
"Some Christian lawyers -- some eminent and stupid judges -- have said and still say, that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of all law.
Nothing could be more absurd. Long before these commandments were given there were codes of laws in India and Egypt -- laws against murder, perjury, larceny, adultery and fraud. Such laws are as old as human society; as old as the love of life; as old as industry; as old as the idea of prosperity; as old as human love....
If Jehovah had been civilized he would have left out the commandment about keeping the Sabbath, and in its place would have said: ‘Thou shalt not enslave thy fellow-men.'
He would have omitted the one about swearing, and said: ‘The man shall have but one wife, and the woman but one husband.'
He would have left out the one about graven images, and in its stead would have said: ‘Thou shalt not wage wars of extermination, and thou shalt not unsheathe the sword except in self-defence'....
All that we call progress -- the enfranchisement of man, of labor, the substitution of imprisonment for death, of fine for imprisonment, the destruction of polygamy, the establishing of free speech, of the rights of conscience; in short, all that has tended to the development and civilization of man; all the results of investigation, observation, experience and free thought; all that man has accomplished for the benefit of man since the close of the Dark Ages -- has been done in spite of the Old Testament."
--(About the Holy Bible, 1894). [From Robert E. Nordlander, quoting Robert Ingersoll)
As my Bible scholar friend Ralph once put it:
"The Commandments in Exodus 20 are un-American, unconstitutional, immoral, and irrelevant. The first one, to worship only Jahweh, is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. So is the one about keeping the Sabbath (which lasts from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday).
The holding of slaves is contrary to the 14th Amendment. Punishing children for the sins of the parents unto the third and fourth generation is child abuse, and therefore immoral. But the Commandments are entirely irrelevant to non-Jews, because they are specifically addressed to the
Hebrews by their God Jahweh."
--Ralph Nielsen
***
BIGD: must be one of the friends... who thinks it is necessary to parse words and try to demean.>>
DAR
This from a person who just the other day thought it wasn't sexist to demean a woman by calling her the most vile and insulting name for her genitalia?
Sometimes the hypocrisy and inconsistency here takes the breath away.
Regarding "this is a Judeo Christian nation regardless." I've already shown in binding law, a treaty, that the "United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
That seems pretty straight forward.
And you ducked my question:
If we are a “Judeo- Christian Nation” why did they completely forget to mention this in our *Godless* constitution?
Wouldn't that have been a good thing to mention?
D.
-----------------
"The obvious first step in seeking out our nation's origins is to read its founding documents. In doing so, one is struck immediately by the total absence of any mention of Jesus, Christ or Christianity. There is also no reference to any Christian church-Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopal, Calvinist-nothing. Not a word, nor a hint. If our Founding Fathers had intended to make this a Christian nation, they could not have hidden that intention more completely, or done a worse job of it." --Judith Hayes
***
MOTHER: "North Korea waited for Obama to come into office to show off their nuclear power because they knew Bush would have gone off on them."
DAR
No, they did not wait. North Korea shot off their first nuke on October 9, 2006, during Bush's term. He did nothing.
D.
-------------------
“You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.” –GW Bush, 9/7/06
****
MARK: "Equivocating. That’s a big word Darrell.">>
DAR
Not in the circles I move in.
You say you "don’t put much store by the left-right political spectrum;" yet you use it all the time.
MARK: you seem very confused about the meaning of libertarian,>>
DAR
I didn't use the term.
MARK: So far, you haven’t really answered any of my deeper philosophical arguments,...>>
DAR
I think you hide your conservative silliness behind a lot of mushy headed blather and definitional word games. I call it studied stupid. You can shine it and shine it and shine it up but in the end, it's still a turd because you started with a turd.
MARK: So there’s actually a conservative [Christian] university that only allows conservative views.>>
DAR
Right, and they do this because they are "tolerant." Find me a liberal college so intolerant that they won’t allow a republican student group. Why won't you do this?
MARK: I bet their not supported by tax payers.>>
DAR: Of course that has nothing to do with whether they, or conservatives, are tolerant or not. Don't distract, focus.
MARK: Try reading David Horowitz...>>
DAR
I have better things to do. Garbage in garbage out.
MARK: the examples of left wing bias are so numerous...>>
DAR
Then you shouldn't have any trouble answering my question. Try not ducking it this time.
MARK: And hate groups: have you ever listened to the bile excreted by Janeane Garofolo or Al Franken?>>
DAR
I sent my friend Senator Al money three times. He's a great guy. You want to compare him to the list of neo-nazi groups I gave you? Of course you do. Because you are a member of a political cult, and you can't think straight. Not about politics. You are devoted to not thinking straight about these things. And very organized. Turds lined up in a row.
MARK: And I suppose MIchael Moore is an honest and balanced film maker.>>
DAR
Nope, he definitely has an agenda. I will say that I have been given many examples of *supposed* lies from him and I have yet to find one that I couldn't easy swat down and expose. Care to take a crack at it?
MARK: Face it man; your a lackey for the establishment.>>
DAR
Actually, I'm not. And that's why guys like me will always wipe the floor with guys like you. Your weakness, your soft underbelly is that you are a goosestepping shill for the extreme conservative right. You will say anything, do anything to support it no matter how wrong it is. As I said, studied stupid (I know that sounds insulting but it is actually very technical term). You actually go to great effort to read Lew Rockwell, and all sorts of unbelievable fringe swill for the very purpose of convincing your self even more of these palpable absurdities. And you like the fancy stuff. The really high brow turd polishing. But it's crap. And it's easy to dismantle. I am hesitant to invest much time here because when I did, GM locked the thread. I hate censorship and I really don't like cowardice. There is a lot of that on your side these days.
If you think you have something good, and you want to see if it stands up, post it here:
index.php
14,000 posts, no censorship.
I don't do follow your method. I'll embrace truth where ever it leads. I shill for no one. I know very well how cults work and had helped a few leave them, religious and political. You are a very devoted and organized cult member of the far right. You carefully seed your mind with screened crapola, making sure it gets the right conclusion in the end. That's your weakness.
MARK: The left spews our far more hate than the right,>>
DAR
Who is Limbaugh's counterpoint on the left? Where is the left's Ann Coulter? Where is the lefts Michael Savage/Weiner? I know of one that would come close. Mike Malloy. Heard of him? Probably not. Liberals aren't that interested in hate radio. Where are these hundreds and hundreds of liberal hate groups? I gave you 900 and almost all of those are your conservative (christian) bed buddies. You have no answer for this because there is no answer.
You're semi-intelligent. You're not stupid enough to believe this. Conservatives fill our airwaves with hate and effluent daily. There is no counterpoint to the hate on your side.
D.
--------------------------
Coulter:
1) she was tired of hearing about Iraqi civilians dying (about a million have been killed, 5 million orphaned).
2) "it would be fun to nuke" North Korea
3) all feminists are "weak and pathetic"
4) President Bill Clinton "was a very good rapist."
5) Her only regret that: "Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times
Building."
6) "We should invade their [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
7) the only question about Bill Clinton was "whether to impeach or assassinate,…"
"I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo." --Her column; December 21, 2005
etc.
****
***
BLAKE: "Maryland can’t get its act together because it is run by liberal Democrats and, like nearly every state run by Democrats, it is run poorly and in the red."
DAR
Actually, you have that ass backwards (big surprise). You guys like to go on about "welfare" and "income distribution" so lets take a look at which states are carrying the weight and which are the moochers, shall we?
***
Check this out:
1. New Mexico- $2.03
2. Mississippi- $2.02
3. Alaska- $1.84
4. Louisiana- $1.78
5. West Virginia- $1.76
6. North Dakota- $1.68
7. Alabama- $1.66
8. South Dakota- $1.53
9. Kentucky- $1.51
9. Virginia- $1.51
10. Montana- $1.47
What is that you ask? That is the Redistribution of Wealth Top Ten.
That’s right.
For each dollar those states pay to the Feds, that’s what they Get Back.
Talk about “Welfare.”
Confused? Seriously? Okay.
For every $1.00 Mississippi pays in Federal Taxes, they Receive $2.02 in Return (That’s Chimpy Math).
Get it Now?
That, is “Wealth Redistribution,” on a National Level.
And you People have the Audacity to Whine about “Socialism?”
Are you... Kidding Me?
Look here, “Red Staters,” without the “Redistribution of Wealth,” your States would have Exactly-
Jack Squat...
Oh, just in case you’re wondering about the Rest of the List.
Eighteen out of the Top 20 Welfare Recipients are “Red States."
And Good Old Commie California?
California gets $0.78 for every Ducket they Pay (That’s 78 Cents).
Yep, those Old Commie Buggers are not only Paying for their Stuff, they’re also Paying for YOURS!
Hardly seems Fair. Especially the way you “Real Americans” constantly Bad Mouth the “anti-American, Leftist Coast.”
...Get It Together, Wingnuts!
If you don’t like “Socialism,” MOVE!
Get a Job, in a CITY!
Get off the Farm, and Return the Subsidy Money.
You have a Problem with the “Redistribution of Wealth?”
Excellent.
Get on the Horn, after reading the rest of this post, and tell your State Rep:
Hey, Bootlicker, we don’t need that New School or that New Bridge…or Roads. The people who Earned the Money Should Get to Keep the Money.
***
Source:
http://fairlane.wordpress.com/2008/10/2 ... n-wearing/
See the order of the states here:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
Notice the BLUE states at the bottom.
D.
****
BLK: "In that session the Democrats raised the state sales tax 20% (from 5 to 6%) and they raised the income tax on the “rich.”>>
DAR
This is profoundly dishonest right-wing math spin. Going from 5% to 6% is raising the tax rate 1% not "20%."
If a $100 product goes on sale for $95 we would say it is a sale of %5 off. If it is further lowered to $90, we say the sales price is 10% off (or we have given another 5% off). We would not say we have lowered the price 100% because we doubled the original 5% rate. That's just stupid.
And regarding taxing the rich. Good. Soak them. I don't judge the success of a country by how many millionaires and billionaires it can create but rather by how robust it's middle class is, how few ghetto's and impoverished it has, and how it treats it's elderly people.
Canada has no ghetto's, and they have enough millionaires. America can do better. The rich will take care of themselves, it's what they do best. The idea that the rich are over taxed in the US is ludicrous. I'll refer to Warren Buffet to teach you about this:
***
***I Should Pay More Tax, Says US Billionaire Warren Buffett
By Andrew Clark
The Guardian UK
Wednesday 31 October 2007
The United States' second-richest man has delivered a blunt message to the Bush administration: he wants to pay more tax.
Warren Buffett, the famous investor known as the "Sage of Omaha", has complained that he pays a lower rate of tax than any of his staff - including his receptionist. Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52bn (£25bn), said: "The taxation system has tilted towards the rich and away from the middle class in the last 10 years. It's dramatic; I don't think it's appreciated and I think it should be addressed."
During an interview with NBC television, Mr Buffett brandished an informal survey of 15 of his 18 office staff at his Berkshire Hathaway empire. The billionaire said he was paying 17.7% payroll and income tax, compared with an average in the office of 32.9%.
"There wasn't anyone in the office, from the receptionist up, who paid as low a tax rate and I have no tax planning; I don't have an accountant or use tax shelters. I just follow what the US Congress tells me to do," he said.
Read the rest here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/oct/31/usnews
D.
***
GMPLACE
MARK: If only we could discover truth by conducting polls.>>
DAR
We can discover truth from polls. You're equivocating. The only truth I was referring to regarding my reference to that poll is the truth that Colin Powell has vastly more support from the public than Limbaugh and Cheney. I was not implying that his beliefs are more true or more likely to be true because he has more support. That would be a separate issue.
You keep speaking of this simplistic two dimensional "left" and "right" as if it means something without a reference point. It doesn't. It just reveals that you are so far to the right that nearly everyone else (even in the republican party) is to the left of you. But we knew that already.
With Powell's popularity his support is obviously wider and deeper than "the far left fringe" in this country. And then you serve up the howler that it is the left that doesn't tend to tolerate other points of view.
Did you see where the conservative Liberty University won't allow a democratic student group to exist as they do a republican club? Note:
***
"Liberty University has revoked its recognition of the campus Democratic Party club, saying “we are unable to lend support to a club whose parent organization stands against the moral principles held by” the university....
According to the e-mail, the club must stop using the university’s name, holding meetings on campus, or advertising events. Violators could incur one or more reprimands under the school’s Liberty Way conduct code, and anyone who accumulates 30 reprimands is subject to expulsion."
More: http://www.newsadvance.com/lna/news/loc ... club/16172
***
That's a good dose of conservative "tolerance" isn't it? Find me a liberal college that won't allow a conservative group.
We've already covered how Hillsdale college only allows conservative opinion, all the time no exceptions, in their little tract. This is not because they are tolerant of opposing views.
There are about 900 profoundly intolerant hate groups in America and almost without exception, they are very conservative and usually Christian.
See: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
How many do you have in your state? We have 20 in my state. Nineteen are right-wing and nineteen are Christian. What are the odds eh? And they are quite the opposite of "tolerant."
Please let's not pretend it is the conservatives that are "tolerant" of dissenting opinion.
D.
****
"Barack Obama vowed that 95% of us would not see a tax increase..."
DAR
This is a misrepresentation.
Obama made these tax promises to people in the context of the items listed on a fiscal year tax return. He did this in reference to a tax plan that specifically addresses the income of families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.
If Blake was looking for an example of what it looks like when someone takes something out of context, he has a good example in your claim.
D.
****
DAR
You presume, with no supporting argument, that the "Liberal cities" get most of the money in those red states but how does this explain or even address the different ranking of the states? It doesn't. Sorry. Not buying it.
How is raising taxes on the rich... "UNDEMOCRATIC"? That makes no sense. It's actually called progressive taxation and goes back to 1862 in the US. Our democratic government enacted this.
Here is an exchange John McCain had during a town hall meeting. I'll let him explain it to you:
***
Audience member: "Why is it that someone like my father who goes to school for 13 years gets penalized in a huge tax bracket because he's a doctor."
McCain: "I think it's to some degree because we feel obviously that wealthy people can afford more."
Audience member: "Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism?"
McCain: "Here's what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."
***
BLAKE: The bottom 40% of wage earners pay no taxes...>>
DAR
Actually, that's rubbish. They pay FICA which goes into general revenue and gets used exactly the same as all the rest. Plus, they are taxed on all of it while the wealthy are only taxed up to $102,000. After that, it's clear sailing.
BLAKE: We all derive the same benefit from government so we should pay the same rate.>>
DAR
Thank you for completely agreeing with Warren Buffet's point.
D.
***
Maryland tax revenues falling short
Excerpt:
"Tough economic times have pushed Maryland's tax collections down about 17 percent in April, and general revenue is on pace to fall well short of state forecasts for the rest of this year, according to state Comptroller Peter Franchot... [snip]
And note:
"Corporate-, sales-,and tobacco-tax collections have shown growth, however. Mr. Franchot said those are only because of tax increases passed during the 2007 special session of the General Assembly. So far, corporate-tax revenue is up 6.3 percent, sales-tax revenue is up 1.4 percent, and tobacco- and alcohol-tax revenues are up 17 percent."
Source:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... ing-short/
D.
***
[Ten commandments on supreme court]
DAR
Good points “mother.”
Snopes has a good debunk of a common letter that gets passed around about this. It’s worth checking out because it has pictures of these things too:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp
***
DAR
The idea that the ten commandments were the foundation of "the laws of this nation" is such an old howler (yet we here it today) I am going to back about 115 years and quote Robert Ingersoll who answered this well in his day:
***
"Some Christian lawyers -- some eminent and stupid judges -- have said and still say, that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of all law.
Nothing could be more absurd. Long before these commandments were given there were codes of laws in India and Egypt -- laws against murder, perjury, larceny, adultery and fraud. Such laws are as old as human society; as old as the love of life; as old as industry; as old as the idea of prosperity; as old as human love....
If Jehovah had been civilized he would have left out the commandment about keeping the Sabbath, and in its place would have said: ‘Thou shalt not enslave thy fellow-men.'
He would have omitted the one about swearing, and said: ‘The man shall have but one wife, and the woman but one husband.'
He would have left out the one about graven images, and in its stead would have said: ‘Thou shalt not wage wars of extermination, and thou shalt not unsheathe the sword except in self-defence'....
All that we call progress -- the enfranchisement of man, of labor, the substitution of imprisonment for death, of fine for imprisonment, the destruction of polygamy, the establishing of free speech, of the rights of conscience; in short, all that has tended to the development and civilization of man; all the results of investigation, observation, experience and free thought; all that man has accomplished for the benefit of man since the close of the Dark Ages -- has been done in spite of the Old Testament."
--(About the Holy Bible, 1894). [From Robert E. Nordlander, quoting Robert Ingersoll)
As my Bible scholar friend Ralph once put it:
"The Commandments in Exodus 20 are un-American, unconstitutional, immoral, and irrelevant. The first one, to worship only Jahweh, is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. So is the one about keeping the Sabbath (which lasts from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday).
The holding of slaves is contrary to the 14th Amendment. Punishing children for the sins of the parents unto the third and fourth generation is child abuse, and therefore immoral. But the Commandments are entirely irrelevant to non-Jews, because they are specifically addressed to the
Hebrews by their God Jahweh."
--Ralph Nielsen
***
BIGD: must be one of the friends... who thinks it is necessary to parse words and try to demean.>>
DAR
This from a person who just the other day thought it wasn't sexist to demean a woman by calling her the most vile and insulting name for her genitalia?
Sometimes the hypocrisy and inconsistency here takes the breath away.
Regarding "this is a Judeo Christian nation regardless." I've already shown in binding law, a treaty, that the "United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
That seems pretty straight forward.
And you ducked my question:
If we are a “Judeo- Christian Nation” why did they completely forget to mention this in our *Godless* constitution?
Wouldn't that have been a good thing to mention?
D.
-----------------
"The obvious first step in seeking out our nation's origins is to read its founding documents. In doing so, one is struck immediately by the total absence of any mention of Jesus, Christ or Christianity. There is also no reference to any Christian church-Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopal, Calvinist-nothing. Not a word, nor a hint. If our Founding Fathers had intended to make this a Christian nation, they could not have hidden that intention more completely, or done a worse job of it." --Judith Hayes
***
MOTHER: "North Korea waited for Obama to come into office to show off their nuclear power because they knew Bush would have gone off on them."
DAR
No, they did not wait. North Korea shot off their first nuke on October 9, 2006, during Bush's term. He did nothing.
D.
-------------------
“You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.” –GW Bush, 9/7/06
****
MARK: "Equivocating. That’s a big word Darrell.">>
DAR
Not in the circles I move in.
You say you "don’t put much store by the left-right political spectrum;" yet you use it all the time.
MARK: you seem very confused about the meaning of libertarian,>>
DAR
I didn't use the term.
MARK: So far, you haven’t really answered any of my deeper philosophical arguments,...>>
DAR
I think you hide your conservative silliness behind a lot of mushy headed blather and definitional word games. I call it studied stupid. You can shine it and shine it and shine it up but in the end, it's still a turd because you started with a turd.
MARK: So there’s actually a conservative [Christian] university that only allows conservative views.>>
DAR
Right, and they do this because they are "tolerant." Find me a liberal college so intolerant that they won’t allow a republican student group. Why won't you do this?
MARK: I bet their not supported by tax payers.>>
DAR: Of course that has nothing to do with whether they, or conservatives, are tolerant or not. Don't distract, focus.
MARK: Try reading David Horowitz...>>
DAR
I have better things to do. Garbage in garbage out.
MARK: the examples of left wing bias are so numerous...>>
DAR
Then you shouldn't have any trouble answering my question. Try not ducking it this time.
MARK: And hate groups: have you ever listened to the bile excreted by Janeane Garofolo or Al Franken?>>
DAR
I sent my friend Senator Al money three times. He's a great guy. You want to compare him to the list of neo-nazi groups I gave you? Of course you do. Because you are a member of a political cult, and you can't think straight. Not about politics. You are devoted to not thinking straight about these things. And very organized. Turds lined up in a row.
MARK: And I suppose MIchael Moore is an honest and balanced film maker.>>
DAR
Nope, he definitely has an agenda. I will say that I have been given many examples of *supposed* lies from him and I have yet to find one that I couldn't easy swat down and expose. Care to take a crack at it?
MARK: Face it man; your a lackey for the establishment.>>
DAR
Actually, I'm not. And that's why guys like me will always wipe the floor with guys like you. Your weakness, your soft underbelly is that you are a goosestepping shill for the extreme conservative right. You will say anything, do anything to support it no matter how wrong it is. As I said, studied stupid (I know that sounds insulting but it is actually very technical term). You actually go to great effort to read Lew Rockwell, and all sorts of unbelievable fringe swill for the very purpose of convincing your self even more of these palpable absurdities. And you like the fancy stuff. The really high brow turd polishing. But it's crap. And it's easy to dismantle. I am hesitant to invest much time here because when I did, GM locked the thread. I hate censorship and I really don't like cowardice. There is a lot of that on your side these days.
If you think you have something good, and you want to see if it stands up, post it here:
index.php
14,000 posts, no censorship.
I don't do follow your method. I'll embrace truth where ever it leads. I shill for no one. I know very well how cults work and had helped a few leave them, religious and political. You are a very devoted and organized cult member of the far right. You carefully seed your mind with screened crapola, making sure it gets the right conclusion in the end. That's your weakness.
MARK: The left spews our far more hate than the right,>>
DAR
Who is Limbaugh's counterpoint on the left? Where is the left's Ann Coulter? Where is the lefts Michael Savage/Weiner? I know of one that would come close. Mike Malloy. Heard of him? Probably not. Liberals aren't that interested in hate radio. Where are these hundreds and hundreds of liberal hate groups? I gave you 900 and almost all of those are your conservative (christian) bed buddies. You have no answer for this because there is no answer.
You're semi-intelligent. You're not stupid enough to believe this. Conservatives fill our airwaves with hate and effluent daily. There is no counterpoint to the hate on your side.
D.
--------------------------
Coulter:
1) she was tired of hearing about Iraqi civilians dying (about a million have been killed, 5 million orphaned).
2) "it would be fun to nuke" North Korea
3) all feminists are "weak and pathetic"
4) President Bill Clinton "was a very good rapist."
5) Her only regret that: "Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times
Building."
6) "We should invade their [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
7) the only question about Bill Clinton was "whether to impeach or assassinate,…"
"I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo." --Her column; December 21, 2005etc.
****
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - June 30)
MAY 31ish
***
[complaint about new smart grid costing more]
DAR
Gee, I wonder if Blake has complained to the movie theaters because going to a matinee (off peak) costs less than going to an evening show? (during peak)
I would only add that this sort of thing is already happening and has for decades, only more crudely. I pay a different summer rate for electricity than in the winter because it costs my utility more because of the peak demand that must be dealt with prepared for. Smart grid only refines this practice, and as Randy notes, this gives people more control and more choice in they buying decisions, not less. What we have now is more "shared cost" more "cost leveling/averaging" and thus, as Blake would mis-characterize it: "socialism." Curious to see him arguing for THAT and against more market choice.
D.
****
DAR
My claim that government run systems are "quite efficient and vastly more efficient" was backed up by reference to the actual numbers. You give anecdotes. I have those too but they hardly dispute the *actual numbers.* The VA does their health care "in house" to keep the costs down, obviously. If they had to feed the for profit private industry the costs would be unbelievably higher than they already are. Which means we would have to borrow more money from China to feed the private health care beast.
Regarding "VA cuts because they don't have the money" well, that's the way it is. America's broke and over the years has been really good at creating a vast number of veterans with health problems. What would you suggest they do? They don't, have, the money. Maybe we, with 5% of the world's population, don't need to spend as much as the rest of the world combined, on the military?
MOTHER: "VA they can no longer pay for his chemo"
This NEVER happens in HMO's or with private insurance companies does it? I am kidding. It happens routinely. The more care they deny, the more money they make. At least the VA takes the profit out of the process.
2) Germany DOES have an "income tax"
"The rate of income tax in Germany increases progressively, ranging from 0% to 45% (marginal tax rate)."
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Germany
Regarding not being able to visit a certain doctor in Germany, that's poor. Under Canada's system, anyone can visit any doctor because every doctor is in the same system. There's no "in network" or "out of network."
You suggest that someone died because they had to wait a year after being diagnosed with cancer by their primary care physician. That's absurd (and intolerable if accurate). Anecdotes are common but aren't worth much.
If you are interested in this health care issue and the US, you might be interested in seeing this short video from CBS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4kbag-f3K8
D.
****
BIGD: "Canadians complain"
DAR
Whining is a universal human trait. Canadians are very proud of their health care system and no politician would dare run on a platform of changing to something like what the US has. When my dad comes to visit from Canada he and his wife buy special insurance so they are covered down here and they watch the days carefully. They are terrified of being caught down here without coverage. And with good reason. Not so much because of the quality, but of the potential cost.
BIGD: and many people from other countries love to come here to be treated.>>
DAR
There is a whole industry serving Americans who now go to India, Singapore, Thailand etc., for first class health care which they can get for a fraction of the cost. It's called "medical tourism." People come, people go. And as I recently mentioned, Canada has a problem with Americans coming over and trying to sneak health care. Many Americans are desperate. It's embarrassing. It should be embarrassing.
BIGD: We lived for a long time without government intrusion and people paid their own way.>>
DAR
And in 1900 the life expectancy was 58. Times change, standards improve.
BIGD: As for the ER, start turning people away who are not emergencies.>>
DAR
This is the solution to America's health care mess? Turn more people away? You should run for office and make that your theme. See how it plays.
D.
