Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 74
  1. #21
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Party chances

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Yes.
    Let me get this straight: it's bigoted to think that consensual homosexual sex is morally wrong. Even if you bear no malice toward homosexuals, it's still bigoted to have a moral belief that homosexual sex is wrong. I disagree.

    And you think that libertarians who think that the government shouldn't recognize any form of marriage are bigoted? Who are they bigoted against, exactly?

    I think you're mixing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence when you talk about " that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    So I guess, yes, it is unconstitutional, since there is no mention of Gods, Creators or Deities in the Constitution. The Constitution is a legal document, not a religious one.
    You're misusing terms. According to your absurd usage, laws against rape are "unconstitutional" because the Constitution doesn't mention rape.

    Rather, what "unconstitutional" means is "prohibited or disallowed by the Constitution". You have alleged that such a vote would be unconstitutional. Please defend this view, or retract it.

    Well, "too religious by far" isn't really a bigoted statement. It means that she drapes God over her as if she has been specially Chosen.
    That's not what you said. You didn't say "She appropriates the name of God for political gain." You said, "She's too religious." You keep using narrowly-defined examples of political religiosity as though this were the only kind of religiousness. Perhaps it's what you intended by "too religious", but there's a good amount of religiousness that has nothing to do with politics.

    And it is the quantity, rather than the quality, of religiousness that you objected to.

    Self-annointing one's run with one's deity doesn't inspire confidence. And when another potential candidate (Palin) says the same, I get very confused about whether it's really the same God giving both candidates the same message to run.

    And when they end up losing, as did the wonderfully blessed not-a-witch Christine O'Donnell when she claimed God was running her campaign, one has to wonder if these politicians are just making stuff up and lying about their precious link to God in order to attract voters.

    If they said that their belief in God was helping them, then I'd have no problem with it. But they say that God has a direct hand - this is the delusional part.
    I don't think you understand the religious mind. If you were a Christian, and you thought that it was right that you should do [x], [y], and [z], then that means you think it is God's will that you do [x], [y], and [z]. Now, if you're humble, you'll acknowledge that your understanding is limited, but to the best of your knowledge, you try to do God's will.

    That doesn't sound delusional to me, but then again, I'm just an irrational deluded psychotic Christian, aren't I?

    So no, I am not bigoted. I actually have facts to show back what I say.
    You have facts to show that certain elements of your claims are true. The part of your claims relating to your bigotry, however--that these people experienced hallucinations, that they bear animosity toward homosexuals, etc.--are unevidenced.

    The point is that Bachman does fall into one of those camps. I completely do not trust anyone who believes that the Rapture will happen within their lifetime and their mission is one from God.
    And other people "completely do not trust anyone" who has black skin. You're in great company.

    Where did I lie?
    I didn't say that you lied. Work on your reading comprehension.

    Yes.
    Then your measurement of "religiousness" is ridiculous. The Pope is less religious than Bachmann? St. Francis is less religious than Palin? St. Aquinas is less religious than Rick Perry? (Although I'd be surprised if you recognized either of those names.)

    Yes.
    Really? I'm being less Christian by not supporting teaching ID in schools? By not supporting laws against blasphemy?

    Where does the Bible say that this kind of political activism is required?

    I'm sure they believe they are doing God's will. That's no different from doing what your parents taught you. They are inaccurate in that God doesn't exist but they are accurate in that they are following their imaginations of what God (or to be more precise, Jesus, the man) is saying.

    The problem is that Christianity is based upon the teachings of one man but in deifying him, it introduces the illusion that Christians are also talking to God - because Jesus did too. When in fact they are just talking to their imagination.

    I'm not saying they're lying but it is intellectually dishonest to say that your thoughts are from God and not take direct responsibility.
    They are responsible, though, even if they think that their goals are God's will. They are responsible because they know (or should know) that their understanding is fallible, so by taking a particular interpretation or making a particular claim on what God's will is, they are committing themselves voluntarily to a position. This confers responsibility for having done so.

    You say "in fact they are just talking to their imagination." It's a fact that Christianity is false? Can you prove this? Or are atheists now in the business of accepting claims as fact without being able to prove them?

    Whatever form the communication takes is irrelevant - the point is that they are saying there was some input into their brains that was totally external and beyond their direct control. I'm sure it is emotional for some or some new idea in others and maybe even affecting the sensory parts of the brain in yet others.

    All this is irrelevant because it is all taking part in their heads. So imagining that there were some external supernatural force modifying neurons in the one's brain in order to cause new thoughts is just delusional.
    Ridiculous. When I see the color red, I'm experiencing "inputs beyond my control"--I don't control the photons striking my eyes and sending nerve impulses that my brain interprets as colors. This is called "experience". That doesn't mean our reaction to experience is beyond our control.

    And I'm not clear on what your second part is saying. You think that Bachmann thinks that she was God controlling the nerve impulses in her own head? Usually when people "get a sense of God's will", it's about seeing what doors open and close (e.g., if I pray about what college to go to, I see which colleges I get into, what sort of scholarships I am awarded, etc.). The idea is that God controls the events of the world, so He shows us what His will is.

    Well, I don't take any advice or medicine for myself or my children without understanding it as much as I can. So it's irrelevant that they're Christian or that they pray before every consultation that they diagnose correctly. I trust in the system that brought them their degree, I read reviews of the doctor, and I listen to the science and the statistics behind their reasoning.

    If they wanted me to pray for healing then I'd question what the point is, and what the statistics are to the efficacy of prayer.
    I'm not talking about praying for healing or any of that. You have claimed that Christians who think they are doing God's will are in the same delusional category as schizophrenics (people who hear voices). Would you go to a Christian doctor who thought he was doing God's will by going into medicine? Would you go to a schizophrenic doctor who thought he was doing God's will by going into medicine?

    I know but I just wanted to confirm that you knew. You're the one that brought up God's will in the context of medicine.
    Yes, and I specifically said "doctors". You know, the ones with the medical degrees. You're the one who brought up the red herring of faith healers.

    I didn't say that religious people were irrational, just wrong about the deities and wrong if they continue to use thousand year old morality in today's world in direct contravention to actual facts and evidence.
    What "facts" contradict moral beliefs???
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  2. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    22
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Party chances

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas
    Actually, several of the Founding Fathers strongly objected to a two-party system
    \

    Well then what type of system would have worked if the current is so corrupt and screwed up as you say? One single party? And if it is so blatantly obvious that the Democrats are building up for a Socialist state (inferred from Nanny state). The fact that there need to be multiple parties is so that there are multiple views. And everybody can point fingers and say they are corrupt and rich elitist bastards.

    Challenge to support a claim.If you can prove to me that the Republican party as a whole is uncorrupted, pure, non-elitist, and not a bunch of selfish idiots, and yet the democrats are than I can accept that argument.

    It's about elitism and the basic assumption that you don't know what's best for you as much as some elitist bureaucrat does
    How can you say that about the Democrats and not the Republicans? Look at the consistent "wealthy" tax cuts that were created in the bush era for just one example.

    Back to my argument about Intelligent design in the classroom, What right does a politician have to decide if a faith based curriculum should be incorporated into the public school system?

    Please demonstrate any point of policy put out by the Obama administration that has a realistic chance of decreasing dependence on foreign oil.
    First of all the cash for clunkers program was a start. I know that was a while ago and some speculate that there were long term repercussions to it, but also the Obama administration's policy about fuel mileage.