****
"Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I"
***
------------------
"The journal Health Affairs recently published the results of a survey of the medical experience of "sicker adults" in six countries, including Canada, Britain, Germany and the United States. The responses don't support claims about superior service from the U.S. system. It's true that Americans generally have shorter waits for elective surgery than Canadians or Britons, although German waits are even shorter. But Americans do worse by some important measures: we find it harder than citizens of other advanced countries to see a doctor when we need one, and our system is more, not less, rife with medical errors.
Above all, Americans are far more likely than others to forgo treatment because they can't afford it. Forty percent of the Americans surveyed failed to fill a prescription because of cost. A third were deterred by cost from seeing a doctor when sick or from getting recommended tests or follow-up.” --Paul Krugman, NYT, 11/07/05
****
DAR
The above would be an example of you not straying into factual areas. That is, you make no factual claims, it's just rant. You might consider adjusting your ratio of rant to substance. Or not.
You keep schooling me Blake, I am here to learn new things. Mostly I learn from my own investigation of posted claims rather than the actual posts. In another thread I thought for a minute that I had learned something new. "A mother" said Germany has "NO income tax."
I thought wow, I didn't know that. Learned something new.
But I checked, and it's wrong.
Oh well.
D.
---------------------
ps. I am co-founder of the Fayetteville Freethinkers and owner of the site you refer to. I only reference it because I have posted so many thousands of times there and know where my stuff is. The posts I refer to are almost without exception, referenced. Feel free to check them.
You might consider providing references for your claims. It's a good habit.
****
[Obama doing too much stimulus]
DAR
Again, no one knows what the future holds or if our efforts are too little or too much. Experts disagree:
***
"World Bank President Robert Zoellick warned policy makers that fiscal-stimulus plans are insufficient to turn around the “real economy” and rising joblessness threatens to set off political unrest across the globe.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home
****
BIGD: "You miss the point, if it is a violation of the Constitution then it is activism.">>
DAR
You can pretend *you* know what the constitution means but:
a) your opinion has no relevance because you are not on the SC
b) it means precisely what the SC says it means.
No exceptions. You may not like that fact but it's exactly "the way it is" (as the Bruce Hornsby song goes). You saying "violation of the Constitution" is practically a meaningless statement because you have no say, none, as to whether something is in violation of the constitution.
The idea that the US Constitution has a specific meaning is absurd on it's face. Laughable. The document is FILLED with ambiguity (especially the 2nd) and the rule is this: The Supreme Court decides.
To quote my TIME mag:
"equal protection of the laws" and "due process" are "inherently elastic concepts" and justices "inevitably make subjective judgments that are colored by their individual views about right and wrong, fair and unfair, wise and unwise."
The rest of your comment is non responsive to the problems I pointed out. You just beg the question and pretend that activist judges are activist because they disagree with your pet interpretations. And you provide no alternate objective definition of activist judge (because there is none).
Pitiful!
D.
****
[Bush stock market up 36%]
DAR
If you cherry pick you can probably support your 36% increase (which is pathetic btw).
Clinton's market went up 330%. That's nearly ten times better.
And yes, the republican congress gets some credit for that.
I have a conservative acquaintance who listened to a lot of Limbaugh during the 90's (as did I). He doesn't make much but he took what he had and played the stock market during the 90's. Normally that would make for a happy story but... listening to Limbaugh he was convinced that we were always on the verge of a crash. "Clinton was going to destroy the economy." He bet against Clinton's market, buying "puts." (betting that it will go down).
You did not want to bet against Clinton's stock market. It was a rocket.
He lost his shirt. Nearly 30k I think. He got divorced. Now he mostly drinks. Still a rightwinger though! Maybe a little more humble.
D.
****
DAR
The NYT's references the CBO, a source YOU just cited as credible.
You obviously have no response to this fact so you appeal to the genetic fallacy and smear the messenger.
I did not dismiss the Wash. Times factual claims, I said I didn't trust their opinions. I specifically said I did not doubt that they had their Nancy Pelosi quotes right but I did not trust them to have the order of events right. I don't trust Moonies.
Obama did not define middle class as a person making 200k or less. Someone who has a *net taxable income* of 200k can be very wealthy indeed and would typically be a millionaire.
Well, until Bush came along. Now they struggle too.
BIGD: "Bush did not cause the problems with your GM stock. That all took place with Obama in the WH."
DAR
GM stock was worth about $3 in early November of '08. It's was worth $3.50 on January 20, 2009. You apparently don't know much about the history of GM stock. How did all this "take place" with Obama in the WH?
Nevermind.
D.
****
DAR
Oh if only Bush had been able to get all that SS revenue and hand it over to the Wall Street boys for them to get their handsome cut (SS overhead is extremely efficient btw), before they invested it in, for example, GM stock.
And the timing would have been perfect eh?
Just before the crash, the biggest evaporation of wealth in the history of the world.
We don't hear about privatizing SS much any more do we? I wonder why.
If Bush had just asked me I could have saved him a lot of trouble (and jet fuel, he made over 100 trips on Air Force promoting this nonsense). His SS dreams were dead in the water. It's the third rail.
Maybe it was the messenger. Let's ask GW Bush to explain it:
-----------------
Bonus:
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a
tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible
and they are stupid."
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54
A prophet. Republican wasn't he?
****
[need more military]
DAR
Good point. We need more missiles and more missile research. We're 1/3 the population of China but spend 8 times as much but, that's just not enough. We spend about as much as the rest of the world combined and if you count our close allies, at least 2/3's of the world's spending.
Not enough!
D.
-------------
"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." —George W. Bush, June 18, 2002
*****
BLK: "the poor bondholders have to do as the government tells them to do...">>
DAR
No they don't. They can take their offer of 10% or they can walk and get, probably next to nothing. Bankruptcy routinely nulls contracts. See bankruptcy laws.
Stock holders, such as myself, will get no thing. Caveat emptor.
Without the government, there is no GM. Welcome to Government Motors.
D.
***
BLK: Darrel, when someone says they will do something, and then they fail to follow through, they lied about what they said. It is a Lie.>>
DAR
You're wrong.
lie
"a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood."
BLK: Otherwise they would have done that.>>
DAR
Sometimes circ*mstances change, people forget, they make a mistake, they change their mind, etc. In a presidents case, which involves a lot of delegation, it often means someone else dropped the ball.
What you need to show, to show a lie, is the persons intent when they made the statement. That's really hard to do.
I am not making an excuse for Obama's failed website notice pledge. He dropped the ball, he failed to follow through. This doesn't mean he "lied." This failing on this issue is tiny and he got called on it and I could go find their response on this (read it somewhere) and see how they rectified this but really lack the interest. It's not a biggie.
I can give you a hundred, (and perhaps a thousand) examples of Bush doing this and typically on issues of much more importance than a website post. Yet almost without exception I don't call these lies, because I can't know the intent. I always assume someone is incompetent or stupid before I assume they are a liar.
BLK: You’re so good at finding these things, go hunting.>>
DAR
I will. Let's begin. Oh, did you mean Bush or Obama? Let's start in alphabetical order, Bush before Obama.
Someone has a nice compilation here:
http://www.bushlies.net/liesatoz.html
He gives hundreds of examples, and calls them lies, like you like to do. Are you going to be consistent and call them lies when Bush does this? Cause that's gonna be a problem. He did it a lot, and on some really important trillion dollar issues.
During the Bush daze I also subscribed to the "Daily Howler." You can see the archives here:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/
Many hundreds of examples.
D.
****
DAR
Dear "a mother"
I choose my words carefully. I made the following three claims:
a) "bears poop in the woods"
b) "quite often, the sky is blue"
c) "my cat has fleas"
These three claims are perfectly true and quite mundane, like the claim I was comparing them to, that is, politicians do things that are "politically motivated."
***
DAR
Better to be in the hands of Doctor Tiller than the hands of Jesus who has set up the system so that the vast majority of humankind not only feels some discomfort and then oblivion (what Tiller caused, perhaps), but rather the eternal burning fires of hell (Jesus' plan).
BIGD: Tiller can now rot in hell where he belongs.>>
DAR: Kind of takes the wind out of supposed "pro-life" idea. But we knew that was a hollow title anyway. And death isn't even good enough for those who get such sadistic morals from the Bible, he "belongs" in hell where he can be tortured for all eternity.
BIGD: What was that guy doing in church in the first place?>>
DAR
This was a Christian church so it looks to the Bible, which as I explained, is pro-choice from start to finish. There is no evidence a fetus has any value in the Bible.
But even the Bible recognizes, at times, that murdering a human being is wrong. Apparently the "pro-lifer" who murdered this man in his place of worship didn't take those verses into consideration today. Most Christians ignore most of the Bible any way. They pick and choose what feels right and goes along with their secular moral sense. And for this we can all be thankful.
D.
------------------
"God so loved the world that he made up his mind to damn a large majority of the human race." --Robert G. Ingersoll (1833-1899)
****
[Bush didn't lie about WMD]
DAR
I think so. I think he really believed they were there, as did many others. If he/they really didn't think they were there, surely they wouldn't have been so dumb and invest so much capital in selling the war on this ultimately flawed rational. But I could be wrong.
With his zeal to go war, there is solid evidence he cherry picked data and ignored stuff that went against his pet theories. This is what happens we people go by their "gut" rather than their head.
He was also certain there weren't going to be casualties. Note:
***
"The founder of the U.S. Christian Coalition said Tuesday he told President George W. Bush before the invasion of Iraq that he should prepare Americans for the likelihood of casualties, but the president told him, "We're not going to have any casualties."
Pat Robertson, an ardent Bush supporter, said he had that conversation with the president in Nashville, Tennessee, before the March 2003 invasion U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. He described Bush in the meeting as "the most self-assured man I've ever met in my life."
"You remember Mark Twain said, 'He looks like a contented Christian with four aces.' I mean he was just sitting there like, 'I'm on top of the world,' " Robertson said on the CNN show, "Paula Zahn Now."
"And I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.' "
Robertson said the president then told him, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/ ... index.html
Incidentally, it's an interesting little statistic that Clinton (two terms) didn't send anyone into combat that didn't come back (note how I worded this). The actions Bush has taken have caused the deaths of more Americans than Osama Bin Laden.
D.
-----------------
"I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons, and we've got an intelligence group together to figure out why."
--Second Presidential Debate, St. Louis, Missouri, Oct. 8, 2004
***
[Nasty abortion pictures]
DAR
Pictures like these get handed around for their emotional appeal by people who have very strong beliefs but not such good reasons for those beliefs. What we don't know about this picture:
a) was this fetus alive or already deceased?
b) was it in some sense alive but with out a brain or heart or major organ?
c) was it diseased in some other way that may have been a harm to the mother?
It's one thing to show some gruesome surgical picture but without this background information, even the emotional attempt fails.
Regarding God never saying "Thou shalt not kill fetuses" or that he would be against killing them, not so. He certainly did command that fetuses be killed, on many occasions.
Regarding "children being the way to heaven," consider the following examples of how children were viewed and treated in the Bible:
****
1) According to God's law, children are not persons but the property of their fathers, who may sell them as slaves (Exodus 21:7).
2) God promised to send wild animals to kill and eat the children of the Hebrews if they didn't obey him. If they still didn't obey him, he promised to make them kill and eat their children themselves (Leviticus 26:29; Deuteronomy 28:53).
3) God frequently ordered the Hebrews to kill all of the people in the lands they conquered. This includes slaughtering all the children and all pregnant women (Deuteronomy 2:34; etc.).
4) If you do not obey God, he will punish your children and your children's children unto the third and fourth generation (Exodus 20:5, 34:7; etc.).
5) The bible says, “Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts” (Hosea 9:14)
6) God says a “stubborn son” can be killed (Deut. 21:18)
7) God kills Uriah’s seven day old infant because David sinned. (2 Samuel 12:15)
God sends a bear to kill 42 children for teasing a prophet (2 Kings 2:23-24)
9) God says, "Kill both man and woman, infant and suckling..." (1 Samuel 15:3).
10) God says, “dash their children, and rip up their women with child.” (2 Kings 8:12)
11) God says, "Happy is he that dashes your little ones against the stones" (Psalm 137:9).
12) God says, “slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children” (Ezekiel 9:6)
13) Because some adults offended God, he deliberately drowned the entire human race (except the Noah family). This included every little child and every pregnant woman (Genesis 6 & 7).
More:
Here is a small sampling of biblical commandments or threats to kill children:
* Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones.
* I Samuel 15:3 slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.
* 2 Kings 15:16 all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
* Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished.
* Isaiah 13:18 They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.
* Lamentations 2:20 Shall the women eat their fruit, and children.
* Hosea 13:16 their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
***
DAR
This is the Bible, this is what it says. Look it up, read the context. There is a whole industry built up around making all sorts of excuses for why the above actions were supposed to be okay but none of them make sense to our modern sense of morality, or any moral sense period. This is gruesome behavior that certainly would have made for some very nasty pictures. Modern christian scholarship acknowledges that a fetus had no value in the Bible.
Regarding, how this doctor could "go to church," consider the following:
***
Do Churches Support Abortion Rights?
Numerous Christian denominations and religious groups agree that the Bible does not condemn abortion and that abortion should continue to be legal. These include:
* American Baptist Churches-USA
* American Ethical Union
* American Friends (Quaker) Service Committee
* American Jewish Congress
* Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
* Episcopal Church
* Lutheran Women's Caucus
* Moravian Church in America-Northern Province
* Presbyterian Church (USA)
* Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
* Union of American Hebrew Congregations
* Unitarian Universalist Association
* United Church of Christ
* United Methodist Church
* United Synagogue of America
* Women's Caucus Church of the Brethren
* YWCA
* Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
* Catholics for Free Choice
* Evangelicals for Choice
More here:
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php
D.
******
BIGD: "They [in the Bible] were killed as part of a punishment."
DAR
Oh really. How does it make sense that a fetus should need to be "punished"?
You guess about the background of this picture but you back none of it up. Nor any of your claims about "most of these kids."
You say you want states to decide (and note: Roe v. Wade only references first trimester abortions). Yet this doctor was operating according to the law in his state. He had had clinics burned down and repeatedly sabotaged and he had been shot in both arms in a previous assassination attempt. This time they gunned him down in his church. And Blake thinks that's just great.
Sometimes it's not necessary to point out when someones moral budget is in deficit.
D.
--------------
See a 30sec clip of Mr. Tiller describing the above:
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/ka ... illed-toda
***
***
[complaint about new smart grid costing more]
DAR
Gee, I wonder if Blake has complained to the movie theaters because going to a matinee (off peak) costs less than going to an evening show? (during peak)
I would only add that this sort of thing is already happening and has for decades, only more crudely. I pay a different summer rate for electricity than in the winter because it costs my utility more because of the peak demand that must be dealt with prepared for. Smart grid only refines this practice, and as Randy notes, this gives people more control and more choice in they buying decisions, not less. What we have now is more "shared cost" more "cost leveling/averaging" and thus, as Blake would mis-characterize it: "socialism." Curious to see him arguing for THAT and against more market choice.
D.
****
DAR
My claim that government run systems are "quite efficient and vastly more efficient" was backed up by reference to the actual numbers. You give anecdotes. I have those too but they hardly dispute the *actual numbers.* The VA does their health care "in house" to keep the costs down, obviously. If they had to feed the for profit private industry the costs would be unbelievably higher than they already are. Which means we would have to borrow more money from China to feed the private health care beast.
Regarding "VA cuts because they don't have the money" well, that's the way it is. America's broke and over the years has been really good at creating a vast number of veterans with health problems. What would you suggest they do? They don't, have, the money. Maybe we, with 5% of the world's population, don't need to spend as much as the rest of the world combined, on the military?
MOTHER: "VA they can no longer pay for his chemo"
This NEVER happens in HMO's or with private insurance companies does it? I am kidding. It happens routinely. The more care they deny, the more money they make. At least the VA takes the profit out of the process.
2) Germany DOES have an "income tax"
"The rate of income tax in Germany increases progressively, ranging from 0% to 45% (marginal tax rate)."
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Germany
Regarding not being able to visit a certain doctor in Germany, that's poor. Under Canada's system, anyone can visit any doctor because every doctor is in the same system. There's no "in network" or "out of network."
You suggest that someone died because they had to wait a year after being diagnosed with cancer by their primary care physician. That's absurd (and intolerable if accurate). Anecdotes are common but aren't worth much.
If you are interested in this health care issue and the US, you might be interested in seeing this short video from CBS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4kbag-f3K8
D.
****
BIGD: "Canadians complain"
DAR
Whining is a universal human trait. Canadians are very proud of their health care system and no politician would dare run on a platform of changing to something like what the US has. When my dad comes to visit from Canada he and his wife buy special insurance so they are covered down here and they watch the days carefully. They are terrified of being caught down here without coverage. And with good reason. Not so much because of the quality, but of the potential cost.
BIGD: and many people from other countries love to come here to be treated.>>
DAR
There is a whole industry serving Americans who now go to India, Singapore, Thailand etc., for first class health care which they can get for a fraction of the cost. It's called "medical tourism." People come, people go. And as I recently mentioned, Canada has a problem with Americans coming over and trying to sneak health care. Many Americans are desperate. It's embarrassing. It should be embarrassing.
BIGD: We lived for a long time without government intrusion and people paid their own way.>>
DAR
And in 1900 the life expectancy was 58. Times change, standards improve.
BIGD: As for the ER, start turning people away who are not emergencies.>>
DAR
This is the solution to America's health care mess? Turn more people away? You should run for office and make that your theme. See how it plays.
D.
****
"Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I"
***
D.3. Wait times in Canada are horrendous.
True and False again -- it depends on which province you live in, and what's wrong with you. Canada's health care system runs on federal guidelines that ensure uniform standards of care, but each territory and province administers its own program. Some provinces don't plan their facilities well enough; in those, you can have waits. Some do better. As a general rule, the farther north you live, the harder it is to get to care, simply because the doctors and hospitals are concentrated in the south. But that's just as true in any rural county in the U.S.
You can hear the bitching about it no matter where you live, though. The percentage of Canadians who'd consider giving up their beloved system consistently languishes in the single digits. A few years ago, a TV show asked Canadians to name the Greatest Canadian in history; and in a broad national consensus, they gave the honor to Tommy Douglas, the Saskatchewan premier who is considered the father of the country's health care system. (And no, it had nothing to do with the fact that he was also Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather.). In spite of that, though, grousing about health care is still unofficially Canada's third national sport after curling and hockey.
And for the country's newspapers, it's a prime watchdogging opportunity. Any little thing goes sideways at the local hospital, and it's on the front pages the next day. Those kinds of stories sell papers, because everyone is invested in that system and has a personal stake in how well it functions. The American system might benefit from this kind of constant scrutiny, because it's certainly one of the things that keeps the quality high. But it also makes people think it's far worse than it is.
Critics should be reminded that the American system is not exactly instant-on, either. When I lived in California, I had excellent insurance, and got my care through one of the best university-based systems in the nation. Yet I routinely had to wait anywhere from six to twelve weeks to get in to see a specialist. Non-emergency surgical waits could be anywhere from four weeks to four months. After two years in the BC [British Columbia] system, I'm finding the experience to be pretty much comparable, and often better. The notable exception is MRIs, which were easy in California, but can take many months to get here. (It's the number one thing people go over the border for.) Other than that, urban Canadians get care about as fast as urban Americans do."
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/myt ... i#comments
------------------
"The journal Health Affairs recently published the results of a survey of the medical experience of "sicker adults" in six countries, including Canada, Britain, Germany and the United States. The responses don't support claims about superior service from the U.S. system. It's true that Americans generally have shorter waits for elective surgery than Canadians or Britons, although German waits are even shorter. But Americans do worse by some important measures: we find it harder than citizens of other advanced countries to see a doctor when we need one, and our system is more, not less, rife with medical errors.
Above all, Americans are far more likely than others to forgo treatment because they can't afford it. Forty percent of the Americans surveyed failed to fill a prescription because of cost. A third were deterred by cost from seeing a doctor when sick or from getting recommended tests or follow-up.” --Paul Krugman, NYT, 11/07/05
****
DAR
The above would be an example of you not straying into factual areas. That is, you make no factual claims, it's just rant. You might consider adjusting your ratio of rant to substance. Or not.
You keep schooling me Blake, I am here to learn new things. Mostly I learn from my own investigation of posted claims rather than the actual posts. In another thread I thought for a minute that I had learned something new. "A mother" said Germany has "NO income tax."
I thought wow, I didn't know that. Learned something new.
But I checked, and it's wrong.
Oh well.
D.
---------------------
ps. I am co-founder of the Fayetteville Freethinkers and owner of the site you refer to. I only reference it because I have posted so many thousands of times there and know where my stuff is. The posts I refer to are almost without exception, referenced. Feel free to check them.
You might consider providing references for your claims. It's a good habit.
****
[Obama doing too much stimulus]
DAR
Again, no one knows what the future holds or if our efforts are too little or too much. Experts disagree:
***
"World Bank President Robert Zoellick warned policy makers that fiscal-stimulus plans are insufficient to turn around the “real economy” and rising joblessness threatens to set off political unrest across the globe.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home
****
BIGD: "You miss the point, if it is a violation of the Constitution then it is activism.">>
DAR
You can pretend *you* know what the constitution means but:
a) your opinion has no relevance because you are not on the SC
b) it means precisely what the SC says it means.
No exceptions. You may not like that fact but it's exactly "the way it is" (as the Bruce Hornsby song goes). You saying "violation of the Constitution" is practically a meaningless statement because you have no say, none, as to whether something is in violation of the constitution.
The idea that the US Constitution has a specific meaning is absurd on it's face. Laughable. The document is FILLED with ambiguity (especially the 2nd) and the rule is this: The Supreme Court decides.
To quote my TIME mag:
"equal protection of the laws" and "due process" are "inherently elastic concepts" and justices "inevitably make subjective judgments that are colored by their individual views about right and wrong, fair and unfair, wise and unwise."
The rest of your comment is non responsive to the problems I pointed out. You just beg the question and pretend that activist judges are activist because they disagree with your pet interpretations. And you provide no alternate objective definition of activist judge (because there is none).
Pitiful!
D.
****
[Bush stock market up 36%]
DAR
If you cherry pick you can probably support your 36% increase (which is pathetic btw).
Clinton's market went up 330%. That's nearly ten times better.
And yes, the republican congress gets some credit for that.
I have a conservative acquaintance who listened to a lot of Limbaugh during the 90's (as did I). He doesn't make much but he took what he had and played the stock market during the 90's. Normally that would make for a happy story but... listening to Limbaugh he was convinced that we were always on the verge of a crash. "Clinton was going to destroy the economy." He bet against Clinton's market, buying "puts." (betting that it will go down).
You did not want to bet against Clinton's stock market. It was a rocket.
He lost his shirt. Nearly 30k I think. He got divorced. Now he mostly drinks. Still a rightwinger though! Maybe a little more humble.
D.
****
DAR
The NYT's references the CBO, a source YOU just cited as credible.
You obviously have no response to this fact so you appeal to the genetic fallacy and smear the messenger.
I did not dismiss the Wash. Times factual claims, I said I didn't trust their opinions. I specifically said I did not doubt that they had their Nancy Pelosi quotes right but I did not trust them to have the order of events right. I don't trust Moonies.
Obama did not define middle class as a person making 200k or less. Someone who has a *net taxable income* of 200k can be very wealthy indeed and would typically be a millionaire.
Well, until Bush came along. Now they struggle too.
BIGD: "Bush did not cause the problems with your GM stock. That all took place with Obama in the WH."
DAR
GM stock was worth about $3 in early November of '08. It's was worth $3.50 on January 20, 2009. You apparently don't know much about the history of GM stock. How did all this "take place" with Obama in the WH?
Nevermind.
D.
****
DAR
Oh if only Bush had been able to get all that SS revenue and hand it over to the Wall Street boys for them to get their handsome cut (SS overhead is extremely efficient btw), before they invested it in, for example, GM stock.
And the timing would have been perfect eh?
Just before the crash, the biggest evaporation of wealth in the history of the world.
We don't hear about privatizing SS much any more do we? I wonder why.
If Bush had just asked me I could have saved him a lot of trouble (and jet fuel, he made over 100 trips on Air Force promoting this nonsense). His SS dreams were dead in the water. It's the third rail.
Maybe it was the messenger. Let's ask GW Bush to explain it:
D."Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the — like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast
benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those — if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."
—George W. Bush, explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005
-----------------
Bonus:
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a
tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible
and they are stupid."
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54
A prophet. Republican wasn't he?
****
[need more military]
DAR
Good point. We need more missiles and more missile research. We're 1/3 the population of China but spend 8 times as much but, that's just not enough. We spend about as much as the rest of the world combined and if you count our close allies, at least 2/3's of the world's spending.
Not enough!
D.
-------------
"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." —George W. Bush, June 18, 2002
*****
BLK: "the poor bondholders have to do as the government tells them to do...">>
DAR
No they don't. They can take their offer of 10% or they can walk and get, probably next to nothing. Bankruptcy routinely nulls contracts. See bankruptcy laws.
Stock holders, such as myself, will get no thing. Caveat emptor.
Without the government, there is no GM. Welcome to Government Motors.
D.
***
BLK: Darrel, when someone says they will do something, and then they fail to follow through, they lied about what they said. It is a Lie.>>
DAR
You're wrong.
lie
"a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood."
BLK: Otherwise they would have done that.>>
DAR
Sometimes circ*mstances change, people forget, they make a mistake, they change their mind, etc. In a presidents case, which involves a lot of delegation, it often means someone else dropped the ball.
What you need to show, to show a lie, is the persons intent when they made the statement. That's really hard to do.
I am not making an excuse for Obama's failed website notice pledge. He dropped the ball, he failed to follow through. This doesn't mean he "lied." This failing on this issue is tiny and he got called on it and I could go find their response on this (read it somewhere) and see how they rectified this but really lack the interest. It's not a biggie.
I can give you a hundred, (and perhaps a thousand) examples of Bush doing this and typically on issues of much more importance than a website post. Yet almost without exception I don't call these lies, because I can't know the intent. I always assume someone is incompetent or stupid before I assume they are a liar.
BLK: You’re so good at finding these things, go hunting.>>
DAR
I will. Let's begin. Oh, did you mean Bush or Obama? Let's start in alphabetical order, Bush before Obama.
Someone has a nice compilation here:
http://www.bushlies.net/liesatoz.html
He gives hundreds of examples, and calls them lies, like you like to do. Are you going to be consistent and call them lies when Bush does this? Cause that's gonna be a problem. He did it a lot, and on some really important trillion dollar issues.
During the Bush daze I also subscribed to the "Daily Howler." You can see the archives here:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/
Many hundreds of examples.
D.
****
DAR
Dear "a mother"
I choose my words carefully. I made the following three claims:
a) "bears poop in the woods"
b) "quite often, the sky is blue"
c) "my cat has fleas"
These three claims are perfectly true and quite mundane, like the claim I was comparing them to, that is, politicians do things that are "politically motivated."
***
DAR
Better to be in the hands of Doctor Tiller than the hands of Jesus who has set up the system so that the vast majority of humankind not only feels some discomfort and then oblivion (what Tiller caused, perhaps), but rather the eternal burning fires of hell (Jesus' plan).
BIGD: Tiller can now rot in hell where he belongs.>>
DAR: Kind of takes the wind out of supposed "pro-life" idea. But we knew that was a hollow title anyway. And death isn't even good enough for those who get such sadistic morals from the Bible, he "belongs" in hell where he can be tortured for all eternity.
BIGD: What was that guy doing in church in the first place?>>
DAR
This was a Christian church so it looks to the Bible, which as I explained, is pro-choice from start to finish. There is no evidence a fetus has any value in the Bible.
But even the Bible recognizes, at times, that murdering a human being is wrong. Apparently the "pro-lifer" who murdered this man in his place of worship didn't take those verses into consideration today. Most Christians ignore most of the Bible any way. They pick and choose what feels right and goes along with their secular moral sense. And for this we can all be thankful.
D.
------------------
"God so loved the world that he made up his mind to damn a large majority of the human race." --Robert G. Ingersoll (1833-1899)
****
[Bush didn't lie about WMD]
DAR
I think so. I think he really believed they were there, as did many others. If he/they really didn't think they were there, surely they wouldn't have been so dumb and invest so much capital in selling the war on this ultimately flawed rational. But I could be wrong.
With his zeal to go war, there is solid evidence he cherry picked data and ignored stuff that went against his pet theories. This is what happens we people go by their "gut" rather than their head.
He was also certain there weren't going to be casualties. Note:
***
"The founder of the U.S. Christian Coalition said Tuesday he told President George W. Bush before the invasion of Iraq that he should prepare Americans for the likelihood of casualties, but the president told him, "We're not going to have any casualties."
Pat Robertson, an ardent Bush supporter, said he had that conversation with the president in Nashville, Tennessee, before the March 2003 invasion U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. He described Bush in the meeting as "the most self-assured man I've ever met in my life."
"You remember Mark Twain said, 'He looks like a contented Christian with four aces.' I mean he was just sitting there like, 'I'm on top of the world,' " Robertson said on the CNN show, "Paula Zahn Now."
"And I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.' "
Robertson said the president then told him, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/ ... index.html
Incidentally, it's an interesting little statistic that Clinton (two terms) didn't send anyone into combat that didn't come back (note how I worded this). The actions Bush has taken have caused the deaths of more Americans than Osama Bin Laden.
D.
-----------------
"I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons, and we've got an intelligence group together to figure out why."
--Second Presidential Debate, St. Louis, Missouri, Oct. 8, 2004
***
[Nasty abortion pictures]
DAR
Pictures like these get handed around for their emotional appeal by people who have very strong beliefs but not such good reasons for those beliefs. What we don't know about this picture:
a) was this fetus alive or already deceased?
b) was it in some sense alive but with out a brain or heart or major organ?
c) was it diseased in some other way that may have been a harm to the mother?
It's one thing to show some gruesome surgical picture but without this background information, even the emotional attempt fails.
Regarding God never saying "Thou shalt not kill fetuses" or that he would be against killing them, not so. He certainly did command that fetuses be killed, on many occasions.
Regarding "children being the way to heaven," consider the following examples of how children were viewed and treated in the Bible:
****
1) According to God's law, children are not persons but the property of their fathers, who may sell them as slaves (Exodus 21:7).
2) God promised to send wild animals to kill and eat the children of the Hebrews if they didn't obey him. If they still didn't obey him, he promised to make them kill and eat their children themselves (Leviticus 26:29; Deuteronomy 28:53).
3) God frequently ordered the Hebrews to kill all of the people in the lands they conquered. This includes slaughtering all the children and all pregnant women (Deuteronomy 2:34; etc.).
4) If you do not obey God, he will punish your children and your children's children unto the third and fourth generation (Exodus 20:5, 34:7; etc.).
5) The bible says, “Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts” (Hosea 9:14)
6) God says a “stubborn son” can be killed (Deut. 21:18)
7) God kills Uriah’s seven day old infant because David sinned. (2 Samuel 12:15)
God sends a bear to kill 42 children for teasing a prophet (2 Kings 2:23-24)9) God says, "Kill both man and woman, infant and suckling..." (1 Samuel 15:3).
10) God says, “dash their children, and rip up their women with child.” (2 Kings 8:12)
11) God says, "Happy is he that dashes your little ones against the stones" (Psalm 137:9).
12) God says, “slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children” (Ezekiel 9:6)
13) Because some adults offended God, he deliberately drowned the entire human race (except the Noah family). This included every little child and every pregnant woman (Genesis 6 & 7).
More:
Here is a small sampling of biblical commandments or threats to kill children:
* Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones.
* I Samuel 15:3 slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.
* 2 Kings 15:16 all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
* Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished.
* Isaiah 13:18 They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.
* Lamentations 2:20 Shall the women eat their fruit, and children.
* Hosea 13:16 their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
***
DAR
This is the Bible, this is what it says. Look it up, read the context. There is a whole industry built up around making all sorts of excuses for why the above actions were supposed to be okay but none of them make sense to our modern sense of morality, or any moral sense period. This is gruesome behavior that certainly would have made for some very nasty pictures. Modern christian scholarship acknowledges that a fetus had no value in the Bible.
Regarding, how this doctor could "go to church," consider the following:
***
Do Churches Support Abortion Rights?
Numerous Christian denominations and religious groups agree that the Bible does not condemn abortion and that abortion should continue to be legal. These include:
* American Baptist Churches-USA
* American Ethical Union
* American Friends (Quaker) Service Committee
* American Jewish Congress
* Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
* Episcopal Church
* Lutheran Women's Caucus
* Moravian Church in America-Northern Province
* Presbyterian Church (USA)
* Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
* Union of American Hebrew Congregations
* Unitarian Universalist Association
* United Church of Christ
* United Methodist Church
* United Synagogue of America
* Women's Caucus Church of the Brethren
* YWCA
* Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
* Catholics for Free Choice
* Evangelicals for Choice
More here:
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php
D.
******
BIGD: "They [in the Bible] were killed as part of a punishment."
DAR
Oh really. How does it make sense that a fetus should need to be "punished"?
You guess about the background of this picture but you back none of it up. Nor any of your claims about "most of these kids."
You say you want states to decide (and note: Roe v. Wade only references first trimester abortions). Yet this doctor was operating according to the law in his state. He had had clinics burned down and repeatedly sabotaged and he had been shot in both arms in a previous assassination attempt. This time they gunned him down in his church. And Blake thinks that's just great.
Sometimes it's not necessary to point out when someones moral budget is in deficit.
D.
--------------
See a 30sec clip of Mr. Tiller describing the above:
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/ka ... illed-toda
***
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - June 30)
JUNE 2, 2009
***
BLK: "Without racism, they [minorities] wouldn’t have a job, and they would be on welfare."
DAR
Do you really believe it is only white people who are good enough, capable enough to be worthy of being legitimately hired for a job?
You really believe that everyone else, except white people, are not hired on their own merit/value/skills as a human being and if it wasn't for special treatment (what you call "racism"), "they would be on welfare?"
D.
-----------------
ps. By current projections, whites will be a minority in the US by the mid 2040's. I think whites are great, but am actually looking forward to it a little.
****
CONRAD: "The sad thing is that you troll to compell people to agree with your conclusions.">>
DAR
And you don't try to be persuasive in getting people to agree with *your* conclusions? Of course you do. This is why you post and why I post. Now you might consider trying your best to make good arguments for your conclusions so others might find them compelling. That's what I do.
CON: "Let me give you a clue. The God of the OT is the God of the NT.">>
DAR
Thank you for pointing that out. I was just getting around to making that point. So when Maria says:
"I should have been more specific and referenced Jesus instead of God."
She is forgetting that Jesus is God, God is Jesus, they are one, timeless, unchangeable, forever and ever amen. See the Trinity.
So it makes no sense to say Jesus is an improved version of the OT God, he is, as you say, the very same (timeless, unchangeable) God.
And this God never said a word against abortion, and repeatedly ordered the wholesale slaughter of women, children and pregnant women (see verses above). The Jews, the Bible, do not consider a fetus, a person.
Christians are terribly confused about their Bible and standard Christian scholarship on this issue. The Bible is not "pro-life." Far from it. If you would like to know how to begin, you might check out a little tract I wrote on this:
"Does the Bible consider the fetus a person?"
http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/fetus.shtml
D.
----------------
Extra credit:
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php
***
To quote:
"I believe he [Dr. Tiller] got what he deserved and less..." --Blake
DAR
When I said "great" I wasn't quoting you, I was speaking informally about your position. You think it was fine in that you think "he got what he deserved and less."
D.
*****
DAR
McCain lost because he didn't capture enough of the center and was a weak candidate while Obama was a formidable opponent with wide crossover appeal (ask Hillary).
I let people label themselves. Powell has always been a republican and says he is a republican. His approval rating (70%) is higher than Limbaugh (30%) and Cheney (37%) combined. Republicans would be smart to listen to Powell's opinion rather than those two clowns. I expect (and look forward) to them not doing this.
Regarding your "more red" counties observation: land doesn't vote, people vote.
D.
***
BLK: "Do you , Darrel, believe Affirmative Action is Racism?">>
DAR
It certainly can be. I think it was a measure that has largely outlived it's intended purpose and have thought that for some time. I am for merit based promotion/reward/hiring/enrollment etc.,.
BLK: "the only thing that ever concerned me was, Could they do their job well?"
DAR
Glad to hear it, and I agree.
***
DAR
My "original reply" was a misreading of Blake's comment, as I acknowledged.
I rarely if ever call anyone racist, unless they embrace the title themselves or it's really blatant. It's a topic that doesn't interest me much. Growing up in Canada there wasn't all of this left/right chatter about it and I don't pay much attention to it. I like the song "Everyone's a little bit racist" from AvenueQ. You can hear the song here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbwNSNLPIfw
That said, one would have to be pretty oblivious to not see systemic instances of racism thriving in certain sections of republican/conservatism.
Two examples come to mind:
1) Bob Jones University expelling any students who date or marry interracially. Read the text here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5837&p=19053&hilit=bob+jones#p18611
That was in the late eighties. Parents can sign off and allow it (!) now. Progress.
2) There are about 900 hate groups in America and almost without exception, they are very conservative. See:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
We have 20 in my state. Nineteen are right-wing and Christian.
The idea that conservatives are anti-minority does not come out of thin air. Like most stereotypes, it has a basis in reality. Also, you might try compiling a complete list of black republican congress members, both houses, and note the result.
D.
***
DAR
No GM, I already know you take me seriously. I post here rather than on your site because you censor by locking threads after I make my points. If you were confident, you wouldn't need to do that. I hate censorship, and I really don't like intellectual cowardice. All I ask for is a level playing field and a little honesty in exchanges. The insults, I ignore. Post here, post on my forum, don't care. If you subtract the insults from your above post, as usual, there is nothing left. No substance. And that's unfortunate. You can do better.
D.
***
CON: Darrel: “The Jews, the Bible, do not consider a fetus, a person.” I’d recommend starting your study with Exodus 21.22.>>
DAR
Yes, I have studied that verse extensively (and the one before it). It is dealt with at the link I provided for you (it's #1 actually). I have also posted quite a bit about that verse on this forum. Here is one post:
http://www.onebigdog.net/what-is-the-bi ... ent-130254
CON: "As you work through it you’ll note that some children were filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb. In Luke 1.15>>
DAR
I suppose the Holy Spirit can inhabit what it wishes. Perhaps when the donkey in the Bible was talking it had some Holy Spirit in it. This doesn't mean what is inhabited by the Holy Spirit, is a person. The Bible also has spirits inhabiting pigs etc.,. This didn't make the pigs into persons.
Personally, I don't take books with talking animals, and spirit inhabited animals, too seriously. It's a good policy.
If Jesus or Yahweh had something against abortion I don't see why they couldn't have spared a moment to say so. After all, The Bible contains over 600 laws governing everything from fabrics to how to cut a beard yet contains no law prohibiting abortion. Nothing. And yet we have many examples of God commanding pregnant women to be run through with the sword. "But keep the virgins for yourself."
I wonder if a God wrote that or if perhaps a man did?
We also have solid evidence that the Jews, and the Jews of the Bible, did not consider a fetus a person. Just like now, except we at least count them when they were born. The Hebrews waited about a month.
D.
ps. If you would like to some standard scholarly Christian scholarship on this, I posted a short excerpt here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1477&start=140#p18651
***
MARIA: "...the miracle and the mystery of the Trinity is that they are Separate but the Same.>>
DAR
Yes that is an interesting mystery. I have a whole chapter on the "mystery" of the trinity in my little book about biblical inerrancy. Some sects, reading the same (inerrant) Bible don't find a doctrine of the trinity at all. I'm about 60/40. There are lots of verses on each side. At a minimum it's an incoherent, contradictory doctrine. As one prominent protestant put it:
***
"The Bible teaches us that God is in Three Persons. God is One, but He is manifested in Three Persons. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Don't ask me to explain it—I can't. It's impossible for me to explain to you the Holy Trinity. I accept it by faith."
—Billy Graham, The Quotable Billy Graham (1966) Droke House Pub
MAR: "abortion wasn’t something these people were dealing with back then.">>
DAR: Actually, they were. It goes way back.
MAR: God tells us not to kill. Jesus tells us not to kill.>>
DAR
Really? You might have one or two verses, but for every one you can find I can give you twenty where God said to kill. So let's put him down in the undecided column on the killing issue.
MAR: So.. um.. that means NO killing! Killing a fetus is the same thing.. it’s a no no!>>
DAR
No, it's question begging. Killing persons is one category, killing animals is another (and quite approved, God really loves the smell of burning goat flesh for some reason). Killing a fetus? Not mentioned, and the two instances where miscarriages are referred to in the Bible, the result is that the fetus is treated as less than a person and of little or no value.
MAR: Catholics are supposed to believe that life begins at the moment of c
conception,... It’s not... open for debate.>>
DAR
Actually, if you read up on your church history, you will find that it has not been so consistent over the years on this. There has been much disagreement among church leaders. I was reading about this at, I think, the abortion category at religioustolerance.org.
MAR: I feel that it’s not a huge leap to assume that Jesus would have said that abortion is bad.>>
DAR
I understand. It's not possible to argue or disagree with what someone may assume Jesus would have maybe said if he had gotten around to it. What God chose preserve in scripture is Jesus being completely silent on the issue of abortion. If it's so important, it could have used a sentence. A word against slaver would have bee nice too.
Then the Christians would have something to point too to back up this belief. As it stands, the Bible is pro-choice and there is no evidence that a fetus is considered a person in the Bible. Quite the opposite.
I entirely respect a persons position that abortion is morally wrong. I even have a friend who is pro-choice who he says would never allow an abortion of his child, no exceptions. My only point is one cannot appeal to the Bible, based upon good scholarship, to support this belief. Yet so many do. I wish Christians knew their Bible better.
D.
****
DAR
Yeah, that is bizarre. How could they not figure out that "racism in America is the product of the Democratic party?" How could so many millions be so completely, consistently, wrong about this?
I know. Maybe it's you. Maybe you and the fourteen black folks in the republican party are the ones that are wrong about this. Could that possibly be it?
And the gay folks, why do they get this wrong too? All that gay love on the conservative side and yet they still tend toward the Demos. Why can't these people see things as clearly as you?
D.
ps. There is one group that seems to be pulled toward the republican party and leadership in particular. Pedophiles. Check it out. Sixty examples last I checked:
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/
***
BIGD: "a large number of our dead [in Iraq] are not combat.">>
DAR
The vast majority are. Note:
"As of February 24, 2009 hostile-fire deaths accounted for 3,662 of the 4,568 total coalition military deaths."
--http://icasualties.org/Iraq/HostileNonHostile.aspx
Hey, when Bush said:
"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. I'm going
to prevent that." --Bush v Gore debate, October 3, 2000
Was he "lying?" Blake?
BIGD: "bomb from 15,000 feet or launch missiles. No way to fight a war.>>
DAR
The objective was accomplished and the combat fatalities on our team were: Zero.
Since when is that "no way to fight a war?" It seems to me that would be exactly the way to fight a war.
BIGD: "a number of troops died while he [Clinton] was president.">>
DAR
If you would like to debunk may statement, give it a try. Making an assertion (and one different than my claim) doesn't accomplish this.
BIGD: To say that the actions of Bush caused more deaths is disingenuous in that OBL killed non combatants.>>
DAR
No, to say the actions of Bush caused more deaths than OBL, is exactly accurate. And Bush's actions have killed even a lot more non combatants. Hundreds of thousands at least (and five million orphans).
BIGD: "Not many more troops died under Bush than under Clinton...">>
DAR
You couldn't be more wrong. Perhaps you didn't read my claim carefully. Again:
"Clinton (two terms) didn’t send anyone into combat that didn’t come back..."
That means, zero, versus Bush's thousands of combat fatalities.
I am not including training accidents, wars started by previous presidents and sneak terrorist attacks. Combat fatalities under Clinton = zero. It's just an interesting little stat. Kind of amazing really. Try to debunk it if you can.
BIGD: "It was the Democrats who got us into most every major war in the last century.">>
DAR
Actually, someone posted that on GM's site and I hadn't heard it before. So I posted it on our freethinker forum along with some evidence I found trying to support your claim.
My good friend Doug, ripped it to SHREDS. It's rubbish. See his careful debunk here:
"Which Party started the most wars: Demo or Repub?"
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5831#p18593
His conclusion?
****
Final Score for 20th and 21st centuries: Democrats: 2
Republicans: 6
And unlike you, he gives evidence, and reasons!
D.
***
***
BLK: "Without racism, they [minorities] wouldn’t have a job, and they would be on welfare."
DAR
Do you really believe it is only white people who are good enough, capable enough to be worthy of being legitimately hired for a job?
You really believe that everyone else, except white people, are not hired on their own merit/value/skills as a human being and if it wasn't for special treatment (what you call "racism"), "they would be on welfare?"
D.
-----------------
ps. By current projections, whites will be a minority in the US by the mid 2040's. I think whites are great, but am actually looking forward to it a little.
****
CONRAD: "The sad thing is that you troll to compell people to agree with your conclusions.">>
DAR
And you don't try to be persuasive in getting people to agree with *your* conclusions? Of course you do. This is why you post and why I post. Now you might consider trying your best to make good arguments for your conclusions so others might find them compelling. That's what I do.
CON: "Let me give you a clue. The God of the OT is the God of the NT.">>
DAR
Thank you for pointing that out. I was just getting around to making that point. So when Maria says:
"I should have been more specific and referenced Jesus instead of God."
She is forgetting that Jesus is God, God is Jesus, they are one, timeless, unchangeable, forever and ever amen. See the Trinity.
So it makes no sense to say Jesus is an improved version of the OT God, he is, as you say, the very same (timeless, unchangeable) God.
And this God never said a word against abortion, and repeatedly ordered the wholesale slaughter of women, children and pregnant women (see verses above). The Jews, the Bible, do not consider a fetus, a person.
Christians are terribly confused about their Bible and standard Christian scholarship on this issue. The Bible is not "pro-life." Far from it. If you would like to know how to begin, you might check out a little tract I wrote on this:
"Does the Bible consider the fetus a person?"
http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/fetus.shtml
D.
----------------
Extra credit:
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php
***
To quote:
"I believe he [Dr. Tiller] got what he deserved and less..." --Blake
DAR
When I said "great" I wasn't quoting you, I was speaking informally about your position. You think it was fine in that you think "he got what he deserved and less."
D.
*****
DAR
McCain lost because he didn't capture enough of the center and was a weak candidate while Obama was a formidable opponent with wide crossover appeal (ask Hillary).
I let people label themselves. Powell has always been a republican and says he is a republican. His approval rating (70%) is higher than Limbaugh (30%) and Cheney (37%) combined. Republicans would be smart to listen to Powell's opinion rather than those two clowns. I expect (and look forward) to them not doing this.
Regarding your "more red" counties observation: land doesn't vote, people vote.
D.
***
BLK: "Do you , Darrel, believe Affirmative Action is Racism?">>
DAR
It certainly can be. I think it was a measure that has largely outlived it's intended purpose and have thought that for some time. I am for merit based promotion/reward/hiring/enrollment etc.,.
BLK: "the only thing that ever concerned me was, Could they do their job well?"
DAR
Glad to hear it, and I agree.
***
DAR
My "original reply" was a misreading of Blake's comment, as I acknowledged.
I rarely if ever call anyone racist, unless they embrace the title themselves or it's really blatant. It's a topic that doesn't interest me much. Growing up in Canada there wasn't all of this left/right chatter about it and I don't pay much attention to it. I like the song "Everyone's a little bit racist" from AvenueQ. You can hear the song here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbwNSNLPIfw
That said, one would have to be pretty oblivious to not see systemic instances of racism thriving in certain sections of republican/conservatism.
Two examples come to mind:
1) Bob Jones University expelling any students who date or marry interracially. Read the text here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5837&p=19053&hilit=bob+jones#p18611
That was in the late eighties. Parents can sign off and allow it (!) now. Progress.
2) There are about 900 hate groups in America and almost without exception, they are very conservative. See:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
We have 20 in my state. Nineteen are right-wing and Christian.
The idea that conservatives are anti-minority does not come out of thin air. Like most stereotypes, it has a basis in reality. Also, you might try compiling a complete list of black republican congress members, both houses, and note the result.
D.
***
DAR
No GM, I already know you take me seriously. I post here rather than on your site because you censor by locking threads after I make my points. If you were confident, you wouldn't need to do that. I hate censorship, and I really don't like intellectual cowardice. All I ask for is a level playing field and a little honesty in exchanges. The insults, I ignore. Post here, post on my forum, don't care. If you subtract the insults from your above post, as usual, there is nothing left. No substance. And that's unfortunate. You can do better.
D.
***
CON: Darrel: “The Jews, the Bible, do not consider a fetus, a person.” I’d recommend starting your study with Exodus 21.22.>>
DAR
Yes, I have studied that verse extensively (and the one before it). It is dealt with at the link I provided for you (it's #1 actually). I have also posted quite a bit about that verse on this forum. Here is one post:
http://www.onebigdog.net/what-is-the-bi ... ent-130254
CON: "As you work through it you’ll note that some children were filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb. In Luke 1.15>>
DAR
I suppose the Holy Spirit can inhabit what it wishes. Perhaps when the donkey in the Bible was talking it had some Holy Spirit in it. This doesn't mean what is inhabited by the Holy Spirit, is a person. The Bible also has spirits inhabiting pigs etc.,. This didn't make the pigs into persons.
Personally, I don't take books with talking animals, and spirit inhabited animals, too seriously. It's a good policy.
If Jesus or Yahweh had something against abortion I don't see why they couldn't have spared a moment to say so. After all, The Bible contains over 600 laws governing everything from fabrics to how to cut a beard yet contains no law prohibiting abortion. Nothing. And yet we have many examples of God commanding pregnant women to be run through with the sword. "But keep the virgins for yourself."
I wonder if a God wrote that or if perhaps a man did?
We also have solid evidence that the Jews, and the Jews of the Bible, did not consider a fetus a person. Just like now, except we at least count them when they were born. The Hebrews waited about a month.
D.
ps. If you would like to some standard scholarly Christian scholarship on this, I posted a short excerpt here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1477&start=140#p18651
***
MARIA: "...the miracle and the mystery of the Trinity is that they are Separate but the Same.>>
DAR
Yes that is an interesting mystery. I have a whole chapter on the "mystery" of the trinity in my little book about biblical inerrancy. Some sects, reading the same (inerrant) Bible don't find a doctrine of the trinity at all. I'm about 60/40. There are lots of verses on each side. At a minimum it's an incoherent, contradictory doctrine. As one prominent protestant put it:
***
"The Bible teaches us that God is in Three Persons. God is One, but He is manifested in Three Persons. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Don't ask me to explain it—I can't. It's impossible for me to explain to you the Holy Trinity. I accept it by faith."
—Billy Graham, The Quotable Billy Graham (1966) Droke House Pub
MAR: "abortion wasn’t something these people were dealing with back then.">>
DAR: Actually, they were. It goes way back.
MAR: God tells us not to kill. Jesus tells us not to kill.>>
DAR
Really? You might have one or two verses, but for every one you can find I can give you twenty where God said to kill. So let's put him down in the undecided column on the killing issue.