    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/440/reduce-dependence-on-foreign-oil/
    The new rules, which were proposed in May 2009 and put on the books April 1, 2010, will require cars and trucks manufactured starting in 2012 to have an average fuel economy of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016.

    According to the Obama administration, the mandate will also save consumers money and reduce oil consumption.
    There is support of the prior argument.

    Please support that cutting taxes would make our financial situation in the US worse than it is now.
    My comment stems from your earlier statement:
    Furthermore, the top 5% of earners in the country earn about 20% of the income, but they pay 57% of the total tax burden in the country.
    So if the top 5% aren't paying as much, and they contribute well over half of the tax burden, then how is that not a financial loss of money? In a major sort.

    The Problem I have with the Fair-tax system is the chance of evasion. Wouldn't you see an increase in a Trade market instead of a cash market? Digital transactions where Sales tax does not necessarily exist? Paying for your car online, and the payment goes to say the UK where you pay THEIR taxes on it (which would be less) and yet you get the goods delivered from the US factory? That is my speculation for one of the shortcomings of the Fair-tax system that you say would work better.

    Challenge to support a claim.How would you go about transitioning from the current system to the Fair-tax system anyway? What would the impact of the transition (not necessarily the end result) be?

    When your opponent's position is, "you must give me everything I want, or I will not talk with you,"
    To my understanding, the bill that is being presented is one that requires a cold turkey stop of spending in many areas of the government.

    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-would-veto-republican-debt-ceiling-plan-2011-7#ixzz1SWFwt1EY
    The bill would undercut the Federal Government’s ability to meet its core commitments to seniors, middle-class families and the most vulnerable, while reducing our ability to invest in our future. H. R. 2560 would set unrealistic spending caps that could result in significant cuts to education, research and development, and other programs critical to growing our economy and winning the future. It could also lead to severe cuts in Medicare and Social Security, which are growing to accommodate the retirement of the baby boomers, and put at risk the retirement security for tens of millions of Americans.

    Furthermore, H. R. 2560 could require even deeper cuts, since it conditions an increase in the Federal debt limit on Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment. H. R. 2560 sets out a false and unacceptable choice between the Federal Government defaulting on its obligations now or, alternatively, passing a Balanced Budget Amendment that, in the years ahead, will likely leave the Nation unable to meet its core commitment of ensuring dignity in retirement.
    To me it does not sound like it is the Democrats saying "give me what I want or else".

    Challenge to support a claim. I challenge you to show me the Democrat proposal that supports your claim that they are saying "Give me what I want or default"

    Make all states "right to work" states with freedom for employers to take effective measures against unionization (especially with the current corrupt union climate).
    Although unionization in the recent past has been more negative seeming than positive, making very high demands, It does hold its purpose. Where would our workers be if not for unions? Working in horrible unsafe conditions, for the lowest wages possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Between 2008 and 2010, jobs actually grew at a faster pace in Massachusetts than they did in Texas, and “Texas has done worse than the rest of the country since the peak of national unemployment in October 2009.” But as it turns out, Texas is leading the nation in one employment metric — the number and percentage of minimum wage jobs:
    Between 2008 and 2010, jobs actually grew at a faster pace in Massachusetts than they did in Texas, and “Texas has done worse than the rest of the country since the peak of national unemployment in October 2009.” But as it turns out, Texas is leading the nation in one employment metric — the number and percentage of minimum wage jobs:
    So yes, they may be growing with jobs, but it seems only (or mostly) with minimum wage jobs. The minimum wage in Texas at the moment is $7.25 while the minimum wage in California is $8 an hour. is that really much of a gain? Do you think these companies will take the tax money to pay employees more or to keep the profits?

    This, again, is a matter for your county school board
    Well does this debate not go to the state level as well? How would you cut state spending? The republican party is fighting for each state as well as the country as a whole.

    Challenge to support a claim.
    The TSA has not successfully stopped a single terrorist attack since its inception.
    I would love to see support on that claim

    Where is the Constitutional Amendment authorizing the DEA to make the possession and use of any substance illegal? Where is the Amendment to make Marijuana illegal? Or cocaine? or heroin? They don't exist. As such, the precedent of history is clear on this matter: we have to have an Amendment to the Constitution to make a substance illegal. Without this, the Federal government has no right to do so.
    Well where is the Constitutional Amendment saying that Digital Piracy is illegal? Where is the Constitutional Amendment that states that I must follow the speed limit?

    I'm not sure that this is a productive line of discussion on a political thread
    You are possibly right but the point I was trying to make is that each politician should bring their values (be them religious values or not) but they should exclude the CONTEXT of those values (the religion that encourages those values is what I mean by context) out of their policies. Bring the character, not the "God(s)" to the Presidency.

  3. #23
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Party chances

    Quote Originally Posted by AGleo View Post
    What are the Republican party's intentions for this next election?
    To win it, of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGleo
    Do they stand much of a chance?
    I'm an independent too, and I can tell you Obama has about as much chance of winning re-election and McCain had of beating him last time. Several factors support a Republican landslide come Nov., 2012 (note I'll be using only news organizations here that tend to lean left if they lean at all]:

    1.) The census results of 2010 have favored tranditionally "Red states"

    A new study predicts that when the dust settles from the 2010 Census, eight southern and western states will gain congressional seats largely at the expense of states in the Midwest and Northeast.
    According to the unofficial study, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington would each gain an additional seat in Congress, while Florida and Texas would gain two and four seats, respectively.

    States predicted to lose a single congressional seat are Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, while New York and Ohio are each projected to lose two seats.

    CNNPolitics
    2.)
    With 23 Democratic Senate seats and only 10 Republican Senate seats up for election in 2012, Democrats face a daunting initial landscape.

    Stuart Rothenberg; Roll Call
    Obviously, if each party successfully defends 50% of the seats in play in the Senate, Republicans will control the Senate after 2012. They only need a four seat swing as it is for a simple majority. If the Dems lose 11 and win 12 of the 23, and the Repubs lose 5 and win 5, that's a six seat swing; two more than they need for a majority. And there's no way the Dems take the House back in 2012.

    3.)
    Registered voters by a significant margin now say they are more likely to vote for the "Republican Party's candidate for president" than for President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, 47% to 39%.

    Gallup; Jeffery M Jones
    4.)
    Obama's approval among independent voters who he will need for his 2012 re-election drive took a sharp dive, to 37 percent from 47 percent, the poll found.
    Independents fled Democrats in congressional elections last November, enabling Republicans to win the House of Representatives and make gains in the Senate.

    Reuters; Steve Holland
    5.) As they say, "It's the economy, stupid!" Now anyone can spin numbers anyway they need them spun, but this pretty much says it all

    (Btw, it's interactive, so you can play with the graph and compare this "recovery" against several others. Be sure to read the article as well, by clicking on the tab above the graph.) When in October (I believe it was) of last year Obama stated he now owned the economy (I recall GDP numbers for the third quarter were just under +5%, and unemployment, while still above 9% was falling, as it turns out, mainly due to the temporary federal workers hired for the census of 2010!), he then owns the economy. No more blaming it on Bush. Since then foreclosures have risen, not fallen (to their highest levels in fifty years, my house is due to drop in value another 20% by the end of this year, the jobs figures are abyssmal and getting worse, gold is now at levels never seen before in the entire history of the country (hit $1,600 per ounce last week!), the national debt has soared over 5 BILLION IN TEN QUARTERS, the average job added or saved by the stimulus cost the taxpayers roughtly $200,000 per(!), and Obama, who when he came into office Americans were buying gas for their cars at an average of $1.79 a gallon, has managed our energy policy to the point where it's averaging $3.75 a gallon, and he's dipping into the Federal Oil Reserve; the thing that supposed to keep the military fighting if our oil supplies are cut during wartime.

    Long story short: If this were the only strike against him, it would probably be enough.

    You said you'd not been keeping up in a while, and I don't know what you mean by a "while", so I hope you won't find it condescending that I include here the fact that the basic breakdown of likely voters in the US goes basically like this: 20% Liberals; 40% moderates; 40% Conservatives. Both parties garner voters from at least two of the three categories, but you can see from this breakdown that the US is a center right nation, all else being equal, when it goes to the polls. Of course, "all else" wasn't equal in 2008, and Dems got a large majority of the Independents. As the above shows, that's probably not going to happen this time around.

    Add to this a few less important items that will, if they do anything, favor the Repubs; for example: I know of many people, personally, who voted for Obama simply because it was the first chance they'd ever had to vote for a black man or woman for president. Heck, he never voiced an idea or opinion in his entire campaign that I didn't think was a loser, and I almost voted for him anyway! He's not going to get the "historic" vote this time around.

    Right or wrong isn't the question, but "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a popular policy within the military, and allowing openly gay sexual orientation there isn't. Gays are a demographic that voted overwhelmingly for Barrack in 2008, but they're only 4% of the voters; a truly insignificant ratio.

    Then there are the really little things that say so much, such as this last Memorial Day, when, right after laying a wreath on the grave of the Unknown Soldier, as every president has before him, and while, on his orders, American soldiers are fighting and bleeding in two wars, he goes golfing. Talk about sending the wrong signals! You're their commander-in-chief; you've sent them into combat, on the day this country has set aside to remember their heroism and sacrifice, you golf...totally oblivious. Forget what that says about him. What's it say about his staff?!

    Or how about graphically showing what a great ally of Israel you are by having their national leader exit the White House after your private meeting by a side door? Or suggesting, in public, no less, that negotiations with the Palestinians start with Israel moving back to its indefensible 1967 borders. Those were stunners too.

    Or commenting on a local matter from the podium with the presidential seal on it, so that, in the end, the only way to save political face with your base was to have a "beer summit"; perhaps the most ridiculous thing I've ever witnessed from a sitting president in my entire life...and that includes the Nixon and Carter years! Oh, wait! There was that time that Johnson picked up his beagle by its ears for Time magazine.

    Or appointing as your "Green Jobs Czar" the self avowed communist, Van Jones! That had the delicious flavor of irony to it! Obama could have only improved the taste by calling it the office of the "Red Jobs Czar"! (see footnote)

    Of course, these are the sorts of things that most will forget by the time it's time to vote, but I'm sure they will be replaced by new outrageous behavior from this administration in the mean time.

    Now, AGleo, I'm not willing to debate any of this with you. It's all factual, and I don't debate facts. The only thing that isn't a fact here is my opinion that Obama can't win an honest election in 2012, but as you can see from the above that opinion rests on a good many facts supporting its truth.

    footnote: Not to appear bigoted, but it has been my common observation of leftist blogs, newspapers and periodicals,among which the East Bay Express.com must certainly be numbered, that they tend to ask their readership for an amazing amount of credulity. The first two quotes below are from the original article. Taking both as examples of responsible reporting, there is no question that they quoted Van Jones saying he became a communist when the police who beat Rodney King were acquited, and the second quote clearly demonstrates they took him at his word.

    The last quote, from a followup much later, after Glen Beck had quoted the first passage below to show Van Jones was a "self avowed communist", clearly attempts to back away from ever having stated or implied Van Jones was a communist. You can judge for yourself if the paper is being honest with its readers or not.

    Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, "I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.'" Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. "I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary." In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist."

    In 1994, the young activists formed a socialist collective, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, which held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin and dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia.

    East Bay Express.com
    Devising a new strategy for the left went hand-in-hand with finding a new approach in his personal life and relationships. Jones said he arrived at that by harking back to his roots. Although he had spent many childhood summers in "sweaty black churches," and in college had discovered the black liberation theology that reinterprets the Christ story as an anticolonial struggle, he had pulled away from spirituality during his communist days.

    ibid
    In response, an Oakland liberal activist group, Color of Change, which Jones had helped launch but is no longer involved with, began a national advertising boycott of Beck's show. The boycott worked well - more than forty corporations pulled their ads. And so Beck and his far-right minions launched a counterattack, targeting Jones and using an East Bay Express cover story as ammunition.

    The 2005 profile noted that after the Rodney King verdicts in the early 1990s, Jones said he considered himself "a communist." It was an off-hand remark that was apparently meant to convey how angry he was at the time. The story also noted that for a few years afterward, Jones was a member of Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, a group that dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia. Although the Express article made it clear that Jones had outgrown his radical roots to become a national leader of a mainstream environmental movement, right-wingers claimed he was proof that Obama was operating some sort of shadow regime bent on turning America into a socialist country.

    East Bay Express.com
    The only thing the original article talks about Jones recanting is his methodology, not his ideology. They simply equivocate between the two, to make it appear they didn't really say or think Van Jones was or is a communist. I suppose this requires we understand the readership of East Bay Express.com is incapable, in the minds of the creators of the blog, of telling the difference.

    While it is clear the Express editorial staff would like their readers to believe that Jones had recanted his communist ideology (nod, nod, wink, wink), and that, apparently, his becoming the leader of a "mainstream" national environmental organization was ample testimony to his personal repudiation of communism, it remains quite clear that another interpretation of these twin facts is not just possible, but darned likely! We now have avowed communists setting the agenda for "mainstream" national environmental groups in this country.

  4. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    22
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Party chances

    @cstamford

    You make a lot of good points. The only thing that your argument does not address is the politicians that would be winning these positions. I can agree that many of the points above are factual and hold weight (was looking into your sources etc) but which politicians would live up to the claims that the republican party are making about what they would do in office? I refer you to one of the earliest posts where many of the current candidates were called out, and I wonder which of them really stand a chance. I look at candidates such as Michelle Bachmann and wonder. There is a whole other Thread covering her specifically. I won't spell out all of the candidates visible faults because it has already been done here. I understand that there are similar faults on the Democratic side as well however.

  5. #25
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Party chances

    Quote Originally Posted by AGleo View Post
    @cstamford

    You make a lot of good points. The only thing that your argument does not address is the politicians that would be winning these positions. I can agree that many of the points above are factual and hold weight (was looking into your sources etc) but which politicians would live up to the claims that the republican party are making about what they would do in office? I refer you to one of the earliest posts where many of the current candidates were called out, and I wonder which of them really stand a chance. I look at candidates such as Michelle Bachmann and wonder. There is a whole other Thread covering her specifically. I won't spell out all of the candidates visible faults because it has already been done here. I understand that there are similar faults on the Democratic side as well however.
    You saw the same polls I did. If you still think it matters much what candidate the Republicans put up against Obama, then you're simply mentally discounting the polls. You can do that, of course, but what sense does it make to do it? Every candidate comes with liabilities, which is why there are primaries. When the dust settles from the Republican primary, they will field a candidate that will at least be able to beat Barrack Obama in 2012. That's what the polls, and all the other political indicators I pointed out to you tell us. Now, will that candidate actually beat Obama? No one can say. What I am saying is, all things being equal all during the campaign, Obama doesn't stand a chance of re-election.