MAR: So.. um.. that means NO killing! Killing a fetus is the same thing.. it’s a no no!>>
DAR
No, it's question begging. Killing persons is one category, killing animals is another (and quite approved, God really loves the smell of burning goat flesh for some reason). Killing a fetus? Not mentioned, and the two instances where miscarriages are referred to in the Bible, the result is that the fetus is treated as less than a person and of little or no value.
MAR: Catholics are supposed to believe that life begins at the moment of c
conception,... It’s not... open for debate.>>
DAR
Actually, if you read up on your church history, you will find that it has not been so consistent over the years on this. There has been much disagreement among church leaders. I was reading about this at, I think, the abortion category at religioustolerance.org.
MAR: I feel that it’s not a huge leap to assume that Jesus would have said that abortion is bad.>>
DAR
I understand. It's not possible to argue or disagree with what someone may assume Jesus would have maybe said if he had gotten around to it. What God chose preserve in scripture is Jesus being completely silent on the issue of abortion. If it's so important, it could have used a sentence. A word against slaver would have bee nice too.
Then the Christians would have something to point too to back up this belief. As it stands, the Bible is pro-choice and there is no evidence that a fetus is considered a person in the Bible. Quite the opposite.
I entirely respect a persons position that abortion is morally wrong. I even have a friend who is pro-choice who he says would never allow an abortion of his child, no exceptions. My only point is one cannot appeal to the Bible, based upon good scholarship, to support this belief. Yet so many do. I wish Christians knew their Bible better.
D.
****
DAR
Yeah, that is bizarre. How could they not figure out that "racism in America is the product of the Democratic party?" How could so many millions be so completely, consistently, wrong about this?
I know. Maybe it's you. Maybe you and the fourteen black folks in the republican party are the ones that are wrong about this. Could that possibly be it?
And the gay folks, why do they get this wrong too? All that gay love on the conservative side and yet they still tend toward the Demos. Why can't these people see things as clearly as you?
D.
ps. There is one group that seems to be pulled toward the republican party and leadership in particular. Pedophiles. Check it out. Sixty examples last I checked:
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/
***
BIGD: "a large number of our dead [in Iraq] are not combat.">>
DAR
The vast majority are. Note:
"As of February 24, 2009 hostile-fire deaths accounted for 3,662 of the 4,568 total coalition military deaths."
--http://icasualties.org/Iraq/HostileNonHostile.aspx
Hey, when Bush said:
"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. I'm going
to prevent that." --Bush v Gore debate, October 3, 2000
Was he "lying?" Blake?
BIGD: "bomb from 15,000 feet or launch missiles. No way to fight a war.>>
DAR
The objective was accomplished and the combat fatalities on our team were: Zero.
Since when is that "no way to fight a war?" It seems to me that would be exactly the way to fight a war.
BIGD: "a number of troops died while he [Clinton] was president.">>
DAR
If you would like to debunk may statement, give it a try. Making an assertion (and one different than my claim) doesn't accomplish this.
BIGD: To say that the actions of Bush caused more deaths is disingenuous in that OBL killed non combatants.>>
DAR
No, to say the actions of Bush caused more deaths than OBL, is exactly accurate. And Bush's actions have killed even a lot more non combatants. Hundreds of thousands at least (and five million orphans).
BIGD: "Not many more troops died under Bush than under Clinton...">>
DAR
You couldn't be more wrong. Perhaps you didn't read my claim carefully. Again:
"Clinton (two terms) didn’t send anyone into combat that didn’t come back..."
That means, zero, versus Bush's thousands of combat fatalities.
I am not including training accidents, wars started by previous presidents and sneak terrorist attacks. Combat fatalities under Clinton = zero. It's just an interesting little stat. Kind of amazing really. Try to debunk it if you can.
BIGD: "It was the Democrats who got us into most every major war in the last century.">>
DAR
Actually, someone posted that on GM's site and I hadn't heard it before. So I posted it on our freethinker forum along with some evidence I found trying to support your claim.
My good friend Doug, ripped it to SHREDS. It's rubbish. See his careful debunk here:
"Which Party started the most wars: Demo or Repub?"
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5831#p18593
His conclusion?
****
Final Score for 20th and 21st centuries: Democrats: 2
Republicans: 6
And unlike you, he gives evidence, and reasons!
D.
***
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - June 30)
JUNE 3ish
***
[Lot's of leftwing hate groups]
DAR
Nonsense. Show me a list of *active* hate groups, groups that foster *hate,* (which goes beyond being established to assist a minority or group, i.e, NAACP) that isn't 90% rightwing (and usually Bible based).
Look at Texas for instance.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp#s=TX
They have 66 hate groups, as defined by the normative standard of:
"groups [that] have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics."
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
Of these 66 hate groups, 7 are black hate groups. The rest are rightwing and almost all Christian and Bible based.
***
DAR
Well it's certainly fair to associate these rightwing idiots with the rightwing. Which is a pretty close bedfellow with conservationism.
Perhaps you can explain the difference between "conservative" and "rightwing?"
These are just guys that take rightwing conservationism and turn the volume up a louder than you like. There are nuts on the left and nuts on the right. These are your nuts. And they are nasty. And you have a bumper crop.
D.
****
DAR
The Dixiecrats began to wane? You mean they changed their name joined the republicans. You broadened the tent for them and took them with open arms. I think the blacks noticed that "southern strategy" trick, don't ya think?
And that was 45 years ago. Which party was pushing for civil rights in the sixties and which was dragging it's heels?
I give you a list of 60 republican pedophiles in leadership positions, and you give me the name of a family with no known pedophiles. And you call this even.
You're not too good at math are you Blake?
D.
****
BLK": "The attack on 9/11 required a response and that meant we needed to impose our will on the enemy."
DAR
Reminds me of a headline today:
"Cheney: No 'evidence' of Iraq, 9/11 link
Former Vice President Dick Cheney says there was “never any evidence” that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq played any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200906 ... tico/23228
Oops!
***
DAR
Yes the New Black Panthers are a hate group and I specifically counted them as a hate group in the list of 7 out of 66 hate groups in Texas.
BLK: "The first Klan was founded in 1865 by..."
DAR
You should know that the repub/demo party affiliations/attitudes/behaviors/positions really don't correlate well when you go back a 100 or 150 years. Don't do that.
BLK: "In the 60’s the Republicans supported civil rights and the Democrats dragged its heels.">>
DAR
I was awfully young in the 60's but considering there was a Democratic president shepherding this through (and famously said "we have lost the south for a generation" because of the racists obviously), it strikes me as astonishingly false. Your numbers are not referenced and not really intelligible as you pasted them. Maybe I'll see what I can find.
***
I answer your questions directly. Don't forget to address this one please:
***
Perhaps you can explain the difference between “conservative” and “rightwing?”
BLK: Are the Nazis conservative, Darrel?>>
DAR
Of course. And very Christian too. That topic happens to be a specialty of mine. Tread carefully.
BLK:
Certainly not by our current definition,>>
DAR
What "current definition?" There is a lot of disinformation about Hitler and his Christian Nazis. Here's a little blurb on him which gives a nice summary. I have background information supporting each claim in this, if you want to go there:
***
"Adolf Hitler was raised a Catholic, was never excommunicated by the Catholic Church and signed concordats with the Vatican, as Pulitzer-prize winning biographer John Toland and others have documented. Hitler's religious conviction underpinned his obsession to exterminate those whom he believed "disobeyed the First Commandment." Devout Catholic John Cornwell has chronicled the failure of Pope Pius XII to speak out against Hitler's "Final Solution" in Hitler's Pope.
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." His book is filled with scriptural references. Hitler also targeted the "godless," as an Associated Press story of Feb. 23, 1933, noted: "A campaign against the 'godless movement' and an appeal for Catholic support were launched by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces." Hitler opposed "secular schools," he criminalized abortion, and his soldiers wore belt buckles saying "Gott mit uns" ("God with us"). Far from "faithless," Hitler committed his atrocities in the name of his faith.”
***
Sound conservative? Rightwing? Of course, he was also probably insane too.
David Koresh? Branch Davidian, definitely a conservative. Jesus, definitely a liberal progressive of his day, fighting against the conservative religious and political establishment. And he was a community organizer. Like Obama (praise be his name).
D.
****
BLK: "The Kennedys have no known pedophiles? What about... blah blah...>>
DAR
Make your case. My list of sixty referred specifically to republicans in leadership positions (not friends of the family) who had been charged with going after the kiddies. What have you got? I know you know how to make assertions, do you know how to make a case for something?
BLK: "Aren’t the Black Panthers a Hate group?">>
DAR
Absolutely, and *I* listed them as such.
BLK: "La Raza literally means, “the Race”- rather racist, I think.">>
DAR
This is a rightwing lie being passed around. Don't fall for it. Here is the debunk:
***
The Translation of Our Name: National Council of La Raza
Many people incorrectly translate our name, “La Raza,” as “the race.” While it is true that one meaning of “raza” in Spanish is indeed “race,” in Spanish, as in English and any other language, words can and do have multiple meanings. As noted in several online dictionaries, “La Raza” means “the people” or “the community.” Translating our name as “the race” is not only inaccurate, it is factually incorrect. “Hispanic” is an ethnicity, not a race. As anyone who has ever met a Dominican American, Mexican American, or Spanish American can attest, Hispanics can be and are members of any and all races.
The term “La Raza” has its origins in early 20th century Latin American literature and translates into English most closely as “the people” or, according to some scholars, as “the Hispanic people of the New World.” The term was coined by Mexican scholar José Vasconcelos to reflect the fact that the people of Latin America are a mixture of many of the world’s races, cultures, and religions. Mistranslating “La Raza” to mean “the race” implies that it is a term meant to exclude others. In fact, the full term coined by Vasconcelos, “La Raza Cósmica,” meaning the “cosmic people,” was developed to reflect not purity but the mixture inherent in the Hispanic people. This is an inclusive concept, meaning that Hispanics share with all other peoples of the world a common heritage and destiny.
And this is not just NCLR’s interpretation. According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, “La Raza” means:
“…Mexicans or Mexican Americans considered as a group, sometimes extending to all Spanish-speaking people of the Americas.”
Furthermore, MSNBC’s online Spanish-English website, Encarta, translates the term this way:
“Hispanic Spanish-speakers in the Americas: Mexicans, Mexican Americans, or Spanish-speaking people of the Americas, considered as a group.”
The Free Dictionary, available online, similarly finds that the term “La Raza”:
“…embodies the notion that traditional, exclusive concepts of race and nationality can be transcended in the name of humanity’s common destiny.”
http://www.nclr.org/section/translation/
D.
***
BIGD: Democrats did not support civil rights,>>
DAR
Which party president guided it through and signed it in? A Demo. McCain voted against it. I think papa Bush did too.
There is no question the Demos in the south *were* chock full of racists in the olden days. But they went away. To another party. Guess which one? Bingo! Some of the better ones apologized, changed their ways and stayed (i.e. Bird).
BIGD: [Demo's] gave us the KKK (which has been reborn several times and each time with Democrats),>>
DAR
So if I go to a Klan meeting in Gravette Arkansas and take a poll, you are suggesting that I will find a majority of democrats at that meeting? I bet there wouldn't be a single one. They'd all be republicans or worse. Why would you say something so foolish?
D.
****
BIGD: "How many specialties do you have?">>
DAR
I don't know. Quite a few I guess. I try not to think about it.
BIGD: NAZIs were SOCIALISTS. Socialists are not conservative.>>
DAR
This confuses the issue with an economic label. This shows the limits of labels. Nazis were pretty radical/crazy so they don't correlate well to how we use these words today.
The Nazis were of course thoroughly founded in Christianity, top to bottom. Germany was the heart of Christianity at that time. Notice:
***
The 24th principle of the Nazi Party, from the infamous Twenty Five Points
(1920):
"We demand the freedom of religion in the Reich so long as they do not endanger the position of the state or adversely affect the moral standards of the German race. As such the Party represents a positively Christian position without binding itself to one particular faith. The Party opposes the
materialistic Jewish spirit within and beyond us and is convinced that a lasting
recovery of our people can only be achieved on the basis of common good before
personal gain."
And from the 1933 Nazi Concordat with the Catholic Church: "Article 21. Catholic
religious instruction in elementary, senior, secondary and vocational schools
constitutes a regular portion of the curriculum, and is to be taught in
accordance with the principles of the Catholic Church. In religious instruction,
special care will be taken to inculcate patriotic, civic and social consciousness and sense of duty in the spirit of the Christian Faith and the moral code, precisely as in the case of other subjects."
The Nazis knew the importance of religious upbringing and would not tolerate secular (read liberal) schools:
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith. . . we need believing people."
(From Hitler's speech, April 26, 1933, during negotiations which led to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of 1933.)
BIGD: The Nazi party of today b******ize the Bible in order to spread hate.>>
DAR
Of course they did. But this hardly makes them special. Lots of Christian sects did this and still do. See the KKK and the neo-Nazis. I am sure they open their meetings with prayer and a good Bible verse. You don't agree with their biblical interpretations but, with about 33,000 different groups of Christianity, there are a lot of groups you wouldn't agree with. This hardly makes them "not Christian."
Hitler wasn't just born Catholic (he thought about becoming a priest) he was a lifelong Catholic, never renounced his faith, and apologized for not going to church enough.
He was a busy guy (unfortunately).
D.
-----------
Wee bit more on Christian/Nazi Germany:
Friedrich Heer, Roman Catholic professor of history at Vienna University admits:
"In the cold facts of German history, the Cross and the swastika came ever closer together, until the swastika proclaimed the
message of victory from the towers of German cathedrals, swastika flags appeared round altars and Catholic and Protestant
theologians, pastors, churchmen and statesmen welcomed the alliance with Hitler."
Again Professor Heer:
"Of about thirty-two Million German Catholics--fifteen and a half million of whom were men--only seven [individuals] openly refused military service. Six of these were Austrians."
Paul Johnson's "History of Christianity" says: "Of 17,000 Evangelical pastors, there were never more than fifty serving long
term [for not supporting the Nazi regime] at any one time."
"Susannah Heschel, a professor of Judaic studies, uncovered church documents proving that the Lutheran clergy were willing, yes anxious, to support Hitler. She said they begged for the privilege of displaying the swastika in their churches. The overwhelming majority of clergymen were not coerced
collaborators, her research showed, but were enthusiastic supporters of Hitler and his Aryan ideals."
****
[Sotomayor belonged to racist group meaning "the race"]
DAR
So the dictionaries are wrong too. Careful, your irrational dogmatism is showing.
I had lunch with two friends Saturday, both fluent in Spanish one a teacher of Spanish. This topic came up. They said your position is bunk (as my references already clearly showed).
Don't peddle lies, admit the mistake.
D.
****
DAR
"Dick Cheney said Sunday that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at:
"the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11."
And Tuesday, on "Nightline," Condi Rice said one reason Bush went to war against Saddam
was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9-11 threat emerged."
On "Meet the Press," Cheney was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in the Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks. "No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," he replied." [with a smirk]
--Robert Burns, AP Military Writer (9/16/03)
D.
-----------------
"This isn't an issue about intentions or what the hopes were or what the plans were or what the programs were. What took us to war were statements about Saddam's WMDs
and the threat of their imminent use."
--Sen. Carl Levin
***
DAR
You make assertions, but you don't back anything up. And now you move the goal posts to "lead the way" to "getting us involved," whatever that means.
The fellow who wrote that response is Doug, not me. You will be pleased to know that US military history is not a specialty of mine. Considering the slipperiness of what is a war v. "military action" and even the fogginess of when the beginning of a war actually begins, there isn't going to be a clear answer on this. And certainly your conclusion can't be shown to follow.
Isn't it an axiom that republicans like war more than democrats and the left likes peace more? Do republicans go to peace rallies? No, the go to pro war rallies. And the right has almost all, if not all, of the chicken hawks. Bizarre.
D.
****
BIGD: "Obama would rather waste money pursuing unproven green technology...">>
DAR
Gee, how far back do wind mills go anyway? Quite a ways back.
Curious that an "unproven green technology" like wind now employs *more* people than coal.
D.
--------------------
***
[Lot's of leftwing hate groups]
DAR
Nonsense. Show me a list of *active* hate groups, groups that foster *hate,* (which goes beyond being established to assist a minority or group, i.e, NAACP) that isn't 90% rightwing (and usually Bible based).
Look at Texas for instance.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp#s=TX
They have 66 hate groups, as defined by the normative standard of:
"groups [that] have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics."
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
Of these 66 hate groups, 7 are black hate groups. The rest are rightwing and almost all Christian and Bible based.
***
DAR
Well it's certainly fair to associate these rightwing idiots with the rightwing. Which is a pretty close bedfellow with conservationism.
Perhaps you can explain the difference between "conservative" and "rightwing?"
These are just guys that take rightwing conservationism and turn the volume up a louder than you like. There are nuts on the left and nuts on the right. These are your nuts. And they are nasty. And you have a bumper crop.
D.
****
DAR
The Dixiecrats began to wane? You mean they changed their name joined the republicans. You broadened the tent for them and took them with open arms. I think the blacks noticed that "southern strategy" trick, don't ya think?
And that was 45 years ago. Which party was pushing for civil rights in the sixties and which was dragging it's heels?
I give you a list of 60 republican pedophiles in leadership positions, and you give me the name of a family with no known pedophiles. And you call this even.
You're not too good at math are you Blake?
D.
****
BLK": "The attack on 9/11 required a response and that meant we needed to impose our will on the enemy."
DAR
Reminds me of a headline today:
"Cheney: No 'evidence' of Iraq, 9/11 link
Former Vice President Dick Cheney says there was “never any evidence” that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq played any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200906 ... tico/23228
Oops!
***
DAR
Yes the New Black Panthers are a hate group and I specifically counted them as a hate group in the list of 7 out of 66 hate groups in Texas.
BLK: "The first Klan was founded in 1865 by..."
DAR
You should know that the repub/demo party affiliations/attitudes/behaviors/positions really don't correlate well when you go back a 100 or 150 years. Don't do that.
BLK: "In the 60’s the Republicans supported civil rights and the Democrats dragged its heels.">>
DAR
I was awfully young in the 60's but considering there was a Democratic president shepherding this through (and famously said "we have lost the south for a generation" because of the racists obviously), it strikes me as astonishingly false. Your numbers are not referenced and not really intelligible as you pasted them. Maybe I'll see what I can find.
***
I answer your questions directly. Don't forget to address this one please:
***
Perhaps you can explain the difference between “conservative” and “rightwing?”
BLK: Are the Nazis conservative, Darrel?>>
DAR
Of course. And very Christian too. That topic happens to be a specialty of mine. Tread carefully.
BLK:
Certainly not by our current definition,>>
DAR
What "current definition?" There is a lot of disinformation about Hitler and his Christian Nazis. Here's a little blurb on him which gives a nice summary. I have background information supporting each claim in this, if you want to go there:
***
"Adolf Hitler was raised a Catholic, was never excommunicated by the Catholic Church and signed concordats with the Vatican, as Pulitzer-prize winning biographer John Toland and others have documented. Hitler's religious conviction underpinned his obsession to exterminate those whom he believed "disobeyed the First Commandment." Devout Catholic John Cornwell has chronicled the failure of Pope Pius XII to speak out against Hitler's "Final Solution" in Hitler's Pope.
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." His book is filled with scriptural references. Hitler also targeted the "godless," as an Associated Press story of Feb. 23, 1933, noted: "A campaign against the 'godless movement' and an appeal for Catholic support were launched by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces." Hitler opposed "secular schools," he criminalized abortion, and his soldiers wore belt buckles saying "Gott mit uns" ("God with us"). Far from "faithless," Hitler committed his atrocities in the name of his faith.”
***
Sound conservative? Rightwing? Of course, he was also probably insane too.
David Koresh? Branch Davidian, definitely a conservative. Jesus, definitely a liberal progressive of his day, fighting against the conservative religious and political establishment. And he was a community organizer. Like Obama (praise be his name).
D.
****
BLK: "The Kennedys have no known pedophiles? What about... blah blah...>>
DAR
Make your case. My list of sixty referred specifically to republicans in leadership positions (not friends of the family) who had been charged with going after the kiddies. What have you got? I know you know how to make assertions, do you know how to make a case for something?
BLK: "Aren’t the Black Panthers a Hate group?">>
DAR
Absolutely, and *I* listed them as such.
BLK: "La Raza literally means, “the Race”- rather racist, I think.">>
DAR
This is a rightwing lie being passed around. Don't fall for it. Here is the debunk:
***
The Translation of Our Name: National Council of La Raza
Many people incorrectly translate our name, “La Raza,” as “the race.” While it is true that one meaning of “raza” in Spanish is indeed “race,” in Spanish, as in English and any other language, words can and do have multiple meanings. As noted in several online dictionaries, “La Raza” means “the people” or “the community.” Translating our name as “the race” is not only inaccurate, it is factually incorrect. “Hispanic” is an ethnicity, not a race. As anyone who has ever met a Dominican American, Mexican American, or Spanish American can attest, Hispanics can be and are members of any and all races.
The term “La Raza” has its origins in early 20th century Latin American literature and translates into English most closely as “the people” or, according to some scholars, as “the Hispanic people of the New World.” The term was coined by Mexican scholar José Vasconcelos to reflect the fact that the people of Latin America are a mixture of many of the world’s races, cultures, and religions. Mistranslating “La Raza” to mean “the race” implies that it is a term meant to exclude others. In fact, the full term coined by Vasconcelos, “La Raza Cósmica,” meaning the “cosmic people,” was developed to reflect not purity but the mixture inherent in the Hispanic people. This is an inclusive concept, meaning that Hispanics share with all other peoples of the world a common heritage and destiny.
And this is not just NCLR’s interpretation. According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, “La Raza” means:
“…Mexicans or Mexican Americans considered as a group, sometimes extending to all Spanish-speaking people of the Americas.”
Furthermore, MSNBC’s online Spanish-English website, Encarta, translates the term this way:
“Hispanic Spanish-speakers in the Americas: Mexicans, Mexican Americans, or Spanish-speaking people of the Americas, considered as a group.”
The Free Dictionary, available online, similarly finds that the term “La Raza”:
“…embodies the notion that traditional, exclusive concepts of race and nationality can be transcended in the name of humanity’s common destiny.”
http://www.nclr.org/section/translation/
D.
***
BIGD: Democrats did not support civil rights,>>
DAR
Which party president guided it through and signed it in? A Demo. McCain voted against it. I think papa Bush did too.
There is no question the Demos in the south *were* chock full of racists in the olden days. But they went away. To another party. Guess which one? Bingo! Some of the better ones apologized, changed their ways and stayed (i.e. Bird).
BIGD: [Demo's] gave us the KKK (which has been reborn several times and each time with Democrats),>>
DAR
So if I go to a Klan meeting in Gravette Arkansas and take a poll, you are suggesting that I will find a majority of democrats at that meeting? I bet there wouldn't be a single one. They'd all be republicans or worse. Why would you say something so foolish?
D.
****
BIGD: "How many specialties do you have?">>
DAR
I don't know. Quite a few I guess. I try not to think about it.
BIGD: NAZIs were SOCIALISTS. Socialists are not conservative.>>
DAR
This confuses the issue with an economic label. This shows the limits of labels. Nazis were pretty radical/crazy so they don't correlate well to how we use these words today.
The Nazis were of course thoroughly founded in Christianity, top to bottom. Germany was the heart of Christianity at that time. Notice:
***
The 24th principle of the Nazi Party, from the infamous Twenty Five Points
(1920):
"We demand the freedom of religion in the Reich so long as they do not endanger the position of the state or adversely affect the moral standards of the German race. As such the Party represents a positively Christian position without binding itself to one particular faith. The Party opposes the
materialistic Jewish spirit within and beyond us and is convinced that a lasting
recovery of our people can only be achieved on the basis of common good before
personal gain."
And from the 1933 Nazi Concordat with the Catholic Church: "Article 21. Catholic
religious instruction in elementary, senior, secondary and vocational schools
constitutes a regular portion of the curriculum, and is to be taught in
accordance with the principles of the Catholic Church. In religious instruction,
special care will be taken to inculcate patriotic, civic and social consciousness and sense of duty in the spirit of the Christian Faith and the moral code, precisely as in the case of other subjects."
The Nazis knew the importance of religious upbringing and would not tolerate secular (read liberal) schools:
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith. . . we need believing people."
(From Hitler's speech, April 26, 1933, during negotiations which led to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of 1933.)
BIGD: The Nazi party of today b******ize the Bible in order to spread hate.>>
DAR
Of course they did. But this hardly makes them special. Lots of Christian sects did this and still do. See the KKK and the neo-Nazis. I am sure they open their meetings with prayer and a good Bible verse. You don't agree with their biblical interpretations but, with about 33,000 different groups of Christianity, there are a lot of groups you wouldn't agree with. This hardly makes them "not Christian."
Hitler wasn't just born Catholic (he thought about becoming a priest) he was a lifelong Catholic, never renounced his faith, and apologized for not going to church enough.
He was a busy guy (unfortunately).
D.
-----------
Wee bit more on Christian/Nazi Germany:
Friedrich Heer, Roman Catholic professor of history at Vienna University admits:
"In the cold facts of German history, the Cross and the swastika came ever closer together, until the swastika proclaimed the
message of victory from the towers of German cathedrals, swastika flags appeared round altars and Catholic and Protestant
theologians, pastors, churchmen and statesmen welcomed the alliance with Hitler."
Again Professor Heer:
"Of about thirty-two Million German Catholics--fifteen and a half million of whom were men--only seven [individuals] openly refused military service. Six of these were Austrians."