    Now here's the wild card in all this. I'm pretty sure Obama knows all this. I think he knows he doesn't stand a chance in a fair election. I know he comes from a political tradition (Chicago politics) and an ideological persuasion that fully believes in an "end/means" philosophy, up to, and including the use of violence (Bill Ayers, Bernadine Doren, Van Jones, etc.) As much as the indicators are trending toward a Republican winning the next presidential election if it's fairly and lawfully conducted, there are other indicators here trending toward the next presidental election being anything but fairly and lawfully conducted by the Obama administration and the Democratic Party.

    I'll even make a prediction here: if Obama wins in 2012, some time before 2016 he will be impeached by the then Republican House and Senate majorities. In fact, I'll make another prediction: at least one member of his administration will be convicted of at least one felony committed during the campaign to re-elect.

  6. #26
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Party chances

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Let me get this straight: it's bigoted to think that consensual homosexual sex is morally wrong. Even if you bear no malice toward homosexuals, it's still bigoted to have a moral belief that homosexual sex is wrong. I disagree.
    For Christians morally wrong is a tad more than an opinion and whether there is actual malice involved is irrelevant. The term sin, to act against God's direct orders has severe punishments does it not - it's what the WBC, Newt Gingrich and the Falwell's of the world connect the homosexuality with the destruction of society, if not the world.

    "Hate the sin and love the sinner" is a phrase often used to explain the Christian position - tolerated but
    forbidden. You only need to turn this around against Christians to see how arrogant this position is.

    And if you think it's wrong, exactly where does it fit on a scale of 1 - 10?

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    You're misusing terms. According to your absurd usage, laws against rape are "unconstitutional" because the Constitution doesn't mention rape.

    Rather, what "unconstitutional" means is "prohibited or disallowed by the Constitution". You have alleged that such a vote would be unconstitutional. Please defend this view, or retract it.
    Sorry, are you talking about the actual constitution or the declaration of independence as the foundation of your laws? I have to be clear on this before I can answer.


    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    That's not what you said. You didn't say "She appropriates the name of God for political gain." You said, "She's too religious." You keep using narrowly-defined examples of political religiosity as though this were the only kind of religiousness. Perhaps it's what you intended by "too religious", but there's a good amount of religiousness that has nothing to do with politics.

    And it is the quantity, rather than the quality, of religiousness that you objected to.
    I was being succinct for once and expanded on what I meant during our discussion. I would like to amend it to say "too much of the bad sort of religiousness' but I fear this kind of religion is becoming much the norm in US politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    I don't think you understand the religious mind. If you were a Christian, and you thought that it was right that you should do [x], [y], and [z], then that means you think it is God's will that you do [x], [y], and [z]. Now, if you're humble, you'll acknowledge that your understanding is limited, but to the best of your knowledge, you try to do God's will.

    That doesn't sound delusional to me, but then again, I'm just an irrational deluded psychotic Christian, aren't I?
    Stop using the term "irrational" - it's a strawman and you know it; I have already argued against its use here already. I also didn't use the term psychotic so stop putting words in my mouth.

    I will stand by delusional though and your explanation doesn't make less so. The fact that you require a third-party, outside of your brain, to justify your already held-beliefs is fine if that third-party exists. Many people operate according to a social, professional or legal framework to guide or confirm their actions. From an atheist position, there is a no difference between a clearly man-made framework and an external, eternal deity that is also clearly man-made. The delusion comes in when you claim that this deity exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    You have facts to show that certain elements of your claims are true. The part of your claims relating to your bigotry, however--that these people experienced hallucinations, that they bear animosity toward homosexuals, etc.--are unevidenced.
    Who said hallucinations? But if you want evidence look at the WBC as an extreme example, or Bachman's husband gay-straight clinic as a weaker, but just as disrespectful approach, or read the many stories of gay teenagers that have been rejected by their families.

    The fact is animosity is also a strawman and any less than a fully acceptance that it is normal behavior is bigotry. You can't pray away the gay, it's not something that can be cured and it's not anyone's business what is done between two consenting adults.

    Unless, that is you think that anything other than the missionary position for the purpose of procreation only, that is.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    And other people "completely do not trust anyone" who has black skin. You're in great company.
    So not trusting in a human framework that consistently lies to protect itself is a bad thing?



    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    They are responsible, though, even if they think that their goals are God's will. They are responsible because they know (or should know) that their understanding is fallible, so by taking a particular interpretation or making a particular claim on what God's will is, they are committing themselves voluntarily to a position. This confers responsibility for having done so.
    Yes, but the claim of even being influenced by God's will directly implies an intelligent third party influence.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    You say "in fact they are just talking to their imagination." It's a fact that Christianity is false? Can you prove this? Or are atheists now in the business of accepting claims as fact without being able to prove them?
    It depends what you mean by false. If you mean Christianity as the philosophy of life as taught by the human named Jesus Christ and extended by other humans into 30,000 separate denominations then of course it's not false.

    If you claim that the resurrection of a human, born of a virgin and his subsequent deification, then yes, this is a false claim. The evidence is all around in all the different human religions - charismatic people make supernatural claims, other people follow them, and religions are formed around these people and their supernatural claims. Seems kinda obvious really.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Ridiculous. When I see the color red, I'm experiencing "inputs beyond my control"--I don't control the photons striking my eyes and sending nerve impulses that my brain interprets as colors. This is called "experience". That doesn't mean our reaction to experience is beyond our control.
    Well, that's the point. If you are claiming God's will is externally modifying your feelings on a certain matter then you are being delusional.


    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    And I'm not clear on what your second part is saying. You think that Bachmann thinks that she was God controlling the nerve impulses in her own head? Usually when people "get a sense of God's will", it's about seeing what doors open and close (e.g., if I pray about what college to go to, I see which colleges I get into, what sort of scholarships I am awarded, etc.). The idea is that God controls the events of the world, so He shows us what His will is.
    So how does God control the world without affecting certain humans. Oh wait, you're going to bring in angels now.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    I'm not talking about praying for healing or any of that. You have claimed that Christians who think they are doing God's will are in the same delusional category as schizophrenics (people who hear voices). Would you go to a Christian doctor who thought he was doing God's will by going into medicine? Would you go to a schizophrenic doctor who thought he was doing God's will by going into medicine?
    I would think that most doctors keep their religion separate from their professional duties. There is no evidence that mixing medical care and religion causes harm. However, there is a great deal of evidence that mixing religion and public policies on sexual matters is.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    What "facts" contradict moral beliefs???
    For starters, the belief that homosexual acts are morally wrong.

    The fact is that same-sex attraction is seen in all forms of life and it is completely natural.

    Another fact is that homosexuality causes zero harm between consenting adults.

    And finally, every law restricting homosexual acts, ranging from it being illegal, preventing their civil unions and stopping them from visiting each other's death beds and recently being prevented to swim in a public swimming pool, causes direct harm to those involved.

    Religious stances on sex in general are wrong - abstinence doesn't work, with-holding condoms doesn't work, hiding pedophiles doesn't cure them, masturbating does not cause blindness, it is wrong to rape your wife, etc. etc.

    All these are fact based statements with lots of statistics, studies and science. That you have to ask shows why religious morality is very wrong.