Paul Johnson's "History of Christianity" says: "Of 17,000 Evangelical pastors, there were never more than fifty serving long
term [for not supporting the Nazi regime] at any one time."
"Susannah Heschel, a professor of Judaic studies, uncovered church documents proving that the Lutheran clergy were willing, yes anxious, to support Hitler. She said they begged for the privilege of displaying the swastika in their churches. The overwhelming majority of clergymen were not coerced
collaborators, her research showed, but were enthusiastic supporters of Hitler and his Aryan ideals."
****
[Sotomayor belonged to racist group meaning "the race"]
DAR
So the dictionaries are wrong too. Careful, your irrational dogmatism is showing.
I had lunch with two friends Saturday, both fluent in Spanish one a teacher of Spanish. This topic came up. They said your position is bunk (as my references already clearly showed).
Don't peddle lies, admit the mistake.
D.
****
DAR
"Dick Cheney said Sunday that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at:
"the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11."
And Tuesday, on "Nightline," Condi Rice said one reason Bush went to war against Saddam
was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9-11 threat emerged."
On "Meet the Press," Cheney was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in the Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks. "No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," he replied." [with a smirk]
--Robert Burns, AP Military Writer (9/16/03)
D.
-----------------
"This isn't an issue about intentions or what the hopes were or what the plans were or what the programs were. What took us to war were statements about Saddam's WMDs
and the threat of their imminent use."
--Sen. Carl Levin
***
DAR
You make assertions, but you don't back anything up. And now you move the goal posts to "lead the way" to "getting us involved," whatever that means.
The fellow who wrote that response is Doug, not me. You will be pleased to know that US military history is not a specialty of mine. Considering the slipperiness of what is a war v. "military action" and even the fogginess of when the beginning of a war actually begins, there isn't going to be a clear answer on this. And certainly your conclusion can't be shown to follow.
Isn't it an axiom that republicans like war more than democrats and the left likes peace more? Do republicans go to peace rallies? No, the go to pro war rallies. And the right has almost all, if not all, of the chicken hawks. Bizarre.
D.
****
BIGD: "Obama would rather waste money pursuing unproven green technology...">>
DAR
Gee, how far back do wind mills go anyway? Quite a ways back.
Curious that an "unproven green technology" like wind now employs *more* people than coal.
D.
--------------------
***Wind Now Employs More People Than Coal
Here's a talking point in the green jobs debate: The wind industry now employs more people than coal mining in the United States.
Wind industry jobs jumped to 85,000 in 2008, a 70% increase from the previous year, according to a report released Tuesday from the American Wind Energy Association. In contrast, the coal industry employs about 81,000 workers. (Those figures are from a 2007 U.S. Department of Energy report but coal employment has remained steady in recent years though it's down by nearly 50% since 1986.) Wind industry employment includes 13,000 manufacturing jobs concentrated in regions of the country hard hit by the deindustrialization of the past two decades.
The big spike in wind jobs was a result of a record-setting 50% increase in installed wind capacity, with 8,358 megawatts coming online in 2008 (enough to power some 2 million homes). That's a third of the nation's total 25,170 megawatts of wind power generation. Wind farms generating more than 4,000 megawatts of electricity were completed in the last three months of 2008 alone."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/2 ... 62277.html
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - June 30)
JUNE 4, 2009
***
I referenced standard sources which cited the specific numbers on wind power/coal employment. Claiming it "is doubtful" is not a rebuttal.
Regarding "turbines kill," observe:
***
Common Eco-Myth: Wind Turbines Kill Birds
"It's a given that anytime we post a story on wind power someone is going to comment that "turbines kill birds," suggesting that wind power may therefore be unacceptable. Compared to what? Hitting birds with automobiles (along with turtles, groundhogs, and deer)? Birds caught by feral cats? Birds colliding with buildings or phone towers? Quite possibly, a higher mortality will be attached to the transmission wires needed to get the wind power to market. Why, then, do many associate bird mortality only with wind turbines? We hope to get to the bottom of this "death by turbine" myth hole, and point to the factors that can actually be managed though public involvement.
[big snip... to last paragraph]
In the United States, cars and trucks wipe out millions of birds each year, while 100 million to 1 billion birds collide with windows. According to the 2001 National Wind Coordinating Committee study, “Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States," these non-wind mortalities compare with 2.19 bird deaths per turbine per year. That's a long way from the sum mortality caused by the other sources."
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04 ... sconce.php
DAR
Best to read the whole article. Antique windmills are most of the problem (to the degree it is a problem). We need to upgrade (and are) because after all, if they get hit by a turbine, they won't be available for you to blow them out of the sky with your big manly gun.
D.
***
BLK:"LBJ said that we have lost the south for a generation, he was talking about the Democrats-the Dixiecrats specifically..."
DAR
Obviously. And where did those racist Dixiecrats go Blake? He, the Demo's, LBJ, "lost the southern" racists because they left his party and went... to yours. Duh.
Enjoy them. In our multicultural future, they are a millstone around the neck, as you are finding out.
D.
****
DAR
At 2.19 birds per turbine, per year, I think we and the birds can learn to live with that. And that's the older ones. Newer ones are of course, better designed.
Why are conservatives always afraid to change? (answer given below) Non-renewable carbon based energy sources were always known to be finite and troublesome for the environment. Welcome to the future.
D.
------------------
“As my friend and sometime debating partner William F. Buckley puts it in his book Up from Liberalism,
BLK: [windmill article wasn't referenced]
DAR
This is the genetic fallacy. Best to avoid fallacies when trying to make a point.
If you had read the article, which of course you did not because it is difficult for you to learn new things or fairly consider other opinions, you would KNOW that it backs up it's claims with standard references. As stated, it's primary source is:
http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html
Here then are the references, for the claims in the article:
***
References:
Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States; National Wind
Coordinating Committee; West, Inc.; August, 2001
Battered By Airwaves; Wendy K. Weisenel; Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; October, 2002.
Cats and Wildlife: A Conservation Dilemma; John S. Coleman, Stanley A. Temple, and Scott R. Craven; University of Wisconsin-Extension; 1997.
Communication Towers: A Deadly Hazard To Birds; Gavin G. Shire, Karen Brown, and Gerald Winegrad; American Bird Conservancy; Jume, 2000.
Communication Tower Guidelines Could Protect Migrating Birds; Cat Laazaroff; Environmental News Service; 2002.
Effects of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats in Northeast Wisconsin; Robert W. Howe, William Evans, and Amy T. Wolf; November, 2002.
Synthesis and Comparison of Baseline Avian and Bat Use, Raptor Nesting and Mortality information from Proposed and Existing Wind Developments; West, Inc.; December, 2002
The Environmental and Economic Costs of Pesticide; David Pimentel and H. Acquay; Bioscience; November, 1992.
Tower Kill; Joe Eaton; Earth Island Journal; Winter, 2003.
***
DAR
You might consider stopping making a fool of yourself. Try to do a little investigation and thinking on your own rather than just tossing the genetic fallacy and then running away.
Or don't. I don't mind plucking all of the low hanging fruit you provide.
D.
----------------
"A fallacy is an argument which provides poor reasoning in support of its conclusion. Fallacies differ from other bad arguments in that many people find them psychologically persuasive. That is, people will mistakenly take a fallacious argument to provide good reasons to believe its conclusion. An argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true."
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
***
BLK: saying you are a Christian and acting like one are two different things.">>
DAR
This begs the question by pretending *you* get to decide what action makes someone a Christian or not. It's a favorite pastime of Christians to pretend some other sect is "not Christian" but that's not how the game works. Germany was filled with sincere Bible believing Christians. Martin Luther was from there. He hated Jews too. Hitler liked him.
There is a great deal of evidence showing Hitler and his Nazis (and the Germany of his day) were Christian. There is no good evidence showing otherwise. None. Try some and see.
BLK: Obama said he was a Christian but look at the Church he attended for 20 years.">>
DAR
Right. A Christian church.
D.
------------------
"[The truth is that] six million Jews were targeted and systematically murdered in the heart of Christendom, by baptized Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox who were never rebuked, let alone excommunicated."
--Dr. Franklin Littell of Baylor University speaking at US Holocaust Memorial Museum, 12/8/93
***
DAR
Regarding McCain, I got the wrong civil rights act. See:
"McCain Won't Apologize For Vote Against Civil Rights Act"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/1 ... 96193.html
BLK: "to “assume” Bush 41 voted against it just makes you an ass.">>
DAR
You break the irony meter here. You fill page after page with baseless unsupported and flatly false assumptions based upon your own profound lack of knowledge and than then chide me for saying "I think" papa Bush voted against it?
I hope folks are enjoying this.
And note:
"[papa Bush] opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in his right-wing campaign against Ralph Yarborough."
http://www.enotalone.com/article/6739.html
D.
---------------
"Boy, they were big on crematoriums, weren't they?" --George Bush, tour of Auschwitz, Sept. 1987
***
DAR
Nothing has changed? How soon we forget.
McGovern makes a good point here:
***
“I believe that the most practical and hopeful compass by which to guide the American ship of state is the philosophy of liberalism. Virtually every step forward in our history has been a liberal initiative taken over conservative opposition: civil rights, Social Security, Medicare, rural electrification, the establishment of a minimum wage, collective bargaining, the Pure Food and Drug Act, and federal aid to education, including the land-grant colleges, to name just a few.* (* Here are a few more: guaranteed bank deposits, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Park Service, the National School Lunch Program, the Voting Rights Act, and the graduated income tax.) Many of these innovations were eventually embraced by conservatives only after it became clear that they had overwhelming public approval for the simple reason that almost every American benefited from them. Every one of
these liberal efforts strengthened our democracy and our quality of life. I challenge my conservative friends to name a single federal initiative now generally approved by both of our major parties that was not first put forward by liberals over the opposition of conservatives.
We need conservatives, of course, to challenge liberal ideas and proposals and to impel us to examine their soundness, but we cannot depend on conservatives to offer constructive new ideas of the sort that might bring about a more just and equitable society or a more peaceful and cooperative world. If we assume that Lincoln, the first Republican president, was a liberal (which he surely was), nothing inspiring has come out of the conservative mind since the age of John Adams.” --George McGovern
DAR
I finally got around to reading your "About" link at the top of your page on this site. There you say liberalism is like a "disease that eats away, like a cancer," and we must "eradicate liberalism so we can prevent the next civil war" which "will start as an uprising to take the government..."
This shows an astonishing level of ignorance of American history and more than a little cultic devotion to the far right, even delusion. Such a statement makes any normal, informed person shake their head.
But you are not alone. I recognize that perhaps 15 to 20% of the population might agree with a lot of your bizarre and unsustainable beliefs. As you know, you even have your own TV network. It is not healthy for any country to have this heavy of a load of profoundly deluded folks (see Germany). Humans are very susceptible to cults, political or religious and that seems to be what's going on here. You are in a political cult and follow it with a blind and irrational devotion that you cannot see, or defend when it is confronted with reason.
Oh well, one does what one can.
D.
-------------------
"I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them."
--Baruch Spinoza
***
BIGD: "You call it a devotion to the far right. I call it patriotism.">>
DAR
The Nazis called it patriotism too.
BIGD: "Liberals will be the first to go. Get rid of them and the country runs better.">>
DAR
Actually, it doesn't run at all. But your zeal and devotion reminds me of someone:
***
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who,
God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
"In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.
"Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.
"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice...
"And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as
a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at
the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery.
"When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited."
--Adolph Hitler, in a speech delivered April 12, 1922 Published in "My New Order"
Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism, had similar zeal and devotion, and in the same direction:
"What shall we do with...the Jews?...set fire to their synagogues or schools and bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them." --Martin Luther
***
***
I referenced standard sources which cited the specific numbers on wind power/coal employment. Claiming it "is doubtful" is not a rebuttal.
Regarding "turbines kill," observe:
***
Common Eco-Myth: Wind Turbines Kill Birds
"It's a given that anytime we post a story on wind power someone is going to comment that "turbines kill birds," suggesting that wind power may therefore be unacceptable. Compared to what? Hitting birds with automobiles (along with turtles, groundhogs, and deer)? Birds caught by feral cats? Birds colliding with buildings or phone towers? Quite possibly, a higher mortality will be attached to the transmission wires needed to get the wind power to market. Why, then, do many associate bird mortality only with wind turbines? We hope to get to the bottom of this "death by turbine" myth hole, and point to the factors that can actually be managed though public involvement.
[big snip... to last paragraph]
In the United States, cars and trucks wipe out millions of birds each year, while 100 million to 1 billion birds collide with windows. According to the 2001 National Wind Coordinating Committee study, “Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States," these non-wind mortalities compare with 2.19 bird deaths per turbine per year. That's a long way from the sum mortality caused by the other sources."
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04 ... sconce.php
DAR
Best to read the whole article. Antique windmills are most of the problem (to the degree it is a problem). We need to upgrade (and are) because after all, if they get hit by a turbine, they won't be available for you to blow them out of the sky with your big manly gun.
D.
***
BLK:"LBJ said that we have lost the south for a generation, he was talking about the Democrats-the Dixiecrats specifically..."
DAR
Obviously. And where did those racist Dixiecrats go Blake? He, the Demo's, LBJ, "lost the southern" racists because they left his party and went... to yours. Duh.
Enjoy them. In our multicultural future, they are a millstone around the neck, as you are finding out.
D.
****
DAR
At 2.19 birds per turbine, per year, I think we and the birds can learn to live with that. And that's the older ones. Newer ones are of course, better designed.
Why are conservatives always afraid to change? (answer given below) Non-renewable carbon based energy sources were always known to be finite and troublesome for the environment. Welcome to the future.
D.
------------------
“As my friend and sometime debating partner William F. Buckley puts it in his book Up from Liberalism,
****“Conservatism is the tacit acknowledgment that all that is finally important in human experience is behind us; that the crucial explorations have been undertaken, and that it is given to man to know what are the great truths that emerged from them. Whatever is to come cannot outweigh the importance to man of what has gone before.”
The business of conservatives is, in other words, to cling tightly to the past, and although such a stance can be admirable, a stale and musty doctrine is of little use at a time when the nation needs not to fear the future but to seek out ways to improve it.” --George McGovern, The Case for Liberalism
BLK: [windmill article wasn't referenced]
DAR
This is the genetic fallacy. Best to avoid fallacies when trying to make a point.
If you had read the article, which of course you did not because it is difficult for you to learn new things or fairly consider other opinions, you would KNOW that it backs up it's claims with standard references. As stated, it's primary source is:
http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html
Here then are the references, for the claims in the article:
***
References:
Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States; National Wind
Coordinating Committee; West, Inc.; August, 2001
Battered By Airwaves; Wendy K. Weisenel; Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; October, 2002.
Cats and Wildlife: A Conservation Dilemma; John S. Coleman, Stanley A. Temple, and Scott R. Craven; University of Wisconsin-Extension; 1997.
Communication Towers: A Deadly Hazard To Birds; Gavin G. Shire, Karen Brown, and Gerald Winegrad; American Bird Conservancy; Jume, 2000.
Communication Tower Guidelines Could Protect Migrating Birds; Cat Laazaroff; Environmental News Service; 2002.
Effects of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats in Northeast Wisconsin; Robert W. Howe, William Evans, and Amy T. Wolf; November, 2002.
Synthesis and Comparison of Baseline Avian and Bat Use, Raptor Nesting and Mortality information from Proposed and Existing Wind Developments; West, Inc.; December, 2002
The Environmental and Economic Costs of Pesticide; David Pimentel and H. Acquay; Bioscience; November, 1992.
Tower Kill; Joe Eaton; Earth Island Journal; Winter, 2003.
***
DAR
You might consider stopping making a fool of yourself. Try to do a little investigation and thinking on your own rather than just tossing the genetic fallacy and then running away.
Or don't. I don't mind plucking all of the low hanging fruit you provide.
D.
----------------
"A fallacy is an argument which provides poor reasoning in support of its conclusion. Fallacies differ from other bad arguments in that many people find them psychologically persuasive. That is, people will mistakenly take a fallacious argument to provide good reasons to believe its conclusion. An argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true."
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
***
BLK: saying you are a Christian and acting like one are two different things.">>
DAR
This begs the question by pretending *you* get to decide what action makes someone a Christian or not. It's a favorite pastime of Christians to pretend some other sect is "not Christian" but that's not how the game works. Germany was filled with sincere Bible believing Christians. Martin Luther was from there. He hated Jews too. Hitler liked him.
There is a great deal of evidence showing Hitler and his Nazis (and the Germany of his day) were Christian. There is no good evidence showing otherwise. None. Try some and see.
BLK: Obama said he was a Christian but look at the Church he attended for 20 years.">>
DAR
Right. A Christian church.
D.
------------------
"[The truth is that] six million Jews were targeted and systematically murdered in the heart of Christendom, by baptized Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox who were never rebuked, let alone excommunicated."
--Dr. Franklin Littell of Baylor University speaking at US Holocaust Memorial Museum, 12/8/93
***
DAR
Regarding McCain, I got the wrong civil rights act. See:
"McCain Won't Apologize For Vote Against Civil Rights Act"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/1 ... 96193.html
BLK: "to “assume” Bush 41 voted against it just makes you an ass.">>
DAR
You break the irony meter here. You fill page after page with baseless unsupported and flatly false assumptions based upon your own profound lack of knowledge and than then chide me for saying "I think" papa Bush voted against it?
I hope folks are enjoying this.
And note:
"[papa Bush] opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in his right-wing campaign against Ralph Yarborough."
http://www.enotalone.com/article/6739.html
D.
---------------
"Boy, they were big on crematoriums, weren't they?" --George Bush, tour of Auschwitz, Sept. 1987
***
DAR
Nothing has changed? How soon we forget.
McGovern makes a good point here:
***
“I believe that the most practical and hopeful compass by which to guide the American ship of state is the philosophy of liberalism. Virtually every step forward in our history has been a liberal initiative taken over conservative opposition: civil rights, Social Security, Medicare, rural electrification, the establishment of a minimum wage, collective bargaining, the Pure Food and Drug Act, and federal aid to education, including the land-grant colleges, to name just a few.* (* Here are a few more: guaranteed bank deposits, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Park Service, the National School Lunch Program, the Voting Rights Act, and the graduated income tax.) Many of these innovations were eventually embraced by conservatives only after it became clear that they had overwhelming public approval for the simple reason that almost every American benefited from them. Every one of
these liberal efforts strengthened our democracy and our quality of life. I challenge my conservative friends to name a single federal initiative now generally approved by both of our major parties that was not first put forward by liberals over the opposition of conservatives.
We need conservatives, of course, to challenge liberal ideas and proposals and to impel us to examine their soundness, but we cannot depend on conservatives to offer constructive new ideas of the sort that might bring about a more just and equitable society or a more peaceful and cooperative world. If we assume that Lincoln, the first Republican president, was a liberal (which he surely was), nothing inspiring has come out of the conservative mind since the age of John Adams.” --George McGovern
DAR
I finally got around to reading your "About" link at the top of your page on this site. There you say liberalism is like a "disease that eats away, like a cancer," and we must "eradicate liberalism so we can prevent the next civil war" which "will start as an uprising to take the government..."
This shows an astonishing level of ignorance of American history and more than a little cultic devotion to the far right, even delusion. Such a statement makes any normal, informed person shake their head.
But you are not alone. I recognize that perhaps 15 to 20% of the population might agree with a lot of your bizarre and unsustainable beliefs. As you know, you even have your own TV network. It is not healthy for any country to have this heavy of a load of profoundly deluded folks (see Germany). Humans are very susceptible to cults, political or religious and that seems to be what's going on here. You are in a political cult and follow it with a blind and irrational devotion that you cannot see, or defend when it is confronted with reason.
Oh well, one does what one can.
D.
-------------------
"I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them."
--Baruch Spinoza
***
BIGD: "You call it a devotion to the far right. I call it patriotism.">>
DAR
The Nazis called it patriotism too.
BIGD: "Liberals will be the first to go. Get rid of them and the country runs better.">>
DAR
Actually, it doesn't run at all. But your zeal and devotion reminds me of someone:
***
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who,
God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
"In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.
"Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.
"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice...
"And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as
a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at
the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery.
"When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited."
--Adolph Hitler, in a speech delivered April 12, 1922 Published in "My New Order"
Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism, had similar zeal and devotion, and in the same direction:
"What shall we do with...the Jews?...set fire to their synagogues or schools and bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them." --Martin Luther
***
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - June 30)
JUNE 4
***
"the FIRST terrorist attack on American soil..."
DAR
Poor mister "flopping aces" hasn't been paying attention. The first terror attack was by rightwing nutbars who went after Obama with their rifles. They didn't make it far because, big surprise, they weren't too bright.
As usual, right-wing home grown terrorists are the ones to watch. Especially those with a military history.
Oh and look, they just caught another one. Hannity's friend:
"Hannity's old buddy Hal Turner arrested for threatening Connecticut officials"
Excerpt:
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert ... ner-arrest
***
DAR
Nice folks. Your kind of people Bigd. Hey, maybe your uprising has begun!
D.
****
DAR
It's so nice to have a president that is not hated by the whole world. What a pleasure. I actually look forward to traveling and some of our friends may be able to retire those little Canadian covers they put over their US passports. No, maybe it'll take a few more years of Obama before America gets that radically popular!
The headline at Huff Po this morning:
"I HAVE COME HERE TO SEEK A NEW BEGINNING"
Standing Ovation At Cairo University... "I Love You" Shouted Three Times...
Jeepers, why is he being nice to these human beings, can't we just go to war with them and drop some bombs on them already?
BLK: "he [Obama] is a muslim- he has admitted it now..."
DAR
See, now if you were wanting an example of a lie this is a good example of one. It's false, and you know it's false. So you're lying. You do it a lot actually and I can only assume it's because you aren't the slightest bit interested in being known as a person who says truthful things.
D.
****
BLK: "Ok- just yesterday he admitted his muslim roots-"
DAR
No, you're lying again. I am not going to do your work for you. Make your case for this claim, and I will push it over.
With a feather.
The problem with interacting with dim bulbs like you is after a while people actually start to feel sorry for you and it makes me look bad. We're almost to that point. Try to do better.
D.
***
BLK: "there has been NO “SPEEDING up for searching for oil”,">>
DAR
Blake, you really don't know your bottom from your elbow on this issue so you shouldn't try to speak about it. The US sits on about 3% of the world's oil now and we have more wells than ever getting the last few drops.
Note:
"Drill more wells? In 1972 we had 508,000 pumping wells. Many of those wells have dried up or become uneconomical to operate, but despite that, in 2004 about 510,000 wells were pumping oil. We're drilling about as many new wells as we can, both technologically and economically. The problem is the average volume per well - down from almost 19 barrels per well per day in 1972 to about 10.5 barrels per well per day in 2004. The same number of wells pumps only about half the oil of 30 years ago. You can't make a 10-barrel-a-day well pump 1,000 barrels, no matter what you do."
DAR
Please educate yourself about the world's oil situation. I have put together a handy primer on this issue here:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1873&p=9426&hilit=peak+oil#p9277
Excerpt:
***
"SO WE'LL JUST FIND MORE OIL,... Right?
The last large discovery of oil on the planet occurred more than 30 years ago, and virtually the entire globe has been searched to find additional deposits. 80% of oil being produced today is from fields discovered prior to 1973. These fields are now in terminal decline. In the 1990's oil discoveries averaged about seven billion barrels of oil a year, only one third of what was being consumed. The discovery rate of multi-billion barrel fields has been declining since the 1940's, and that of large (500-million barrel) fields since the 1960's. In 1938, fields with more than 10 million barrels made up 19% of all new discoveries, but by 1948 the proportion had dropped to only 3%. The average reserves of oil field discoveries today is less than ten million barrels of recoverable oil; and ten million barrels will meet less than half a day's oil demand for the United States alone. So to just fulfill U.S. oil consumption the world would need to discover more
than 750 of these new fields, each year, to replenish what was consumed in the previous year, not to mention still more discoveries to compensate for existing wells that become exhausted, and to fulfill the anticipated 2-3% increase in demand each year.
The ratio of oil consumed to oil discovered each year is now about six to one: 30 billion barrels consumed, to only five billion barrels discovered.”
ASPO-USA says, "The returns are coming in on how well exploration for new oil and gas fields fared in 2005. Overall the picture is disappointing despite the expenditure of some $15 billion by publicly traded companies alone. There were no significant (billion barrel or more) discoveries announced in 2005. Worldwide, total new oil discovered during the year comes to 4.5 billion barrels -- a 53-day supply at current rates of consumption. New discoveries in 2004 and 2005 were the lowest recorded since World War II."
Etc.
***
DAR
So I challenged Blake to back up his claim that Obama has lied about being a muslim, or not being one, or whatever he is claiming is supposedly a lie, and he does not even try to defend it. He won't even state specifically and clearly his claim. He runs.
What pathetic cowardice.
Maybe I'll get around to building the case for his claim, and then carefully list the many and obvious reasons why it fails. But really, this is childish silly stuff, unworthy of discussion by adults. And if Blake doesn't even have the testicular fortitude to state what he is claiming, then I am hesitant to do the work for him.
As one fellow said:
"I don't throw stones at every dog that barks." --Winston Churchill
D.
***
DAR
I thought I would check your claim. More good news. Israelis like Obama just like all the other normal people.
***
New Poll: Israelis Prefer Obama
Excerpts:
"Even more positive news from Barack Obama's trip to the Middle East: a new poll by Israel Radio shows, for perhaps the first time, Israelis preferring Obama to John McCain.
When asked "who would you rather see elected as the next president of the United States," Obama bested John McCain by a 37-28 margin."