  7. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    22
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Party chances

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford
    If you still think it matters much what candidate the Republicans put up against Obama, then you're simply mentally discounting the polls.
    Unfortunately polls don't tell us everything; Not everybody participates in them. And everything depends on the candidates. You are saying that the McCain candidacy wasn't affected by Sara Palin at all? That a Republican who says that Mosques should be illegal still has a fair chance? Yes their platform may be ok, but the republican party can't win if they don't have a candidate who people can belive and trust to do the job as they stay they will.

    I know he comes from a political tradition (Chicago politics) and an ideological persuasion that fully believes in an "end/means" philosophy, up to, and including the use of violence
    So you are saying that the President will use violence to win the next election? Does that sound logical?

    And because someone comes from Chicago, does that mean they will be as corrupt and as horrible as you say they will be? Yes, there have been a fair number of horrible politicians from Chicago in the past, but from elsewhere as well correct? Location does not imply much in my opinion.

    It would be like saying that Former President Bush is really a racist who cares nothing for the environment and cares only about big oil and trucks because he is from Texas (going off the stereotypes I've heard).

    I'll even make a prediction here: if Obama wins in 2012, some time before 2016 he will be impeached by the then Republican House and Senate majorities. In fact, I'll make another prediction: at least one member of his administration will be convicted of at least one felony committed during the campaign to re-elect.
    And what leads you to believe these things? You imply that Obama is such a corrupt politician. I Challenge to support a claim. you to support those claims. Your entire last post (at least half of it) was dedicated to saying how President Obama will use corrupt politics to win an election, resort to violence, be accused of Felonies, be impeached, but why do you make these claims? I want to see support not just individual speculation.

  8. #28
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Party chances

    Quote Originally Posted by ALEGO
    And what leads you to believe these things? You imply that Obama is such a corrupt politician. I Challenge to support a claim. you to support those claims. Your entire last post (at least half of it) was dedicated to saying how President Obama will use corrupt politics to win an election, resort to violence, be accused of Felonies, be impeached, but why do you make these claims? I want to see support not just individual speculation.
    I think you mistake the kind of claim that he is making. It is a "Prediction", so it is by definition "individual speculation". So discount/ignore the claim if you like, but there really isn't anything to challenge regarding the claim itself. Attack the reasons he gave for it, Chicago politics, "ends justifies the means" mentality etc.
    To serve man.

  9. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    22
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Party chances

    @MindTrap

    I agree with you I was just hoping to get him to support a few of his statements I want to see if he can prove that Obama fits the "Chicago Politics" Mold that he claims the president comes from because at the moment I haven't seen much.

  10. #30
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    741
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Party chances

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    Obama, who when he came into office Americans were buying gas for their cars at an average of $1.79 a gallon, has managed our energy policy to the point where it's averaging $3.75 a gallon,
    Support that there is a casual link between the management of the United States' energy policy by Obama (and/or his administration) and the spike in the average price of gas from $1.79 (when Obama came into office) to $3.75 (its current average), notwithstanding other factors that may be of higher contribution to the rise of gas.

    I expect you to substantiate this casual link and not merely make correlations.

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    and he's dipping into the Federal Oil Reserve; the thing that supposed to keep the military fighting if our oil supplies are cut during wartime.
    On the one hand, you blame your president's management of the energy policy as being the reason for the rise in gas prices. But on the other hand, you fault him for "dipping into the Federal Oil Reserve" which has slightly lessened the United States' dependence on the foreign oil market and therefore led to a slight decrease in gas prices to where they would've otherwise been. Which is it?
    "Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY."--Pennsylvania Assembly

  11. #31
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Party chances

    Quote Originally Posted by AGleo View Post
    Unfortunately polls don't tell us everything; Not everybody participates in them.
    And?

    And everything depends on the candidates.
    The poll I showed you concerned any Repub candidate vs Obama. If you mean everthing depends on what the candidates actually do during their campaigns, then I couldn't agree more, and that's exactly why I said I don't know that a Repub will actually win. I can think of several intances in the past where candidates from both parties have done something during their campaigns that amounted to political suicide that nobody ever saw coming.

    You are saying that the McCain candidacy wasn't affected by Sara Palin at all?
    I don't recall saying that, no.

    That a Republican who says that Mosques should be illegal still has a fair chance?
    As much chance as a sitting president who goes golfing on Memorial Day? Probably.

    Yes their platform may be ok, but the republican party can't win if they don't have a candidate who people can belive and trust to do the job as they stay they will.
    At this point most people know that's a crap shoot at best. Look at all the promises Obama made and hasn't kept, primary among them being he was going to change how "Washington does business". What's changed?

    So you are saying that the President will use violence to win the next election? Does that sound logical?
    He's already allowed his Attorney General to drop the charges in the already won Black Panther voter intimidation case.



    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...n-voting-case/

    And because someone comes from Chicago, does that mean they will be as corrupt and as horrible as you say they will be?
    No, but if someone begins their political career in Chicago as a Saul Alinsky trained community organizer, does legal work for organizations like ACORN, then becomes an Il state senator from Chicago, before moving onto the US Senate, then yeah...they probably are skilled in the Chicago brand of politicing.

    Yes, there have been a fair number of horrible politicians from Chicago in the past, but from elsewhere as well correct? Location does not imply much in my opinion.
    I know of no where else it can be said that four out of the last five governors were convicted of felonies while in office, or that all of them were Democrats. If that's just part of the political background noise for you, then I have to assume your antenna needs adjusting.

    It would be like saying that Former President Bush is really a racist who cares nothing for the environment and cares only about big oil and trucks because he is from Texas (going off the stereotypes I've heard).
    Well, if you can show me that Bush was a racist, or that he wanted to rape the environment, or that he catered to big oil simply so that big oil exectuives could make lots of money (rather than being concerned to do what he can to keep energy prices down, which is part of the president's job), then I guess you could make the comparison. But then you haven't made that case yet.

    In contrast, I have pointed out several aspects of Obama's political career that would reasonably lead one to think he's the typical Chicago pol.

    And what leads you to believe these things? You imply that Obama is such a corrupt politician. I Challenge to support a claim. you to support those claims. Your entire last post (at least half of it) was dedicated to saying how President Obama will use corrupt politics to win an election, resort to violence, be accused of Felonies, be impeached, but why do you make these claims? I want to see support not just individual speculation.
    You don't get to challenge a person's personal opinion when they express it as a personal opinion. I gave you a sampling of facts about Obama since he's been president, and before, when he was engaged in Illinois state politics, that led me to form that opinion. If they don't lead you to form a similar opinion, fine.

    What kind of surprises me is you claim to be an independent, but seem to have a strong tendency to overlook a great many things about Obama that should be deeply troubling. Maybe it's because I lived throught the quite horror of the Cold War, and this country tearing itself apart during the Vietnam War years, and watching while Democratic senators like John Kerry endorsed the policies of tin-pot South American communist dictators that makes it so important for me that Obama appointed an avowed communist to his administration. Maybe that doesn't mean much to you. Maybe you are a communist for all I know. Doesn't really matter to me. You asked for my "thoughts", and I gave them to you. Don't whine now that you've got them.

  12. #32
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Party chances

    Quote Originally Posted by KingOfTheEast View Post
    Support that there is a casual link between the management of the United States' energy policy by Obama (and/or his administration) and the spike in the average price of gas from $1.79 (when Obama came into office) to $3.75 (its current average), notwithstanding other factors that may be of higher contribution to the rise of gas.
    I'm not sure I understand the question. If there is a causal link between an Obama policy or ideological goal (that he has yet to convert to policy) and the increase in gas prices noted, how else could that be shown except by a correlation between the policy and the increase in gas prices?

    I mean, all I can do is put some facts together for you, and you make up your own mind, as I have:

    So you can research this on your own, it's called the Shell Oil Company's Mahogany Project

    The largest known oil shale deposits in the world are in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.5 to 1.8 trillion
    barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable. For potentially recoverable oil shale resources, we roughly derive an upper bound of 1.1 trillion barrels of oil and a lower bound of about 500 billion barrels. For policy planning purposes, it is enough to know that any amount in this range is very high. For example, the midpoint in our

    estimate range, 800 billion barrels, is more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi

    Arabia. Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per
    day. If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that demand, 800 billion barrels of recoverable resources would last for more than 400 years.


    Shell Oil Company has successfully conducted small-scale field tests of an insitu

    process based on slow underground heating via thermal conduction. Larger-scale

    operations are required to establish technical viability, especially with regard to
    avoiding adverse impacts on groundwater quality. Shell anticipates that, in contrast
    to the cost estimates for mining and surface retorting, the petroleum products produced by their thermally conductive in-situ method will be competitive at crude oil
    prices in the mid-$20s per barrel. The company is still developing the process, however, and cost estimates could easily increase as more information is obtained and more detailed designs become available.





    Published by the Rand Corp., James T. Bartis, Tom LaTourrette, Lloyd Dixon, D.J. Peterson, Gary Cecchine

    Prepared for the National Energy Technology Laboratory of the


    U.S. Department of Energy; 2007


    In 2007 Shell Oil released this information on their Mahogany Project:
    Our research to date has demonstrated that our In situ Conversion Process (ICP) works technically on a small scale - what remains is to prove it can work commercially. We aim to advance the technology systematically to the point at which an application could be made to convert the 160-acre RD&D tracts to commercial leases. A commercial decision would be in the middle of the next decade and possibly later depending on the sequence and outcome of research activities.
    R&D Leases
    In late Feburary, 2009, roughly five weeks after his swearing in as president, Obama's head of the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) canceled the commercial leases the Bush administration had granted to Shell to continue research on the commercial viability of in situ oil shale crude oil recovery.


    Dr. Jeremy Boak, a leading expert on oil shale technology at the Colorado School of Mines, says the Obama administration is dragging its feet on oil shale production in the United States much the way the Bush administration stalled on climate change policy.




    The Rand Corp.'s report estimates ten new coal fired electrical plants will be needed for every 1 million barrels of crude extracted by the Shell process (although this figure is somewhat controversial: Deseret News; Would oil shale require coal-fired plants?)


    This is Obama's position on coal fired electrical plants:





    Obviously, extracting crude domestically from oil shale consists in two factors, neither of which the Obama administration is ideologically capable of accepting: a sharp increase in the production of cheap domestic crude oil, and a sharp increase on coal-fired electrical plants in the US.




    Thus, on Feb. 26, 2009, alomst before Barrack and Michelle had completed moving into the White House, the Washington Post (a left leaning Washington newspaper) ran this story:


    In his second reversal of a Bush administration decision, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Wednesday that he is scrapping leases for oil-shale development on federal land in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Salazar rescinded a lease offer made last month for research, development and demonstration projects that could have led to oil-shale exploration on 1.9 million acres in the three states. It was the second time Salazar has reversed the Bush administration. He also halted the leasing of oil and gas drilling parcels near national parks in Utah this month.


    A trade association of independent oil and natural gas producers criticized Salazar's decision. "It's part of a pattern of decisions by the secretary that are detrimental to all sources of domestic energy," said Kathleen Sgamma, government affairs director for the Denver-based Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States.




    A similar analysis is given by the Heritage Foundation:




    President George W. Bush was mostly attacked for wanting to drill too much (or being “cozy” with the oil industry), while President Obama’s policies are rooted in unilaterally shutting down the domestic oil industry amidst rising prices and a struggling economy.
    Yes, the price of gasoline reached historic levels, rising above $4/gallon during Bush’s second term, but that wasn’t due to a lack of trying to increase domestic supply. U.S. domestic supply is but one factor in the global price of oil, and thus gas prices. But when a president purposefully chooses to decrease our domestic supply by 13%, with hopes of driving that supply even lower, and objects to U.S.-Canadian pipelines and new forms of exploration, discovery and friendly importation, the price consequences are real, and should be scrutinized.



    So again, taking this all together, it seems fairly clear to me that Obama is committed to driving up the prices of all carbon based energy sources in an inane attempt to make ridiculously high-priced alternate fuel sources more attractive to consumers.



    Now, I don't know whether or not you consider the above to be nothing but a bunch of "correlations" or not, and I don't really care. It's enough for me to form the belief Obama has acted intentionally since becoming president so as to increase the price of gasoline for all Americans. Certainly, in that intentional act, he has been both aided and obstructed by certain unrelated events (the BP oil spill, which gave him an excuse to shut down all deep drilling in the Carribbean, for example, and the more recent violence in and around the oil producing Middle Eastern countries, for another), but that's all these things are. They do not explain the 67% increase at the pump since Obama took office all by themselves. Bush started a war in Iraq and prices only increased 9% for his entire eight years!




    On the one hand, you blame your president's management of the energy policy as being the reason for the rise in gas prices. But on the other hand, you fault him for "dipping into the Federal Oil Reserve" which has slightly lessened the United States' dependence on the foreign oil market and therefore led to a slight decrease in gas prices to where they would've otherwise been. Which is it?





    This should open your eyes. Notice it's a piece done by CBS News, hardly a right wing hit blog, and it's worth quoting in full:





    The Obama administration said Thursday it has approved the largest ever release of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve to boost the global economic recovery hampered by rising gas prices.

    The release of 30 million barrels of oil is half of a joint effort with the International Energy Agency. Despite the scale, the U.S. release is the equivalent of less than two days' worth of domestic oil consumption and about three days of oil imports.
    President Obama has had differing views about the use of the reserves over time. Here are some more memorable statements from Mr. Obama, compiled by Bonney Kapp of CBS News.
    August 16, 2005:
    "I know that everybody's getting killed by these higher gas prices, but we need to hold on to that reserve," he said. "If the Saudi Arabian monarchy was overthrown and our imports were cut off, you'd be looking at $8- to $9-a-gallon gasoline." (From an Aug. 17, 2005 article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch)
    August 31, 2005:
    "The reserve should only be used in the event of an emergency, and that we shouldn't be tapping the reserve to provide a small, short-term decrease in gas prices."
    July 7, 2008:
    "You have a situation let's say where there was a major oil facility in Saudi Arabia that was destroyed as a consequence of terrorist acts and you suddenly had huge amounts of oil taken off...taken out of the world market. We wouldn't just be seeing $4/gallon oil [sic], we could see a situation where entire sectors of country had no oil to function at all and that's what the strategic oil reserve has to be for."
    August 4, 2008:
    "We should sell 70 million barrels of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve for less expensive crude, which in the past has lowered gas prices within two weeks."
    Later in the day, on his campaign plane, on August 4, 2008:
    "I historically have been very hesitant about that but the idea of a swap actually I think has merit in terms of just short-term effect on prices. I offer no sort of suggestion that in any way that it's going to make a long term impact on the fact that demand worldwide is going up and supply is flat lined at best. And we're going to have to make some enormous adjustments, so the question is, if we're replacing some light crude coming out with some heavier crude going in, is that going to have some effect on short-term supplies to provide people some relief? I think that that's very different from saying we're going to raid the highway trust fund and there's no prospects of immediate relief and if there was then at most it's 30 cents a day."
    March 11, 2011:
    "So we're going to try to do everything we can not only to stabilize the market, as I said, to the extent that we see any efforts to take advantage of these price spikes through price gouging, we're going to go after that. If we see significant disruptions or, you know, shifts in the market that are -- are so disconcerting to people that we think a Strategic Petroleum Reserve release might be appropriate, then we'll take that step. And we're going to monitor very closely."