"Obama's competitiveness spanned the political spectrum across Israel's top three parties. The Illinois Democrat trounced McCain among Israel's most liberal voters, who belong to the Labor Party (44-6), tied among more right-wing Likud voters (28-28), and held a slight edge among sympathizers of the Kadima Party, which is led by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (40-32).
The survey of 600 respondents taken this week, likely before Obama landed in Israel, also found that more Israelis believe Obama would be a better president for the Jewish state, 31-27."
***
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/2 ... 14735.html
Nothing cuts like the truth.
D.
***
DAR
Of course Huff Po is a perfectly legitimate mainstream news source. Who's "Ynet?" Like you care.
You're right, I didn't look at the date. Interesting that the Israelis liked Obama better than your republican McCain eh? I didn't know that. Learned something new!
And of course American Jews love Obama bigtime:
***
WASHINGTON - A new Gallup survey found that 61% of Jewish voters prefer Obama to McCain, who got 32% of the Jewish support.
***
Now, you cite this poll from the fine folks at the Smith Institute which finds:
"31% of Israel's" [find Obama pro-Israel]...14% of Israeli Jews consider Obama pro-Palestinian, while 40% of the respondents labeled him as neutral; 15% declined to offer their opinion."
DAR
What's wrong with this? Nothing! OF COURSE he should be neutral. That's a *compliment.* A US president should approach the problems of these two factions as an objective third party. It's only fair that he would be neutral for pity sake.
But what did you claim above?
"the thing you need to ask is why the ISRAELIS believe he [Obama] hates them so much."
So we find you claim is just so much rubbish.
You poll shows that 71% percent consider him neutral or "pro-Israel." Fifteen percent are smart enough to not answer a question with no definition of "pro-Israel." And that leaves ONLY 14% that think he is "pro-Palestinian."
So if we were to pretend that this tiny minority thinks "Obama hates them" (which is absurd of course), then that leaves you with only 14% of Israel.
Thanks for finding this info and for catching my mistake on the date of my article.
D.
***
***
"the FIRST terrorist attack on American soil..."
DAR
Poor mister "flopping aces" hasn't been paying attention. The first terror attack was by rightwing nutbars who went after Obama with their rifles. They didn't make it far because, big surprise, they weren't too bright.
As usual, right-wing home grown terrorists are the ones to watch. Especially those with a military history.
Oh and look, they just caught another one. Hannity's friend:
"Hannity's old buddy Hal Turner arrested for threatening Connecticut officials"
Excerpt:
Turner's threats this time:Turner, who has been identified as a white supremacist and anti-Semite by several anti-racism groups, hosts an Internet radio program with an associated blog. Last week, the blog included a post that promised to release the home addresses of state Rep. Michael Lawlor, state Sen. Andrew McDonald and Thomas Jones of the ethics office.
"Mr. Turner's comments are above and beyond the threshold of free speech," Capitol police Chief Michael J. Fallon said in an e-mail announcing the warrant. "He is inciting others through his website to commit acts of violence and has created fear and alarm. He should be held accountable for his conduct."
And, the post continued, "If any state attorney, police department or court thinks they're going to get uppity with us about this; I suspect we have enough bullets to put them down too.""It is our intent to foment direct action against these individuals personally," the blog stated. "These beastly government officials should be made an example of as a warning to others in government: Obey the Constitution or die."
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert ... ner-arrest
***
DAR
Nice folks. Your kind of people Bigd. Hey, maybe your uprising has begun!
D.
****
DAR
It's so nice to have a president that is not hated by the whole world. What a pleasure. I actually look forward to traveling and some of our friends may be able to retire those little Canadian covers they put over their US passports. No, maybe it'll take a few more years of Obama before America gets that radically popular!
The headline at Huff Po this morning:
"I HAVE COME HERE TO SEEK A NEW BEGINNING"
Standing Ovation At Cairo University... "I Love You" Shouted Three Times...
Jeepers, why is he being nice to these human beings, can't we just go to war with them and drop some bombs on them already?
BLK: "he [Obama] is a muslim- he has admitted it now..."
DAR
See, now if you were wanting an example of a lie this is a good example of one. It's false, and you know it's false. So you're lying. You do it a lot actually and I can only assume it's because you aren't the slightest bit interested in being known as a person who says truthful things.
D.
****
BLK: "Ok- just yesterday he admitted his muslim roots-"
DAR
No, you're lying again. I am not going to do your work for you. Make your case for this claim, and I will push it over.
With a feather.
The problem with interacting with dim bulbs like you is after a while people actually start to feel sorry for you and it makes me look bad. We're almost to that point. Try to do better.
D.
***
BLK: "there has been NO “SPEEDING up for searching for oil”,">>
DAR
Blake, you really don't know your bottom from your elbow on this issue so you shouldn't try to speak about it. The US sits on about 3% of the world's oil now and we have more wells than ever getting the last few drops.
Note:
"Drill more wells? In 1972 we had 508,000 pumping wells. Many of those wells have dried up or become uneconomical to operate, but despite that, in 2004 about 510,000 wells were pumping oil. We're drilling about as many new wells as we can, both technologically and economically. The problem is the average volume per well - down from almost 19 barrels per well per day in 1972 to about 10.5 barrels per well per day in 2004. The same number of wells pumps only about half the oil of 30 years ago. You can't make a 10-barrel-a-day well pump 1,000 barrels, no matter what you do."
DAR
Please educate yourself about the world's oil situation. I have put together a handy primer on this issue here:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1873&p=9426&hilit=peak+oil#p9277
Excerpt:
***
"SO WE'LL JUST FIND MORE OIL,... Right?
The last large discovery of oil on the planet occurred more than 30 years ago, and virtually the entire globe has been searched to find additional deposits. 80% of oil being produced today is from fields discovered prior to 1973. These fields are now in terminal decline. In the 1990's oil discoveries averaged about seven billion barrels of oil a year, only one third of what was being consumed. The discovery rate of multi-billion barrel fields has been declining since the 1940's, and that of large (500-million barrel) fields since the 1960's. In 1938, fields with more than 10 million barrels made up 19% of all new discoveries, but by 1948 the proportion had dropped to only 3%. The average reserves of oil field discoveries today is less than ten million barrels of recoverable oil; and ten million barrels will meet less than half a day's oil demand for the United States alone. So to just fulfill U.S. oil consumption the world would need to discover more
than 750 of these new fields, each year, to replenish what was consumed in the previous year, not to mention still more discoveries to compensate for existing wells that become exhausted, and to fulfill the anticipated 2-3% increase in demand each year.
The ratio of oil consumed to oil discovered each year is now about six to one: 30 billion barrels consumed, to only five billion barrels discovered.”
ASPO-USA says, "The returns are coming in on how well exploration for new oil and gas fields fared in 2005. Overall the picture is disappointing despite the expenditure of some $15 billion by publicly traded companies alone. There were no significant (billion barrel or more) discoveries announced in 2005. Worldwide, total new oil discovered during the year comes to 4.5 billion barrels -- a 53-day supply at current rates of consumption. New discoveries in 2004 and 2005 were the lowest recorded since World War II."
Etc.
***
DAR
So I challenged Blake to back up his claim that Obama has lied about being a muslim, or not being one, or whatever he is claiming is supposedly a lie, and he does not even try to defend it. He won't even state specifically and clearly his claim. He runs.
What pathetic cowardice.
Maybe I'll get around to building the case for his claim, and then carefully list the many and obvious reasons why it fails. But really, this is childish silly stuff, unworthy of discussion by adults. And if Blake doesn't even have the testicular fortitude to state what he is claiming, then I am hesitant to do the work for him.
As one fellow said:
"I don't throw stones at every dog that barks." --Winston Churchill
D.
***
DAR
I thought I would check your claim. More good news. Israelis like Obama just like all the other normal people.
***
New Poll: Israelis Prefer Obama
Excerpts:
"Even more positive news from Barack Obama's trip to the Middle East: a new poll by Israel Radio shows, for perhaps the first time, Israelis preferring Obama to John McCain.
When asked "who would you rather see elected as the next president of the United States," Obama bested John McCain by a 37-28 margin."
"Obama's competitiveness spanned the political spectrum across Israel's top three parties. The Illinois Democrat trounced McCain among Israel's most liberal voters, who belong to the Labor Party (44-6), tied among more right-wing Likud voters (28-28), and held a slight edge among sympathizers of the Kadima Party, which is led by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (40-32).
The survey of 600 respondents taken this week, likely before Obama landed in Israel, also found that more Israelis believe Obama would be a better president for the Jewish state, 31-27."
***
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/2 ... 14735.html
Nothing cuts like the truth.
D.
***
DAR
Of course Huff Po is a perfectly legitimate mainstream news source. Who's "Ynet?" Like you care.
You're right, I didn't look at the date. Interesting that the Israelis liked Obama better than your republican McCain eh? I didn't know that. Learned something new!
And of course American Jews love Obama bigtime:
***
WASHINGTON - A new Gallup survey found that 61% of Jewish voters prefer Obama to McCain, who got 32% of the Jewish support.
***
Now, you cite this poll from the fine folks at the Smith Institute which finds:
"31% of Israel's" [find Obama pro-Israel]...14% of Israeli Jews consider Obama pro-Palestinian, while 40% of the respondents labeled him as neutral; 15% declined to offer their opinion."
DAR
What's wrong with this? Nothing! OF COURSE he should be neutral. That's a *compliment.* A US president should approach the problems of these two factions as an objective third party. It's only fair that he would be neutral for pity sake.
But what did you claim above?
"the thing you need to ask is why the ISRAELIS believe he [Obama] hates them so much."
So we find you claim is just so much rubbish.
You poll shows that 71% percent consider him neutral or "pro-Israel." Fifteen percent are smart enough to not answer a question with no definition of "pro-Israel." And that leaves ONLY 14% that think he is "pro-Palestinian."
So if we were to pretend that this tiny minority thinks "Obama hates them" (which is absurd of course), then that leaves you with only 14% of Israel.
Thanks for finding this info and for catching my mistake on the date of my article.
D.
***
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - June 30)
JUNE 5, 2009
***
BLK: "I don’t cut and run" [Obama admitted he is a Muslim, on ABC]
DAR
Well, usually you don't. And I like that. Stand up for what you believe. But you keep making these bogus charges and it's not too much to ask you to back them up. Let's see how this one holds up.
I was actually watching that show with George Snuffalufagus (that's what I call him) when this happened, and I said to my self, uh oh, the wingnuts are going to go bonkers over this.
The debunk:
***
ST. LOUIS, Mo. - Sen. Barack Obama's foes seized Sunday upon a brief slip of the tongue, when the Democratic presidential nominee was outlining his Christianity but accidentally said, "my Muslim faith."
The three words -- immediately corrected -- were during an exchange with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "This Week," when he was trying to criticize the quiet smear campaign suggesting he is a Muslim.
But illustrating the difficulty of preventing false rumors about his faith from spreading, anti-Obama groups within one hour of the interview had sliced it out of context and were sending it around via email. They also were blogging about it.
Mr. Obama, who is a Christian and often proudly speaks about how his faith has influenced his public service, said he finds it "deeply offensive" that there are efforts "coming out of the Republican camp to suggest that perhaps I'm not who I say I am when it comes to my faith."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... s-critics/
DAR
So again, we find your charge inaccurate, ridiculous and unsupportable.
Try again.
D.
***
[Muslims contributing nothing etc...]
DAR
Let's bring Blake up to speed on some of these contributions:
****
"The accomplishments of Islam's Golden Age are too numerous to mention. Massive translation and copying projects made Greek, Roman, and Sanskrit knowledge available to Arabic-speaking scholars across the empire. Medieval Europe received the Hellenic classics that made the Renaissance possible mostly through Arabic translations. Building on Hellenic, Persian, and Hindu sources, physicians within the Islamic Empire advanced medical knowledge enormously. Perhaps their most significant single achievement was the establishment of medicine as a science based on observation and experimentation, rather than on conjecture. Islamic scientists developed the rudiments of what would later be called the scientific method.
Seventy-five years after the death of Prophet Muhammad (s), the first of many free public hospitals was opened in Damascus. Asylums were maintained throughout the empire for the care of the mentally ill. In the early 10th century, Spanish physician Abu Bakr al-Razi introduced the use of antiseptics in cleaning wounds, and also made the connection between bacteria and infection. Al-Hasan published a definitive study on optics (the science of light and vision) in 965. Thirteenth-century Muslim physician Ibn al-Nafis discovered and accurately described the functioning of the human circulatory system. Islamic veterinary science led the field for centuries, particularly in the study and treatment of horses.
Muslim alchemists (early forerunners of modern chemists) in the 10th to 14th centuries, inspired by ancient chemical formulas from China and India, are famous for the endless experiments they performed in their laboratories. Their goals ranged from pursuit of a chemical elixir bestowing enhanced life, to the transformation of base metals to gold. Although they never succeeded in their ultimate goals, they did make numerous valuable discoveries -- among them the distillation of petroleum and the forging of steel.
Roman techniques of manufacturing glass lenses stimulated Al-Hasan's breakthrough in the field of optics (the science of light and vision), which demolished Aristotle's theory that vision was the result of a ray emanating from the eye, encompassing an object, and bringing it back to the soul. Al-Hasan's Book of Optics, published in 965, was first to document sight as visual images entering the eye, made perceptible by adequate light. This book remained the pre-eminent text in its field until 1610, when the work of European Johannes Kepler surpassed it.
Islamic mathematicians refined algebra from its beginnings in Greece and Egypt, and developed trigonometry in pursuit of accurate ways to measure objects at a distance. Muslim scholars also made important and original contributions to astronomy. They collected and corrected previous astronomical data, built the world's first observatory, and developed the astrolabe, an instrument that was once called "a mathematical jewel."
Islamic architects borrowed heavily from the Byzantine Empire which used domes and arches extensively throughout their cities. An example of this use can be seen in the Dome of the Rock, a famous mosque in Jerusalem.
Avid students of both the heavens and the earth, Muslim scholars made detailed and accurate maps of both. Muslim mapmakers to accurately map distances around the earth refined longitude and latitude. Twelfth-century Persian Omar Khayyam developed a calendar so reliable that over 500 years it was off by only one day. The list goes on and on."
***
As I posted in April:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5613&p=17964&hilit= ... ons#p17947
****
BLK: There was a poll that indicated that 67% of this country felt we were moving in the wrong direction. Really?>>
DAR
Yes really. In September '08, 70% thought the country was headed in the wrong direction. Today it's 43%, even though Bush's disaster still lingers, and will continue to linger for a long time.
http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm
BLK: Could this have been the direction where 95.4% of our population had a job?>>
DAR
Bush's job growth numbers were awful. But this is normal. Of the last ten presidents, the top five in job creation/growth were Demos, the bottom five were republicans. The chance of this happening by chance is 1 in 252.
BLK: Or maybe our road system,>>
DAR
Our road system is socialist by the way. Glad you like it.
BLK: We have complete religious, social, and political freedom in this country- the rest of the world is envious of this->>
DAR
No it isn't. You need to get out more. Get a passport. I can give you a list of 50, maybe a hundred, maybe more, countries that have such freedoms. Americans babble about freedoms more than they actually use them. If you would like to see a dozen or so examples of where America lags in freedoms, or has freedom issues, check out this project we did:
Mythbuster board
"American Freedom" (2005)
http://fayfreethinkers.com/mythbuster/a ... edom.shtml
You'll learn something.
BLK: "...could you protest in many of the other countries in this world without persecution?>>
DAR
Of course. Do you have a television?
BLK: We have become, unfortunately, a nation of ungrateful, spoiled brats- probably because schools no longer teach History as they should.>>
DAR
Yes, we just saw a breathtaking example of that with your display of ignorance of Islamic history.
BLK: "...there are many who curse the military, or say there is no need for them.">>
DAR
Who says there is no need for a military? Stop making stuff up.
BLK: In many cases they have died so you could complain on your high horse.">>
DAR
Who's the one constantly complaining? You!
BLK: we do have FEMA- there is not its equivalent anywhere else.>>
DAR
All first world countries have an emergency management agency. It's your own blind tribalism that leads you to pretend you have the finest.
BLK: Everywhere else, people dig themselves out. We have insurance,...>>
DAR
Insurance is socialist btw. Shared risk, collectivism.
BLK: We have, contrary to all the detractors, the best health care in the world->>
DAR
No, we don't. For delivery/access of the system that we do have, we don't even make the top ten. Probably not the top thirty. Wishing something doesn't make it so. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. But they don't.
D.
-----------------
"Americans get the poorest health care and yet pay the most compared to five other rich countries. The US health care system ranks last compared with the five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity and outcomes, according to a report released on Tuesday."
http://www.truthout.org/article/us-heal ... ent-report
***
INON: Insurance isn’t socialist.>>
DAR
Of course it is. It is people coming together, collectively, to share risk/loss.
INON: So according to the report DAR himself quoted, America is in the top five, not the bottom 30, as you claims.>>
DAR
Read for comprehension. The report only examined 5 countries.
INON: Your tribe? Your religion? Liberalism.>>
DAR
Actually, I agree with Thomas Paine:
"The world is my country, to do good my religion." -Thomas Paine
INON: I saw no reference to Islamic history. Did anyone else?>>
DAR
Pay attention, it's right here:
http://www.onebigdog.net/obama-is-a-lit ... /#comments
I see you have no answer for the superior record of job growth under democratic presidents.
INON: "...what percentage of the the US tax income goes to social services?>>
DAR
The amount going to the rich and "corporate welfare" vastly exceeds anything given to the poor. Get informed.
INON: "...you will gain an inkling of why we hate people...>>
DAR
Yes, I know you are filled with hate, and you like to have tantrums. Unfortunately, what you are not so good at, is reading carefully, thinking clearly and arguing cogently for a position. And that's too bad.
Maybe you can learn from my example.
D.
***
[Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion]
DAR
You can't have freedom of religion without freedom from government imposed/coerced religion.
The brilliance of the first amendment is that it provides both at the same time.
D.
---------------
"Our founders wisely adopted a secular, godless constitution, the first to derive its powers from "We, the People" and the consent of the governed, rather than claiming divine authority. They knew from the experience of religious persecution, witchhunts and religious discrimination in the Thirteen Colonies, and from the bloody history left behind in Europe, that the surest path to tyranny was to entangle church and state. That is why they adopted a secular constitution whose only references to religion are exclusionary, such as that there shall be no religious test for public office (Art. VI). There were no prayers offered at the Constitutional Convention, which shows their intent to separate religion from secular affairs.
As Thomas Paine pointed out, "Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law."
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/schoolprayer.php
***
DAR
You say "the interpreters get the message wrong."
This is of course (humorously), according to your interpretation.
And I didn't say I see "religion as the problem." I said the problem is when they have too much power or control in a society. See Islam. Truly "One Nation Under God."
Christianity is in decline in first world countries. Germany was profoundly Christian during the Nazi days, and that was a problem. Now they are mostly atheist, and... no problem.
Regarding the fact that secular societies are far better at solving their social problems than "priest ridden" societies, see:
***
Better off without Him
New research suggests that the Christian virtues are best represented in godless societies
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/10 ... thout-him/
D.
-------------------
Godless Majority in Germany
"For the first time, a majority of Germans profess no belief in a god. A survey in Der Spiegel revealed that the number of theists had dropped to 45%, down from 50% in 1993. During the same period, the number of avowed atheists rose from 20% to 28%. Only a quarter of Germans said they believe in Jesus Christ. The decline in religion in Germany matches the trend in other West European nations."
--Secular Humanist Bulletin, Vol. 13, No. 4 Winter 97/98, pg. 2
***
BLK: "I believe, and I am wrong all I have lost is my time-">>
DAR
This is Paschal's Wager again. Otherwise known as Holy Fire Insurance. It's a philosophical notion that didn't work when Paschal invented it 380 years ago, and it still doesn't work today. Sophisticated Christians know better than to use it but the pew warmers still lean on it from time to time.
Here are the top five reasons it does not work:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/pascalswager.shtml
There are other reasons too. These are the easy ones.
D.
---------------
"They tell us that to believe is the safe way; but I say, the safe way is to be honest."
***
BLK: "Religion never has had too much power in society here,...>>
DAR
I am sorry you are so unaware of basic American history. Let's bring you up to speed with a few examples of "religion having too much power in society here."
***
PURITAN HERITAGE
1. The Puritans came to the colonies so they could establish a Congregationalist religious tyranny, not personal religious freedom.
2. Only church members could vote. It required a unanimous vote of church elders to be a church member.
3. Only Congregationalist churches were allowed. Non-Congregationalists, even Presbyterian Puritans, were banished, often with a death sentence if they returned.
4. Puritans punished even minor impious behavior. Failure to attend church earned a public whipping. A man was put into the stocks for kissing his wife in public on Sunday upon returning from three years at sea.
5. Aside from killing 25 "witches," the Puritans persecuted Quakers by cutting off ears, burning holes through women's tongues with hot irons, floggings with whips, and hangings.
CHRISTIANITY IN THE EARLY U.S.
6. When the Constitution was ratified, many states had laws that forbid Catholics, Jews, Deists or unbelievers from holding public office.
7. At the time of the Constitution, at least five states recognized only one Christian denomination as the state religion, with other denominations prohibited.
At our nation's founding, Christians were an undemocratic minority that opposed freedom of conscience and denied political rights based on religious beliefs."
--Howard Thompson
D.
***
BIGD: "Freedom OF Religion also means freedom not to practice religion or even to believe."
DAR
EXACTLY right.
BIGD: "...allow others the same courtesy."
DAR
I don't know where you would get the idea that I am not completely for freedom of religion and people having the right to worship, or not, however they please (and without government interference or endorsement of course).
Part of the reason I started the freethinker group (270 members now) was to encourage interaction between believers and non-believers. There are misunderstandings on both sides and each side tends to demonize the other unfairly, mostly because they don't know each other.
I work with and interact with Christians all the time and have for decades. I probably spend 20% of my work day in various churches. Was my saying "pew warmers" too harsh? Not PC enough? That's a little touchy.
Perhaps you can point me to my offending, mocking, comment. Sometimes I don't put enough sugar on the medicine but I am hardly as insulting as the people I am responding to.
D.
***
BLK: Darrel, all your examples are from BEFORE the Constitution was ratified.>>
DAR
Right. I am saying they made the constitution the way they did *because* they didn't want this kind of puritanical nonsense going on. When religions use the power of government, bad things happen.
BLK: try to cite some examples in a more recent time, say the last two hundred years.>>
DAR
Of what? Religion having too much power? I don't know that it does. It's pretty neutered and tending more so every day. Catholics don't listen to the pope much (contraception?) and protestants don't know their Bibles very well. The problem is when religion gets the power of government endorsement and there is always this pressure, mostly by Christians, to use the power of government to endorse their religion. They finally got the god phrase put on paper money in 1956, they got religion inserted into the pledge in 1954 (the founders never heard either of these phrases). If it wasn't for the fine folks at the ACLU we would we (ironically) be bumping into graven images of the ten commandments every time we go to the court house.
So for the most part I am pleased with the separation here. But back to the original point, the warning of Islam is to keep government out of the business of religion, and vise versa. This leads to the health and success of both.
See Europe for an example of state run religion running it into the ground.
D.
------------------
"Adult church attendance in Britain is at 7.7% and only 2% now attends an Anglican church regularly."
–Economist/New Your Times, Dec. 22, 2000
***
BLK: However, that does not mean that there cannot be religious symbols in society or in government.>>
DAR
Well, this is where it gets squishy. It depends on the context. Moses at the SCOTUS is okay specifically because it is in the context of an artistic motif of historic law givers (even imaginary ones).
Having all religions be "able to participate" is not really a workable situation since our government buildings would be covered up with no end of clutter. And for what? We have churches for that. Keep them separate. It only causes division.
Politicians can mention God of course, free speech.
BLK:
However, there is no absence of religion.>>
DAR
No, state employees, such as teachers, can not use their position to promote their religion. What a mess that would be (and sometimes is).
BLK: The military (government organization) has Chaplains.>>
DAR
This is changing and adapting now as the US becomes more diverse. See the variety of tombstones rather than just crosses. I think they have an atheist one too. Note:
"More than 130 religious groups have endorsed, or certified, chaplains to serve in uniform."
As long as they have rational counselors for the freethinkers I suppose.
BLK: The Congress opens each session with a prayer...">>
DAR
That was controversial from way back. It's a little cloak of tradition. We'll probably out grow it. Note:
“When Benjamin Franklin [a deist] suggested opening sessions of the Constitutional Convention with prayer, there was so little interest that he recorded himself that the meeting adjourned without a vote on the motion.” --Freethought Today, pg. 3, 4/03
BLK: and there is a prayer group that consists of members of Congress.>>
DAR
That's nice. They can do what they want during their free time. When they're on the job, best to follow the lemon test when making law:
***
The "Lemon test" (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971), determines if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.
1. A law must have a secular purpose.
2. It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3. It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.
BLK: "...our founding documents mention God."
DAR
They don't mention your God. The founders believed in God. But that's their private business.
BLK: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,..."
Here's the wording Jefferson had before congress meddled with it:
"All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable."
BLK: "...many of those states have Constitutions that specifically mention Jesus Christ as part of them.">>
DAR
Yes they do. States have all sorts of goofy unenforceable and unconstitutional things in their laws. Arkansas has a whole basket full including a law that an atheist can't hold office or testify in court. These laws are unconstitutional and ignored.
They didn't leave Christ out of the constitution by accident. It was an on purpose.
D.
-------------------
"At the time of its Founding, the United States seemed to be an infertile ground for religion. Many of the nation's leaders - include George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin - were not Christians, did not accept the authority of the Bible, and were hostile to organized religion. The attitude of the general public was one of apathy: in 1776, only 5 percent of the population were participating members of churches."
[Ian Robertson, _Sociology_, 3rd editions, Worth Publishing Inc.: New York, 1987, page 410]
***
[your gonna burn in hell]
DAR
I am as afraid of the Christian hell, to the exact degree that you are afraid of the Muslim hell. Which is to say, not so much. They have one you know. And it's a doosey.
Maybe Blake should believe in it, just to be safe?
D.
-----------------
"They who believe not shall have garments of fire fitted unto them; boiling water shall be poured on their heads; their bowels shall be dissolved thereby, and also their skins, and they shall be beaten with maces of iron." -Koran, 22:19-21
***
KATY: "Are you a total jack-ass or is there some redeeming quality?">>
DAR
I would love to tell you about my redeeming qualities but Blake would claim that I am bragging. And he would probably be right.
I didn't say *I* put a Canadian cover over my passport, I said I have friends that do.
Up until a year ago, I was Canadian (LPR status) and would have traveled under a Canadian passport. Now I am US and will use my US passport when I travel to Europe (my wife will use her Canadian one). Since Obama is being so nice to everyone, I probably won't need to cover mine up.
If we are attacked and they want to shoot the Americans, maybe I can hide mine and share hers.
Americans disguising themselves as Canadians is a tradition that goes way back and probably got going during the controversial Vietnam years. My social studies teacher in 1983, an American (former military, served on Israel border), told us about this.
As for fooling officials? No, obviously, you take the cover off.
D.
***
BLK: "Bush made some missteps, but the faulty intel was not his fault,">>
DAR
If you call invading and smashing a country at the cost of 4 to 5 trillion dollars a "misstep."
There is a small mountain of evidence showing he and Cheney were pressing the CIA and withholding and cherry-picking the data. I'll limit myself to three examples (of dozens).
1) Italian Secret Service knew key Iraq intelligence was falsified, and told U.S. officials before the war
"Italian lawmaker: U.S. told of WMD forgeries" Associated Press
2) Five senior officials from Germany's Federal Intelligence Service, or BND, said in interviews with The Times that they warned U.S. intelligence authorities that the source, an Iraqi defector code-named Curveball, never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so.
According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball's information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also misstated Curveball's accounts in his prewar presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said.
Curveball's German handlers for the last six years said his information was often vague, mostly secondhand and impossible to confirm.
3) White House withheld intelligence data. Specifically, the Administration withheld or repressed portions of intelligence documents which questioned and contradicted the excerpts being used to promote the war.
"Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument" -- Washington Post Page A01, November 12, 2005 and here: "Inaccuracies in Bush's Defense of Lead-Up to War"
I have the links for all of the above if you want them.
BLK: "not that there were no WMDs, but we haven’t yet found them.>>
DAR
Good grief. Let it go. That horse left the barn a long time ago.
BLK: ...they might be as small as two or three paint cans?>>
DAR
We went to war over three paint cans of poison that no one can find? I rest my case.
D.
---------------
"Now look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction."
--GW Bush, press conference, Monday, August 21, 2006
Anyone who can buy several bags of fertilizer has such "capacity." See: Timothy McVeigh.
***
***
BLK: "I don’t cut and run" [Obama admitted he is a Muslim, on ABC]
DAR
Well, usually you don't. And I like that. Stand up for what you believe. But you keep making these bogus charges and it's not too much to ask you to back them up. Let's see how this one holds up.
I was actually watching that show with George Snuffalufagus (that's what I call him) when this happened, and I said to my self, uh oh, the wingnuts are going to go bonkers over this.
The debunk:
***
ST. LOUIS, Mo. - Sen. Barack Obama's foes seized Sunday upon a brief slip of the tongue, when the Democratic presidential nominee was outlining his Christianity but accidentally said, "my Muslim faith."
The three words -- immediately corrected -- were during an exchange with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "This Week," when he was trying to criticize the quiet smear campaign suggesting he is a Muslim.
But illustrating the difficulty of preventing false rumors about his faith from spreading, anti-Obama groups within one hour of the interview had sliced it out of context and were sending it around via email. They also were blogging about it.
Mr. Obama, who is a Christian and often proudly speaks about how his faith has influenced his public service, said he finds it "deeply offensive" that there are efforts "coming out of the Republican camp to suggest that perhaps I'm not who I say I am when it comes to my faith."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... s-critics/
DAR
So again, we find your charge inaccurate, ridiculous and unsupportable.
Try again.
D.
***
[Muslims contributing nothing etc...]
DAR
Let's bring Blake up to speed on some of these contributions:
****
"The accomplishments of Islam's Golden Age are too numerous to mention. Massive translation and copying projects made Greek, Roman, and Sanskrit knowledge available to Arabic-speaking scholars across the empire. Medieval Europe received the Hellenic classics that made the Renaissance possible mostly through Arabic translations. Building on Hellenic, Persian, and Hindu sources, physicians within the Islamic Empire advanced medical knowledge enormously. Perhaps their most significant single achievement was the establishment of medicine as a science based on observation and experimentation, rather than on conjecture. Islamic scientists developed the rudiments of what would later be called the scientific method.
Seventy-five years after the death of Prophet Muhammad (s), the first of many free public hospitals was opened in Damascus. Asylums were maintained throughout the empire for the care of the mentally ill. In the early 10th century, Spanish physician Abu Bakr al-Razi introduced the use of antiseptics in cleaning wounds, and also made the connection between bacteria and infection. Al-Hasan published a definitive study on optics (the science of light and vision) in 965. Thirteenth-century Muslim physician Ibn al-Nafis discovered and accurately described the functioning of the human circulatory system. Islamic veterinary science led the field for centuries, particularly in the study and treatment of horses.
Muslim alchemists (early forerunners of modern chemists) in the 10th to 14th centuries, inspired by ancient chemical formulas from China and India, are famous for the endless experiments they performed in their laboratories. Their goals ranged from pursuit of a chemical elixir bestowing enhanced life, to the transformation of base metals to gold. Although they never succeeded in their ultimate goals, they did make numerous valuable discoveries -- among them the distillation of petroleum and the forging of steel.
Roman techniques of manufacturing glass lenses stimulated Al-Hasan's breakthrough in the field of optics (the science of light and vision), which demolished Aristotle's theory that vision was the result of a ray emanating from the eye, encompassing an object, and bringing it back to the soul. Al-Hasan's Book of Optics, published in 965, was first to document sight as visual images entering the eye, made perceptible by adequate light. This book remained the pre-eminent text in its field until 1610, when the work of European Johannes Kepler surpassed it.
Islamic mathematicians refined algebra from its beginnings in Greece and Egypt, and developed trigonometry in pursuit of accurate ways to measure objects at a distance. Muslim scholars also made important and original contributions to astronomy. They collected and corrected previous astronomical data, built the world's first observatory, and developed the astrolabe, an instrument that was once called "a mathematical jewel."
Islamic architects borrowed heavily from the Byzantine Empire which used domes and arches extensively throughout their cities. An example of this use can be seen in the Dome of the Rock, a famous mosque in Jerusalem.
Avid students of both the heavens and the earth, Muslim scholars made detailed and accurate maps of both. Muslim mapmakers to accurately map distances around the earth refined longitude and latitude. Twelfth-century Persian Omar Khayyam developed a calendar so reliable that over 500 years it was off by only one day. The list goes on and on."
***
As I posted in April:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5613&p=17964&hilit= ... ons#p17947
****
BLK: There was a poll that indicated that 67% of this country felt we were moving in the wrong direction. Really?>>
DAR
Yes really. In September '08, 70% thought the country was headed in the wrong direction. Today it's 43%, even though Bush's disaster still lingers, and will continue to linger for a long time.
http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm
BLK: Could this have been the direction where 95.4% of our population had a job?>>
DAR
Bush's job growth numbers were awful. But this is normal. Of the last ten presidents, the top five in job creation/growth were Demos, the bottom five were republicans. The chance of this happening by chance is 1 in 252.
BLK: Or maybe our road system,>>
DAR
Our road system is socialist by the way. Glad you like it.
BLK: We have complete religious, social, and political freedom in this country- the rest of the world is envious of this->>
DAR
No it isn't. You need to get out more. Get a passport. I can give you a list of 50, maybe a hundred, maybe more, countries that have such freedoms. Americans babble about freedoms more than they actually use them. If you would like to see a dozen or so examples of where America lags in freedoms, or has freedom issues, check out this project we did:
Mythbuster board
"American Freedom" (2005)
http://fayfreethinkers.com/mythbuster/a ... edom.shtml
You'll learn something.
BLK: "...could you protest in many of the other countries in this world without persecution?>>
DAR
Of course. Do you have a television?
BLK: We have become, unfortunately, a nation of ungrateful, spoiled brats- probably because schools no longer teach History as they should.>>
DAR
Yes, we just saw a breathtaking example of that with your display of ignorance of Islamic history.
BLK: "...there are many who curse the military, or say there is no need for them.">>
DAR
Who says there is no need for a military? Stop making stuff up.
BLK: In many cases they have died so you could complain on your high horse.">>
DAR
Who's the one constantly complaining? You!
BLK: we do have FEMA- there is not its equivalent anywhere else.>>
DAR
All first world countries have an emergency management agency. It's your own blind tribalism that leads you to pretend you have the finest.
BLK: Everywhere else, people dig themselves out. We have insurance,...>>
DAR
Insurance is socialist btw. Shared risk, collectivism.
BLK: We have, contrary to all the detractors, the best health care in the world->>
DAR
No, we don't. For delivery/access of the system that we do have, we don't even make the top ten. Probably not the top thirty. Wishing something doesn't make it so. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. But they don't.
D.
-----------------
"Americans get the poorest health care and yet pay the most compared to five other rich countries. The US health care system ranks last compared with the five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity and outcomes, according to a report released on Tuesday."
http://www.truthout.org/article/us-heal ... ent-report
***
INON: Insurance isn’t socialist.>>
DAR
Of course it is. It is people coming together, collectively, to share risk/loss.
INON: So according to the report DAR himself quoted, America is in the top five, not the bottom 30, as you claims.>>
DAR
Read for comprehension. The report only examined 5 countries.
INON: Your tribe? Your religion? Liberalism.>>
DAR
Actually, I agree with Thomas Paine:
"The world is my country, to do good my religion." -Thomas Paine
INON: I saw no reference to Islamic history. Did anyone else?>>
DAR
Pay attention, it's right here:
http://www.onebigdog.net/obama-is-a-lit ... /#comments
I see you have no answer for the superior record of job growth under democratic presidents.
INON: "...what percentage of the the US tax income goes to social services?>>
DAR
The amount going to the rich and "corporate welfare" vastly exceeds anything given to the poor. Get informed.
INON: "...you will gain an inkling of why we hate people...>>
DAR
Yes, I know you are filled with hate, and you like to have tantrums. Unfortunately, what you are not so good at, is reading carefully, thinking clearly and arguing cogently for a position. And that's too bad.
Maybe you can learn from my example.
D.
***
[Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion]
DAR
You can't have freedom of religion without freedom from government imposed/coerced religion.
The brilliance of the first amendment is that it provides both at the same time.
D.
---------------
"Our founders wisely adopted a secular, godless constitution, the first to derive its powers from "We, the People" and the consent of the governed, rather than claiming divine authority. They knew from the experience of religious persecution, witchhunts and religious discrimination in the Thirteen Colonies, and from the bloody history left behind in Europe, that the surest path to tyranny was to entangle church and state. That is why they adopted a secular constitution whose only references to religion are exclusionary, such as that there shall be no religious test for public office (Art. VI). There were no prayers offered at the Constitutional Convention, which shows their intent to separate religion from secular affairs.
As Thomas Paine pointed out, "Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law."
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/schoolprayer.php
***
DAR
You say "the interpreters get the message wrong."
This is of course (humorously), according to your interpretation.
And I didn't say I see "religion as the problem." I said the problem is when they have too much power or control in a society. See Islam. Truly "One Nation Under God."
Christianity is in decline in first world countries. Germany was profoundly Christian during the Nazi days, and that was a problem. Now they are mostly atheist, and... no problem.
Regarding the fact that secular societies are far better at solving their social problems than "priest ridden" societies, see:
***
Better off without Him
New research suggests that the Christian virtues are best represented in godless societies
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/10 ... thout-him/
D.
-------------------
Godless Majority in Germany
"For the first time, a majority of Germans profess no belief in a god. A survey in Der Spiegel revealed that the number of theists had dropped to 45%, down from 50% in 1993. During the same period, the number of avowed atheists rose from 20% to 28%. Only a quarter of Germans said they believe in Jesus Christ. The decline in religion in Germany matches the trend in other West European nations."
--Secular Humanist Bulletin, Vol. 13, No. 4 Winter 97/98, pg. 2
***
BLK: "I believe, and I am wrong all I have lost is my time-">>
DAR
This is Paschal's Wager again. Otherwise known as Holy Fire Insurance. It's a philosophical notion that didn't work when Paschal invented it 380 years ago, and it still doesn't work today. Sophisticated Christians know better than to use it but the pew warmers still lean on it from time to time.
Here are the top five reasons it does not work:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/pascalswager.shtml
There are other reasons too. These are the easy ones.
D.
---------------
"They tell us that to believe is the safe way; but I say, the safe way is to be honest."
***
BLK: "Religion never has had too much power in society here,...>>
DAR
I am sorry you are so unaware of basic American history. Let's bring you up to speed with a few examples of "religion having too much power in society here."
***
PURITAN HERITAGE
1. The Puritans came to the colonies so they could establish a Congregationalist religious tyranny, not personal religious freedom.
2. Only church members could vote. It required a unanimous vote of church elders to be a church member.
3. Only Congregationalist churches were allowed. Non-Congregationalists, even Presbyterian Puritans, were banished, often with a death sentence if they returned.
4. Puritans punished even minor impious behavior. Failure to attend church earned a public whipping. A man was put into the stocks for kissing his wife in public on Sunday upon returning from three years at sea.
5. Aside from killing 25 "witches," the Puritans persecuted Quakers by cutting off ears, burning holes through women's tongues with hot irons, floggings with whips, and hangings.
CHRISTIANITY IN THE EARLY U.S.
6. When the Constitution was ratified, many states had laws that forbid Catholics, Jews, Deists or unbelievers from holding public office.
7. At the time of the Constitution, at least five states recognized only one Christian denomination as the state religion, with other denominations prohibited.
At our nation's founding, Christians were an undemocratic minority that opposed freedom of conscience and denied political rights based on religious beliefs."
--Howard Thompson
D.
***
BIGD: "Freedom OF Religion also means freedom not to practice religion or even to believe."
DAR
EXACTLY right.
BIGD: "...allow others the same courtesy."
DAR
I don't know where you would get the idea that I am not completely for freedom of religion and people having the right to worship, or not, however they please (and without government interference or endorsement of course).
Part of the reason I started the freethinker group (270 members now) was to encourage interaction between believers and non-believers. There are misunderstandings on both sides and each side tends to demonize the other unfairly, mostly because they don't know each other.
I work with and interact with Christians all the time and have for decades. I probably spend 20% of my work day in various churches. Was my saying "pew warmers" too harsh? Not PC enough? That's a little touchy.
Perhaps you can point me to my offending, mocking, comment. Sometimes I don't put enough sugar on the medicine but I am hardly as insulting as the people I am responding to.
D.
***
BLK: Darrel, all your examples are from BEFORE the Constitution was ratified.>>
DAR
Right. I am saying they made the constitution the way they did *because* they didn't want this kind of puritanical nonsense going on. When religions use the power of government, bad things happen.
BLK: try to cite some examples in a more recent time, say the last two hundred years.>>
DAR
Of what? Religion having too much power? I don't know that it does. It's pretty neutered and tending more so every day. Catholics don't listen to the pope much (contraception?) and protestants don't know their Bibles very well. The problem is when religion gets the power of government endorsement and there is always this pressure, mostly by Christians, to use the power of government to endorse their religion. They finally got the god phrase put on paper money in 1956, they got religion inserted into the pledge in 1954 (the founders never heard either of these phrases). If it wasn't for the fine folks at the ACLU we would we (ironically) be bumping into graven images of the ten commandments every time we go to the court house.
So for the most part I am pleased with the separation here. But back to the original point, the warning of Islam is to keep government out of the business of religion, and vise versa. This leads to the health and success of both.
See Europe for an example of state run religion running it into the ground.
D.
------------------
"Adult church attendance in Britain is at 7.7% and only 2% now attends an Anglican church regularly."
–Economist/New Your Times, Dec. 22, 2000
***
BLK: However, that does not mean that there cannot be religious symbols in society or in government.>>
DAR
Well, this is where it gets squishy. It depends on the context. Moses at the SCOTUS is okay specifically because it is in the context of an artistic motif of historic law givers (even imaginary ones).
Having all religions be "able to participate" is not really a workable situation since our government buildings would be covered up with no end of clutter. And for what? We have churches for that. Keep them separate. It only causes division.
Politicians can mention God of course, free speech.
BLK:
However, there is no absence of religion.>>
DAR
No, state employees, such as teachers, can not use their position to promote their religion. What a mess that would be (and sometimes is).
BLK: The military (government organization) has Chaplains.>>
DAR
This is changing and adapting now as the US becomes more diverse. See the variety of tombstones rather than just crosses. I think they have an atheist one too. Note:
"More than 130 religious groups have endorsed, or certified, chaplains to serve in uniform."
As long as they have rational counselors for the freethinkers I suppose.
BLK: The Congress opens each session with a prayer...">>
DAR
That was controversial from way back. It's a little cloak of tradition. We'll probably out grow it. Note:
“When Benjamin Franklin [a deist] suggested opening sessions of the Constitutional Convention with prayer, there was so little interest that he recorded himself that the meeting adjourned without a vote on the motion.” --Freethought Today, pg. 3, 4/03
BLK: and there is a prayer group that consists of members of Congress.>>
DAR
That's nice. They can do what they want during their free time. When they're on the job, best to follow the lemon test when making law:
***
The "Lemon test" (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971), determines if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.
1. A law must have a secular purpose.
2. It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3. It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.
BLK: "...our founding documents mention God."
DAR
They don't mention your God. The founders believed in God. But that's their private business.
BLK: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,..."
Here's the wording Jefferson had before congress meddled with it:
"All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable."
BLK: "...many of those states have Constitutions that specifically mention Jesus Christ as part of them.">>
DAR
Yes they do. States have all sorts of goofy unenforceable and unconstitutional things in their laws. Arkansas has a whole basket full including a law that an atheist can't hold office or testify in court. These laws are unconstitutional and ignored.
They didn't leave Christ out of the constitution by accident. It was an on purpose.
D.
-------------------
"At the time of its Founding, the United States seemed to be an infertile ground for religion. Many of the nation's leaders - include George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin - were not Christians, did not accept the authority of the Bible, and were hostile to organized religion. The attitude of the general public was one of apathy: in 1776, only 5 percent of the population were participating members of churches."
[Ian Robertson, _Sociology_, 3rd editions, Worth Publishing Inc.: New York, 1987, page 410]
***
[your gonna burn in hell]
DAR
I am as afraid of the Christian hell, to the exact degree that you are afraid of the Muslim hell. Which is to say, not so much. They have one you know. And it's a doosey.
Maybe Blake should believe in it, just to be safe?
D.
-----------------
"They who believe not shall have garments of fire fitted unto them; boiling water shall be poured on their heads; their bowels shall be dissolved thereby, and also their skins, and they shall be beaten with maces of iron." -Koran, 22:19-21
***
KATY: "Are you a total jack-ass or is there some redeeming quality?">>
DAR
I would love to tell you about my redeeming qualities but Blake would claim that I am bragging. And he would probably be right.
I didn't say *I* put a Canadian cover over my passport, I said I have friends that do.
Up until a year ago, I was Canadian (LPR status) and would have traveled under a Canadian passport. Now I am US and will use my US passport when I travel to Europe (my wife will use her Canadian one). Since Obama is being so nice to everyone, I probably won't need to cover mine up.
If we are attacked and they want to shoot the Americans, maybe I can hide mine and share hers.
Americans disguising themselves as Canadians is a tradition that goes way back and probably got going during the controversial Vietnam years. My social studies teacher in 1983, an American (former military, served on Israel border), told us about this.
As for fooling officials? No, obviously, you take the cover off.
D.
***
BLK: "Bush made some missteps, but the faulty intel was not his fault,">>
DAR
If you call invading and smashing a country at the cost of 4 to 5 trillion dollars a "misstep."
There is a small mountain of evidence showing he and Cheney were pressing the CIA and withholding and cherry-picking the data. I'll limit myself to three examples (of dozens).
1) Italian Secret Service knew key Iraq intelligence was falsified, and told U.S. officials before the war
"Italian lawmaker: U.S. told of WMD forgeries" Associated Press
2) Five senior officials from Germany's Federal Intelligence Service, or BND, said in interviews with The Times that they warned U.S. intelligence authorities that the source, an Iraqi defector code-named Curveball, never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so.
According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball's information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also misstated Curveball's accounts in his prewar presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said.
Curveball's German handlers for the last six years said his information was often vague, mostly secondhand and impossible to confirm.
3) White House withheld intelligence data. Specifically, the Administration withheld or repressed portions of intelligence documents which questioned and contradicted the excerpts being used to promote the war.
"Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument" -- Washington Post Page A01, November 12, 2005 and here: "Inaccuracies in Bush's Defense of Lead-Up to War"
I have the links for all of the above if you want them.
BLK: "not that there were no WMDs, but we haven’t yet found them.>>
DAR
Good grief. Let it go. That horse left the barn a long time ago.
BLK: ...they might be as small as two or three paint cans?>>
DAR
We went to war over three paint cans of poison that no one can find? I rest my case.
D.
---------------
"Now look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction."
--GW Bush, press conference, Monday, August 21, 2006
Anyone who can buy several bags of fertilizer has such "capacity." See: Timothy McVeigh.
***
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - June 30)
JUNE 6
***
BIGD: "Ethnicity and sex should never be a criteria for the court but they are at the sake of competent people.>>
DAR
You really shouldn't be so hard on Clarence. He tries his best.
I have no problem with purposely selecting a court that reflects the constituents it serves. When we advised Iraq in making their constitution we recommended they require 25% of their positions in national and local government be set aside for women. They did it and now their "interim constitution guarantees at least a quarter of the 275 seats in Iraq's new National Assembly to women."
That's a very positive change from the old ways.
And this is not uncommon, more than "eighty countries around the world, recognizing women’s exclusion from the political process, now have quotas."
This is another lesson from Islam's decline. Repress women at your peril. When you concentrate power in the hands of the men you throw away half of your societies intellectual capital and get a bunch of white guys doing a circle jerk and protecting the interests of their own fannies and the power structure that seated them (see Roberts blurb below). Democracy is about spreading that power around, women included.
Incidentally, Obama's pick is polling well:
"In the new poll, half said [Sotomayor] should be seated on the court while 22 percent opposed her confirmation. About a third had a favorable view of Sotomayor while 18 percent viewed her unfavorably.
She was looked upon more positively than any of three Supreme Court nominees President George W. Bush put forward over four months in 2005: Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito and Harriet Miers,..."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090602/ap_ ... _sotomayor
D.
-------------------------
"The kind of humility that Roberts favors reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party."
***
DAR
Oh, I have insurance, with a medical savings account (MSA), but I am trapped because of this pre-condition.
Obama just said this on his radio address:
"This week, I conveyed to Congress my belief that any health care reform must be built around fundamental reforms that lower costs, improve quality and coverage, and also protect consumer choice."
Well, that's just awful. He should be opposed and insulted for saying things like this.
This just in:
***
***
BLK: "[why] you would even care what others think."
DAR
Already explained several times. The US has too high of a ratio of rightwing goosestepping cult members. These are the people, like you, who "know they are right" and aren't open to changing your beliefs even when shown to be wrong. It's not healthy to have this many nuts in a society. If you want to stay home and watch TV and be a dumb dumb, fine. But if you are going to display your ignorance in a public forum and pretend that it can withstand scrutiny, then to the degree your information is wrong, it's going to get roasted. That's the service I provide. Because of your penchant for sloppy thinking (well developed over many years) you provide a very, very, big target.
As for me being "insecure, fragile" or "religiously threatened." I've tried to experience feelings like that just to see what it would be like but alas, just wasn't able to.
D.
***
DAR
Remember, the supreme Court interprets the Constitution (you don't). They interpret the constitution (via the Lemon test), to say you can't have religious symbols on a court house unless it is in a non-religious context. This is established law, with much precedent.
When they say what the constitution means, it has weight. When you say what the constitution means, it has no weight. Them are the rules, see the constitution.
BIGD: The ACLU is full of communists>>
DAR
I know lots of people in the ACLU. I don't know any communists. So you're lying again. Best to avoid that.
The ACLU used to defend communists of course, since in America, you are allowed to be one if you like. It's a civil liberty. Note:
***
"In 1940, the ACLU formally barred communists from leadership or staff positions, and would take the position that it did not want communists as members either. The board declared that it was "inappropriate for any person to serve on the governing committees of the Union or its staff, who is a member of any political organization which supports totalitarianism in any country, or who by his public declarations indicates his support of such a principle." --wiki blurb
***
Right wingers love to tell lies about the ACLU. I wish they wouldn't.
BIGD: They demand crosses come off government owned cemeteries,>>
DAR
Right, the government has no business endorsing/establishing religion by using their power to display crosses. We have churches for that. People can of course put all sorts of things on their own graves.
BIGD: religious pictures come off walls of government buildings>>
DAR
But of course. Why should our secular government be endorsing a religion (which is always divisive) with such artwork? Best to stay neutral. And this is *not* in violation of the constitution, but perfectly in line with it according to SCOTUS, with considerable precedent.