    Now even Obama isn't stupid enough to think he can "stablize" the market by releasing 30 million barrels of crude from the Strategic Oil Reserve of the United States.





    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Crude-spot-oil-price-WTI-and-Brent-oil-2011-JUNE-JULY-1.jpg 
Views:	59 
Size:	52.1 KB 
ID:	3087





    I know this is small, so for a larger view click here




    Notice that Obama released the oil on 6/23/11, when crude was at $88 a barrel. On 6/30/11 crude had jumped to $96 a barrel; an increase of 8.3%. What an economic genuis our prez is, eh?





    Now, by law he has to replace the 30 million barrels of oil, and the current price is $98.14 a barrel. Thus, this release was nothing but political theatre; and likely very expensive political theatre, and there is no plausible way to accuse me of trying to have it both ways. I'm not "trying" to have it any particular way. As I said, I'm not tied to any political party, but I do have a brain, and I do follow the news, and that's all it takes to conclude that Obama is a committed leftist ideologue who is bent on forcing alternative sources of energy on the American people if it takes spending and regulating them into the Stone Age to do it. I don't want to go back to the Stone Age, okay?






  13. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    22
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Party chances

    @Cstamford

    I can make the same statement too. You seem to be already convinced and bias to be an independent as well. I guess the one problem that I have with your argument is the lack of counting each candidate as a variable. Do you believe that no matter what Candidate was chosen by the Democrats then they would have won the last election? If it was Hillary Clinton instead of President Obama, you think she would have won? Sorry about the short reply; Traveling.

  14. #34
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    741
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Party chances

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    I'm not sure I understand the question.
    You made a claim. Here's your claim (once again):

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford
    Originally Posted by cstamford
    Obama, who when he came into office Americans were buying gas for their cars at an average of $1.79 a gallon, has managed our energy policy to the point where it's averaging $3.75 a gallon,

    I asked you to substantiate the claim that Obama has "managed [your] energy policy to the point where gas is averaging $3.75 a gallon." It's an issue of causation. You must support that Obama's energy policy decisions has caused the price of gas to be where it is today. What you gave me was some contrived editorials about how Bush allowed offshore drilling and Obama hasn't, and how Obama needs to increase the production of oil in the United States (even though he already has, as I will explain shortly). That's hardly support of a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    If there is a causal link between an Obama policy or ideological goal (that he has yet to convert to policy) and the increase in gas prices noted, how else could that be shown except by a correlation between the policy and the increase in gas prices?
    Except that a correlation isn't synonymous with causation. All you've done is taken two separate variables (#1- Obama's management of energy policy, and #2- increase in price of gas since Obama took office) and combined them to boast that one variable (#1) has led to an increase in the other variable (#2).

    Consider this correlation:

    There is a study which shows that, on average, short individuals (below 5'6'') tend to find more employment in the workforce than their taller counterparts.

    I can post a few editorials from sites whether biased or not and say "Look, I just put "facts" together and this supports the case that if you're taller than 5'6'', you're going to have a harder time finding a job in the workforce", but in reality, this doesn't say much about whether actually being shorter than 5'6'' causes you to find a job more successfully than someone taller than you. It merely shows that there's a mutual relationship between the two variables but it doesn't indicate whether one variable directly impacts or causes an increase/decrease in the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    I mean, all I can do is put some facts together for you, and you make up your own mind, as I have:
    You can put together as many facts as you like, but if it doesn't fit the picture that you're painting, than it isn't all that important. It still remains that you haven't supported the case that Obama's policy has led to the spike in the average price of gas in the United States. There are many wrongs and mistakes credited to the president, but this one doesn't seem to be one of them. It also wouldn't explain why many other countries in the world are dealing with high gas prices as well, and in fact, some have it worse than Americans do. Surely you aren't going to tell me that all all leaders in countries with high gas prices are also refusing to issue offshore oil permits, are you?

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    Obviously, extracting crude domestically from oil shale consists in two factors, neither of which the Obama administration is ideologically capable of accepting: a sharp increase in the production of cheap domestic crude oil, and a sharp increase on coal-fired electrical plants in the US.
    This is untrue.

    Notice this chart, from the U.S. Energy Information Administration's website, which which details the annual production of crude oil. In fact, you can see that the production of crude oil has actually increased since Obama took office. The data is as follows:

    2005: 1.89 billion barrels/year
    2006: 1.86 billion barrels/year
    2007: 1.84 billion barrels/year
    2008: 1.81 billion barrels/year
    *2009: 1.95 billion barrels/year
    2010: 2.01 billion barrels/year

    *Denotes the year in which Obama took office

    The chart below puts it in greater context. Notice the sharp increase in production of crude oil when Obama became president at the start of 2009.



    This sharp increase in the production of crude oil was incidentally met with an increase in the price of gas. Odd, huh? I'd wager the president likely wasn't all that in on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    This should open your eyes. Notice it's a piece done by CBS News, hardly a right wing hit blog, and it's worth quoting in full:
    First off to remark, pretentiously, about how I should "open my eyes" to your unsubstantiated position is laughable at best. Judging by your sloppy response, you shouldn't be surprised why I'm not convinced of your position, which you may or may not have expected me to accept at face value.

    This is a matter of substantiation. You made a claim and you're having difficulty supporting it with anything useful. I'm examining other avenues for an increase in the price of fuel and I don't think saying "Obama Did it (TM)" solves the problem. And I'm hardly an Obama-fanatic, just for the record. In fact, I didn't even support his presidential campaign, but that's a different matter altogether.

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    Now even Obama isn't stupid enough to think he can "stablize" the market by releasing 30 million barrels of crude from the Strategic Oil Reserve of the United States.
    The truth of the matter is that the release of the Strategic Oil Reserves into the domestic US market had less to do with "stabilizing the market" directly and more to do with surprising speculators (many of whom had a lot to do with the price hike of gas) and doing so on a short notice.

    In fact, the price of crude oil fell immediately after the release of Strategic Oil Reserves. So it seems to have had a short-term impact, even if it was minimal, but again, it was meant to surprise speculators out of the market, rather than bringing some sort of miraculous permanent reduction in the price of oil.

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    Notice that Obama released the oil on 6/23/11, when crude was at $88 a barrel. On 6/30/11 crude had jumped to $96 a barrel; an increase of 8.3%. What an economic genuis our prez is, eh?
    I'm not sure how you expected him to predict, with any degree of accuracy, that the price of oil would've went up 8.3% exactly seven days later. Especially, when the oil market is one of the most volatile markets in the world (more than two-thirds of the market is based on speculation). It doesn't take an "economic genuis" (sic) to figure out that you can't figure out the oil market with any great deal of precision at a time like this.