BIGD: You use the word separation. It is NOT in the Constitution.>>
DAR
A common complaint but one that fails. As I've cited several times:
***
The phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," was coined by President Thomas Jefferson in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when they had asked him to explain the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson's phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles."
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php
BIGD: You confuse people freely exercising a right with state run religion.>>
DAR
Actually, I don't. Your understanding of the First Amendment and the established precedent is apparently very rudimentary.
BIGD: The problem is the ACLU wants to remove religion from society...>>
DAR
This is an absurd caricature, flatly false and reveals a profound ignorance. The ACLU has on hundreds if not thousands of cases intervened to protect the civil liberties of those whose civil right to freely practice their religion has been infringed.
I can bury you in examples.
Get informed. The link below would be a good place to start.
D.
----------------
"The Constitution does not endorse any religious creed, and it does not recognize any power of government to decide theological questions. Beliefs about the nature of God is a proper subject for individuals, families, religious communities, and theologians, but not for government bodies such as the U.S. Congress or a local school board."
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/27282res20061103.html
***
[we're not a democracy]
DAR
Our "republic" is a form of democracy.
D.
--------------
"In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.[64] The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy..."
***
[vicious comments snipped]
DAR
If republicans wonder why they are doing so poorly and are so reviled by so many, they might consider the material above, and then look in the mirror. What a vicious bunch.
D.
-------------------
"Today the GOP holds a smaller share of non-Southern seats in the House and Senate than at any other point in its history since Roosevelt."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazi ... 3_2195.php
***
[When did I use an ad hominem?]
DAR
I didn't read the article. Most of your blather, which is usually unoriginal cut and paste, falls by it's own weight.
I did see this:
"...s***bags like John Murtha..."
D.
---------------------
"Murtha served 37 years in the Marines, and has Purple Hearts to his name. He visits wounded soldiers at Walter Reed every week. Three years ago, he won the Semper Fidelis Award of the Marine Corps Foundation, the highest honor the Marines can confer. Every time you think these Republicans can sink no lower, even after their vile smears against Kerry's service..., they keep going. They make me sick to my stomach."
--Andrew Sullivan, libertarian, conservative
***
[Saddam had WMD's, sent them to Syria]
DAR
We know he "had" them at one time because we still have the receipts. But that's old junk that was rotting and useless when we kicked him out of Kuwait.
The "taken to Syria" theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny and isn't taken seriously outside of crackpot circles.
The fact that there is no evidence he destroyed them comports nicely with the data showing he didn't have them and our basis for thinking he did, was cherry-picked, junk.
D.
-------------------
***
BIGD: "Ethnicity and sex should never be a criteria for the court but they are at the sake of competent people.>>
DAR
You really shouldn't be so hard on Clarence. He tries his best.
I have no problem with purposely selecting a court that reflects the constituents it serves. When we advised Iraq in making their constitution we recommended they require 25% of their positions in national and local government be set aside for women. They did it and now their "interim constitution guarantees at least a quarter of the 275 seats in Iraq's new National Assembly to women."
That's a very positive change from the old ways.
And this is not uncommon, more than "eighty countries around the world, recognizing women’s exclusion from the political process, now have quotas."
This is another lesson from Islam's decline. Repress women at your peril. When you concentrate power in the hands of the men you throw away half of your societies intellectual capital and get a bunch of white guys doing a circle jerk and protecting the interests of their own fannies and the power structure that seated them (see Roberts blurb below). Democracy is about spreading that power around, women included.
Incidentally, Obama's pick is polling well:
"In the new poll, half said [Sotomayor] should be seated on the court while 22 percent opposed her confirmation. About a third had a favorable view of Sotomayor while 18 percent viewed her unfavorably.
She was looked upon more positively than any of three Supreme Court nominees President George W. Bush put forward over four months in 2005: Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito and Harriet Miers,..."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090602/ap_ ... _sotomayor
D.
-------------------------
"The kind of humility that Roberts favors reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party."
***
DAR
Oh, I have insurance, with a medical savings account (MSA), but I am trapped because of this pre-condition.
Obama just said this on his radio address:
"This week, I conveyed to Congress my belief that any health care reform must be built around fundamental reforms that lower costs, improve quality and coverage, and also protect consumer choice."
Well, that's just awful. He should be opposed and insulted for saying things like this.
This just in:
***
Other countries just watch and shake their heads at this foolishness. We're so good at many things, why can't we fix this?Study Links Medical Costs and Personal Bankruptcy
Harvard researchers say 62% of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2007 were caused by health problems—and 78% of those filers had insurance
By Catherine Arnst
"Medical problems caused 62% of all personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. in 2007, according to a study by Harvard researchers. And in a finding that surprised even the researchers, 78% of those filers had medical insurance at the start of their illness, including 60.3% who had private coverage, not Medicare or Medicaid."
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnf ... =rss_daily
***
BLK: "[why] you would even care what others think."
DAR
Already explained several times. The US has too high of a ratio of rightwing goosestepping cult members. These are the people, like you, who "know they are right" and aren't open to changing your beliefs even when shown to be wrong. It's not healthy to have this many nuts in a society. If you want to stay home and watch TV and be a dumb dumb, fine. But if you are going to display your ignorance in a public forum and pretend that it can withstand scrutiny, then to the degree your information is wrong, it's going to get roasted. That's the service I provide. Because of your penchant for sloppy thinking (well developed over many years) you provide a very, very, big target.
As for me being "insecure, fragile" or "religiously threatened." I've tried to experience feelings like that just to see what it would be like but alas, just wasn't able to.
D.
***
DAR
Remember, the supreme Court interprets the Constitution (you don't). They interpret the constitution (via the Lemon test), to say you can't have religious symbols on a court house unless it is in a non-religious context. This is established law, with much precedent.
When they say what the constitution means, it has weight. When you say what the constitution means, it has no weight. Them are the rules, see the constitution.
BIGD: The ACLU is full of communists>>
DAR
I know lots of people in the ACLU. I don't know any communists. So you're lying again. Best to avoid that.
The ACLU used to defend communists of course, since in America, you are allowed to be one if you like. It's a civil liberty. Note:
***
"In 1940, the ACLU formally barred communists from leadership or staff positions, and would take the position that it did not want communists as members either. The board declared that it was "inappropriate for any person to serve on the governing committees of the Union or its staff, who is a member of any political organization which supports totalitarianism in any country, or who by his public declarations indicates his support of such a principle." --wiki blurb
***
Right wingers love to tell lies about the ACLU. I wish they wouldn't.
BIGD: They demand crosses come off government owned cemeteries,>>
DAR
Right, the government has no business endorsing/establishing religion by using their power to display crosses. We have churches for that. People can of course put all sorts of things on their own graves.
BIGD: religious pictures come off walls of government buildings>>
DAR
But of course. Why should our secular government be endorsing a religion (which is always divisive) with such artwork? Best to stay neutral. And this is *not* in violation of the constitution, but perfectly in line with it according to SCOTUS, with considerable precedent.
BIGD: You use the word separation. It is NOT in the Constitution.>>
DAR
A common complaint but one that fails. As I've cited several times:
***
The phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," was coined by President Thomas Jefferson in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when they had asked him to explain the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson's phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles."
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php
BIGD: You confuse people freely exercising a right with state run religion.>>
DAR
Actually, I don't. Your understanding of the First Amendment and the established precedent is apparently very rudimentary.
BIGD: The problem is the ACLU wants to remove religion from society...>>
DAR
This is an absurd caricature, flatly false and reveals a profound ignorance. The ACLU has on hundreds if not thousands of cases intervened to protect the civil liberties of those whose civil right to freely practice their religion has been infringed.
I can bury you in examples.
Get informed. The link below would be a good place to start.
D.
----------------
"The Constitution does not endorse any religious creed, and it does not recognize any power of government to decide theological questions. Beliefs about the nature of God is a proper subject for individuals, families, religious communities, and theologians, but not for government bodies such as the U.S. Congress or a local school board."
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/27282res20061103.html
***
[we're not a democracy]
DAR
Our "republic" is a form of democracy.
D.
--------------
"In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.[64] The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy..."
***
[vicious comments snipped]
DAR
If republicans wonder why they are doing so poorly and are so reviled by so many, they might consider the material above, and then look in the mirror. What a vicious bunch.
D.
-------------------
"Today the GOP holds a smaller share of non-Southern seats in the House and Senate than at any other point in its history since Roosevelt."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazi ... 3_2195.php
***
[When did I use an ad hominem?]
DAR
I didn't read the article. Most of your blather, which is usually unoriginal cut and paste, falls by it's own weight.
I did see this:
"...s***bags like John Murtha..."
D.
---------------------
"Murtha served 37 years in the Marines, and has Purple Hearts to his name. He visits wounded soldiers at Walter Reed every week. Three years ago, he won the Semper Fidelis Award of the Marine Corps Foundation, the highest honor the Marines can confer. Every time you think these Republicans can sink no lower, even after their vile smears against Kerry's service..., they keep going. They make me sick to my stomach."
--Andrew Sullivan, libertarian, conservative
***
[Saddam had WMD's, sent them to Syria]
DAR
We know he "had" them at one time because we still have the receipts. But that's old junk that was rotting and useless when we kicked him out of Kuwait.
The "taken to Syria" theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny and isn't taken seriously outside of crackpot circles.
The fact that there is no evidence he destroyed them comports nicely with the data showing he didn't have them and our basis for thinking he did, was cherry-picked, junk.
D.
-------------------
***Saddam had no WMD for a decade, report says
Thursday, October 07, 2004
By Bob Drogin and Greg Miller
WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein did not produce or possess any weapons of mass destruction for more than a decade before the U.S.-led invasion last year, according to a comprehensive CIA report released yesterday.
Saddam intended to someday reconstitute his illicit programs and rebuild at least some of his weapons if United Nations sanctions were eased and he had the opportunity, the report concluded. But the Iraqi regime had no formal, written strategy to revive the banned programs after sanctions, and no staff or infrastructure in place to do so, the investigators found.
The 1,000-page report by Charles Duelfer, head of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group weapons-hunting teams, is the most definitive account of Iraq's long-defunct weapons programs...”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... ons07.html
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8191
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Re: The BIG Doggie DUMP (May 15 - June 30)
JUNE 8, 2009
***
BLK: There will always be poor people in this world,... because they make (consistently) poor choices in their lives.>>
DAR
Blake is only one car accident (or one serious illness) away from being a poor person. Republicans talk tough and without compassion, until they are humbled. Then they want the dole, they want a hand up, they want society to pay, *for their poor choices in their lives.*
Estimated cost, per family (with health insurance), for paying for the cost of those without health insurance = $1,000.
Blake has no health insurance. So we are paying for his poor choices, already.
D.
***
BLK: "Republican? No- I am conservative">>
DAR
The GOP is reorganizing. Maybe you'll want to rejoin. Good stuff:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stran ... 12244.html
D.
***
DAR
Blake, if you cannot pay the bill, it is automatically eaten by the hospital/system and passed along to the rest of us. This already happens and passes along about $1,000 per year in costs to each family already paying for insurance. Your risky living is mooching off of everyone else's premiums.
It would be very easy for you to rack up a bill you cannot pay. Very easy. It happens every day. Actually, it happens about 5,760 times a day.
Bigd, if you have a bad car wreck, there are lots of instances in which car insurance *does not* pay for health costs. Some people buy this as an option but my insurance company (Allstate) advised buying health insurance for this.
If you have liability and have a one car accident and rack up a $100k bill, you are not covered. If you cause an accident and only have liability, your insurance pays for their health costs (with a limit), but little if any for you. It's easy to exceed the limits even if you have comprehensive.
And a car accident is only one method (a very popular one) of racking up a huge medical cost. Getting diabetes is another one among many. There are lots and lots of other ways, as you know.
D.
note: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 5Feb8.html
***
BIGD: "How much of Wal Mart’s stuff comes from China?">>
DAR
Note: "70% of the commodities sold in Wal-Mart are made in China. [China Business Weekly, November 29, 2004]"
http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/
D.
***
DAR
Things are already going badly and people are denied care. We spend more than any other country and we get this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ9MLCmb ... re=related
And the (very expensive) band-aid Bush tried only continues *the main problem,* government feeding the fat cat private industry (3 min):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLr6_4MZdHs
BIGD: "once government takes over there will be no going back..."
DAR
You're right about that. All first world countries have it, and none of them would go back to what we have. They look at our mess and shake their heads.
D.
***
DAR
You have this idea that single-payer means a free ride. It does not. People pay premiums in Canada, and there are (small) user fees. And general government revenue pays also. But because there is no private insurance company/industry sucking hundreds of billions out of the system, cost of delivery is far less. Plus, there is a focus on delivering solid necessary health rather than all of these companies trying to game the system. Also, all of this time/money/effort to focus on designer drugs doesn't exist. There are no prescription drug ads in Canada. There are many other benefits, and a few draw backs too.
As I said, the US is probably not ready for single payer. Too many paranoid misinformed people. Plus a trillion dollar for profit industry that lives nicely off of this government teat.
So we will stagger along for another decade or two, nibbling around the edges, before it finally hits the fan.
D.
***
BIGD: "Wake up Wal Mart is an anti Wal Mart site.">>
DAR
Oh for pity sake. You asked a question and I provided an answer which cited: "China Business Weekly, November 29, 2004."
If you have a better answer, then cite it rather than tossing the genetic fallacy.
I am not anti-Wal-Mart. I shopped there this evening. I also know the Walton's. I tuned Helen Walton's piano many times over the years before she passed away.
D.
***
"ACLU is interested in making us Communists"
"ACLU gets big bucks from government"
DAR
How unfortunate that you are not interested in being taken seriously.
Someday I would like to find an honest, intelligent conservative who will stand up and defend their beliefs politely and with intellectual honesty.
If you know of such a place, perhaps point me in that direction. All you seem to have here is invective, spleen, constant dishonesty, vile smears and tantrums.
Is this the best conservatives have to offer?
I don't think so.
But if I were a conservative, and I am on several issues, I would be, and am sorely embarrassed by this kind of behavior. It's disgusting.
D.
***
BIGD: [ACLU commies] "From an excerpt... (18 October 1935;"
DAR
You are quoting junk from 1935? Seriously? As I have already shown, the ACLU banned communists in 1940.
BIGD: It is clear that it was founded by communists>>
DAR
That's nice. Those folks are dead. Why should anyone care today? You guys are still fighting communists? Oh how you miss the old days.
BIGD: Jefferson would not address a state issue but addressed it on the federal level.>>
DAR
Good point. The US constitution is after all, "on the federal level." And it trumps the states. If you don't like it, secede.
BIGD: Legal scholars have stated that the phrase does not exist in the Constitution>>
DAR
You don't have to be a legal scholar to know that! It's quite short. You should read it. Better, read the case law on these issues. You really don't have a basic understanding of the precedent regarding the establishment clause.
BIDG: "...the doc**ent states Congress shall make no law establishing religion.">>
DAR
No it doesn't. You can't even get a few words right. The document states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..."
Each word is VERY important. Many books have been written about that sentence.
Maybe start with something simple:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishm ... _Amendment
BIGD: Obama made us all Muslims with his recognition of Islam and his ridiculous assertion that America was a Muslim nation.>>
DAR
When did he say that? Can't you be honest for a minute?
BIGD: "Having a Cross at a cemetery does not establish a religion.>>
DAR
I am sorry you have a fifth grade understanding of the establishment clause.
BIGD: if children want to pray at school they may.>>
DAR
Of course they can, and do. And the ACLU defends their right to do this. But what they cannot do is have a state employee, while on the job and representing the state, lead them in prayer. That violates the establishment clause as determined by the SCOTUS.
BIGD: If a graduating class decides it wants a prayer it may have one.>>
DAR
Wrong. Note:
***
“The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause. It is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which ‘establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so.’ ” Id., at 587 (citations omitted) (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 678 (1984)).
***
Also, from the 2000 Supreme court decision on prayer a football games:
"The delivery of a message such as the invocation here -- on school property,
at school-sponsored events, over the school's public address system, by a
speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of the school
faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages
school prayer -- is not properly characterized as 'private' speech."
In response to the proposition that students had voted for the "invocation":
"Through its election scheme, the District has established a governmental mechanism that turns the school into a forum for religious debate and empowers the student body majority to subject students of minority views to constitutionally improper messages. The award of that power alone is not acceptable."
Making the central case:
"Nothing in the Constitution as interpreted by the Court prohibits any public
school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during or after the
school day. But the religious liberty protected by the Constitution is abridged
when the State affirmatively sponsors the particular religious practice of prayer."
D.
***
[Negative inflation doesn't exist]
DAR
Actually, it does. For Jan through April of this year:
2009 0.03% 0.24% -0.38% -0.74%
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/ ... lation.asp
For someone with your skill set Blake, you're awfully quick to denigrate the intelligence of others.
D.
***
BIGD: Al Gore got a peace prize for something that had nothing to do with peace.>>
DAR
Tell that to the Pentagon:
"Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us"
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... heobserver
D.
***
BIGD: [people] "comment off line about what an arrogant moron you are">>
DAR
Oh I am arrogant, no doubt about it. But is it with any basis? I think one of you conservatives should really set me straight.
Factually, you know.
You might encourage your these off line people to join in and teach me a thing or two. That would be great. Maybe they have a friend who knows something about these things. I am always open to learning new things and would never say I am right and not open to changing my belief about any topic (as you and Blake have said).
That's what cult members say.
I change beliefs when I am given good reasons. That's what impresses me. Good arguments. Not the name calling and tantrums.
D.
***
[Murtha is a criminal and should be in prison]
DAR
If you have information/evidence showing Rep. Murtha should be indicted, I think you should contact the authorities immediately. Are you going to do this?
Didn't think so.
Regarding Ayers, I think people who have been found guilty in a court of law should face sentencing. This won't be happening to Mr. Ayers, because he hasn't been found guilty in a court of law.
D.
***
***
BLK: There will always be poor people in this world,... because they make (consistently) poor choices in their lives.>>
DAR
Blake is only one car accident (or one serious illness) away from being a poor person. Republicans talk tough and without compassion, until they are humbled. Then they want the dole, they want a hand up, they want society to pay, *for their poor choices in their lives.*
Estimated cost, per family (with health insurance), for paying for the cost of those without health insurance = $1,000.
Blake has no health insurance. So we are paying for his poor choices, already.
D.
***
BLK: "Republican? No- I am conservative">>
DAR
The GOP is reorganizing. Maybe you'll want to rejoin. Good stuff:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stran ... 12244.html
D.
***
DAR
Blake, if you cannot pay the bill, it is automatically eaten by the hospital/system and passed along to the rest of us. This already happens and passes along about $1,000 per year in costs to each family already paying for insurance. Your risky living is mooching off of everyone else's premiums.
It would be very easy for you to rack up a bill you cannot pay. Very easy. It happens every day. Actually, it happens about 5,760 times a day.
Bigd, if you have a bad car wreck, there are lots of instances in which car insurance *does not* pay for health costs. Some people buy this as an option but my insurance company (Allstate) advised buying health insurance for this.
If you have liability and have a one car accident and rack up a $100k bill, you are not covered. If you cause an accident and only have liability, your insurance pays for their health costs (with a limit), but little if any for you. It's easy to exceed the limits even if you have comprehensive.
And a car accident is only one method (a very popular one) of racking up a huge medical cost. Getting diabetes is another one among many. There are lots and lots of other ways, as you know.
D.
note: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 5Feb8.html
***
BIGD: "How much of Wal Mart’s stuff comes from China?">>
DAR
Note: "70% of the commodities sold in Wal-Mart are made in China. [China Business Weekly, November 29, 2004]"
http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/
D.
***
DAR
Things are already going badly and people are denied care. We spend more than any other country and we get this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ9MLCmb ... re=related
And the (very expensive) band-aid Bush tried only continues *the main problem,* government feeding the fat cat private industry (3 min):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLr6_4MZdHs
BIGD: "once government takes over there will be no going back..."
DAR
You're right about that. All first world countries have it, and none of them would go back to what we have. They look at our mess and shake their heads.
D.
***
DAR
You have this idea that single-payer means a free ride. It does not. People pay premiums in Canada, and there are (small) user fees. And general government revenue pays also. But because there is no private insurance company/industry sucking hundreds of billions out of the system, cost of delivery is far less. Plus, there is a focus on delivering solid necessary health rather than all of these companies trying to game the system. Also, all of this time/money/effort to focus on designer drugs doesn't exist. There are no prescription drug ads in Canada. There are many other benefits, and a few draw backs too.
As I said, the US is probably not ready for single payer. Too many paranoid misinformed people. Plus a trillion dollar for profit industry that lives nicely off of this government teat.
So we will stagger along for another decade or two, nibbling around the edges, before it finally hits the fan.
D.
***
BIGD: "Wake up Wal Mart is an anti Wal Mart site.">>
DAR
Oh for pity sake. You asked a question and I provided an answer which cited: "China Business Weekly, November 29, 2004."
If you have a better answer, then cite it rather than tossing the genetic fallacy.
I am not anti-Wal-Mart. I shopped there this evening. I also know the Walton's. I tuned Helen Walton's piano many times over the years before she passed away.
D.
***
"ACLU is interested in making us Communists"
"ACLU gets big bucks from government"
DAR
How unfortunate that you are not interested in being taken seriously.
Someday I would like to find an honest, intelligent conservative who will stand up and defend their beliefs politely and with intellectual honesty.
If you know of such a place, perhaps point me in that direction. All you seem to have here is invective, spleen, constant dishonesty, vile smears and tantrums.
Is this the best conservatives have to offer?
I don't think so.
But if I were a conservative, and I am on several issues, I would be, and am sorely embarrassed by this kind of behavior. It's disgusting.
D.
***
BIGD: [ACLU commies] "From an excerpt... (18 October 1935;"
DAR
You are quoting junk from 1935? Seriously? As I have already shown, the ACLU banned communists in 1940.
BIGD: It is clear that it was founded by communists>>
DAR
That's nice. Those folks are dead. Why should anyone care today? You guys are still fighting communists? Oh how you miss the old days.
BIGD: Jefferson would not address a state issue but addressed it on the federal level.>>
DAR
Good point. The US constitution is after all, "on the federal level." And it trumps the states. If you don't like it, secede.
BIGD: Legal scholars have stated that the phrase does not exist in the Constitution>>
DAR
You don't have to be a legal scholar to know that! It's quite short. You should read it. Better, read the case law on these issues. You really don't have a basic understanding of the precedent regarding the establishment clause.
BIDG: "...the doc**ent states Congress shall make no law establishing religion.">>
DAR
No it doesn't. You can't even get a few words right. The document states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..."
Each word is VERY important. Many books have been written about that sentence.
Maybe start with something simple:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishm ... _Amendment
BIGD: Obama made us all Muslims with his recognition of Islam and his ridiculous assertion that America was a Muslim nation.>>
DAR
When did he say that? Can't you be honest for a minute?
BIGD: "Having a Cross at a cemetery does not establish a religion.>>
DAR
I am sorry you have a fifth grade understanding of the establishment clause.
BIGD: if children want to pray at school they may.>>
DAR
Of course they can, and do. And the ACLU defends their right to do this. But what they cannot do is have a state employee, while on the job and representing the state, lead them in prayer. That violates the establishment clause as determined by the SCOTUS.
BIGD: If a graduating class decides it wants a prayer it may have one.>>
DAR
Wrong. Note:
***
“The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause. It is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which ‘establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so.’ ” Id., at 587 (citations omitted) (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 678 (1984)).
***
Also, from the 2000 Supreme court decision on prayer a football games:
"The delivery of a message such as the invocation here -- on school property,
at school-sponsored events, over the school's public address system, by a
speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of the school
faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages
school prayer -- is not properly characterized as 'private' speech."
In response to the proposition that students had voted for the "invocation":
"Through its election scheme, the District has established a governmental mechanism that turns the school into a forum for religious debate and empowers the student body majority to subject students of minority views to constitutionally improper messages. The award of that power alone is not acceptable."
Making the central case:
"Nothing in the Constitution as interpreted by the Court prohibits any public
school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during or after the
school day. But the religious liberty protected by the Constitution is abridged
when the State affirmatively sponsors the particular religious practice of prayer."
D.
***
[Negative inflation doesn't exist]
DAR
Actually, it does. For Jan through April of this year:
2009 0.03% 0.24% -0.38% -0.74%
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/ ... lation.asp
For someone with your skill set Blake, you're awfully quick to denigrate the intelligence of others.
D.
***
BIGD: Al Gore got a peace prize for something that had nothing to do with peace.>>
DAR
Tell that to the Pentagon:
"Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us"
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... heobserver
D.
***
BIGD: [people] "comment off line about what an arrogant moron you are">>
DAR
Oh I am arrogant, no doubt about it. But is it with any basis? I think one of you conservatives should really set me straight.
Factually, you know.
You might encourage your these off line people to join in and teach me a thing or two. That would be great. Maybe they have a friend who knows something about these things. I am always open to learning new things and would never say I am right and not open to changing my belief about any topic (as you and Blake have said).
That's what cult members say.
I change beliefs when I am given good reasons. That's what impresses me. Good arguments. Not the name calling and tantrums.
D.
***
[Murtha is a criminal and should be in prison]
DAR
If you have information/evidence showing Rep. Murtha should be indicted, I think you should contact the authorities immediately. Are you going to do this?
Didn't think so.
Regarding Ayers, I think people who have been found guilty in a court of law should face sentencing. This won't be happening to Mr. Ayers, because he hasn't been found guilty in a court of law.
D.
***