    The truth of the matter is the President has very little influence, overall, on the average national price of gas. Oil is a tradable and nonrenewable commodity which becomes refined into other products, including gas. However, like almost any commodity, it is driven by the market forces and the laws of supply and demand. There are too many factors in the increase of the average price of gas to merely default to the position: "the prezident had did it cuz he wunts us to be commies liek him,,, LULZ!!!"

    There are many factors which contribute to a rise in the price of gas. The price of oil is only one of those factors. A major factor in this is the recent instability in the Middle East, especially in Libya which has led to an overall decline in the production of oil on the global market and a hesitation by OPEC countries (like Saudia Arabia) to make up for the shortfall. Disruption of these global energy lines creates instability in the price of gas at home.

    This instability led many speculators to predict higher prices which only increased the price of gas and led to a downward spiral and unstable oil market.

    You must also factor in the rising demand of oil by the two economic giants, China (at a rate of nearly 5% per year) and India. Since demand is being increased by these countries, but production is not keeping up with the pace, this inevitably leads to higher prices.

    Now you must remember that gas prices tend to increase at a quicker rate than when they decline. It usually takes much longer for prices to decline at any steady rate than for them to spike. So it's expected that prices take longer to stabilize once they have been hovering around the $100/barrel mark for quite some time.

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    [LEFT]Now, by law he has to replace the 30 million barrels of oil, and the current price is $98.14 a barrel. Thus, this release was nothing but political theatre; and likely very expensive political theatre,
    There is some reasonable grounds to point to the release as being partly a political stunt in a move to do something...anything, at a time when the price of gas was continually rising. But overall, you've grossly overestimated the influence of the president on the price of gasoline on the daily markets.
    Last edited by KingOfTheEast; July 21st, 2011 at 06:19 PM.
    "Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY."--Pennsylvania Assembly

  15. #35
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Party chances

    Quote Originally Posted by AGleo View Post
    @Cstamford

    I can make the same statement too. You seem to be already convinced and bias to be an independent as well.
    Two things: you can make any statement you feel like making, and it's fine with me. Second, being an independent doesn't mean being unable to form an opinion based on facts.

    I guess the one problem that I have with your argument is the lack of counting each candidate as a variable. Do you believe that no matter what Candidate was chosen by the Democrats then they would have won the last election? If it was Hillary Clinton instead of President Obama, you think she would have won? Sorry about the short reply; Traveling.
    I didn't give you an "argument". I gave you an 11 point spread on a national poll conducted by Gallup, a long-standing and world famous polling organization. I know it sounds weird, but I tend to form my opinions about what people are thinking from polls that ask them what they are thinking.

    How do you do it?

    ---------- Post added at 09:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:49 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by KingOfTheEast View Post
    You made a claim.
    And I stand by it.

  16. #36
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    381
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Party chances

    @cstamford

    Reading through your prior posts, I cannot find any examples of Obama's "corruption" other than the case of one man bringing a billy club to a polling station in Philadelphia. Also, it's worthy of note that the case was narrowed, not dismissed.

    At first, charges were against the New Black Panthers, Jerry Jackson, and Samir Shabazz. Later, charges against the Panthers and Jackson were dropped, since it was only Shabazz that brought a billy club, thus physically intimidating voters.

    No complaints were filed by any voters.
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Bla...#Samir_Shabazz)

    So, how exactly is Obama "corrupt"? Because he's from Chicago...?
    "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because they have to say something."-Plato

  17. #37
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Party chances

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLocke View Post
    @cstamford

    Reading through your prior posts, I cannot find any examples of Obama's "corruption" other than the case of one man bringing a billy club to a polling station in Philadelphia. Also, it's worthy of note that the case was narrowed, not dismissed.
    Okay, if you'd rather I use that language, it was "narrowed" to the point of being effectively dismissed. As for a lack of any documented cases of corruption by Obama in office, two things should have jumped out at you:

    1.) Had there been any, he wouldn't be running for re-election. Instead, he'd be being impeached right now.

    2.) I made a prediction that his admin would engage in corruption at some time during his re-election campaign. For a prediction, all I need is a demonstrated tendency; a broad tolerance for advocates of change who either endorse or commit acts of illegal violence as a means of bringing about that change. I gave that in my prior posts. Further, I did not predict Obama himself would engage in any such actions. Rather, I predicted someone in his admin would be prosecuted for a felony violation of the fair elections laws, and that Obama would be impeached before serving out his second term if re-elected.

    At first, charges were against the New Black Panthers, Jerry Jackson, and Samir Shabazz. Later, charges against the Panthers and Jackson were dropped, since it was only Shabazz that brought a billy club, thus physically intimidating voters.

    No complaints were filed by any voters.
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Bla...#Samir_Shabazz)
    This just illustrates why I don't recognize Wikipedia as an authoritative source for much of anything that's even slightly controversial. Obviously a complaint was registered by the concerned citizen who made the video, and posted it on YouTube.

    So, how exactly is Obama "corrupt"? Because he's from Chicago...?
    I think you're asking what my evidence is that a) the Chicago statewide political machine has been, and therefore probably still is, corrupt, and b) that Obama has benefited greatly from that political machine? Well, my evidence as to (a) is the well reported and widely known fact of corruption in Illinios statewide politics:

    CHICAGO -- At a press conference here Tuesday announcing federal corruption charges against Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, FBI Special Agent Robert Grant said that "if [Illinois] isn't the most corrupt state in the United States, it is one hell of a competitor."
    The arrest of Gov. Blagojevich is one more chapter in a long, bipartisan history of corruption that has seen roughly 20% -- one in five -- of the state's chief executives indicted or convicted of felonies in the past century.

    The Wallstreet Journal.politics.com
    See also:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Illinois (note, I'll use this source, because this is such a non-controversial issue!)

    Illinois’ official slogan is the “Land of Lincoln,” but an equally apt descriptor would be the “Land of Greased Palms.”
    The state, Cook County and its governmental seat, Chicago, have a long history of corruption by elected and appointed officials.

    At least 79 elected officials have been convicted of wrongdoing since 1972

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28141995...ic-corruption/
    Reach as far back into Illinois history as you like and your hands will likely come out dirty. Blagojevich is the sixth Illinois governor to be subjected to arrest or indictment — seventh if you count Joel Aldrich Matteson (governor from 1853-1857), who tried to cash $200,000 of stolen government scrip he "found" in a shoebox. Matteson pulled a "how-did-that-get-there?" excuse and escaped indictment by promising to pay it back. (Oddly, this isn't Illinois's only shoebox-full-of-money scandal; after former secretary of state Paul Powell's death in 1970, a search of his home revealed shoeboxes full of hundreds of thousands of dollars in checks made out to him by unsuspecting Illinois residents who thought they were paying license plate registration fees).

    Time.com
    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...#ixzz1SuGXGfOC
    Okay, so we've got the fact I alluded to solidly and widely reported by some of the most left leaning news organizations in the entire US; those one would expect to be the most lenient in their reportage. So my (a) is solidly in evidence.

    As for my (b), well, that's simply a fact. Obama is, after all, our first black president, after spending less than one full term as the Senator from Illinois, and less than two terms in the state legislature. That's being "successful" in any man's language.

    But, I can hear you thinking as you read this, this still doesn't conclusively prove Obama benefited from corrupt Chicago politics. Perhaps he was simply a stellar state senator who aggressively represented his constituents, who then elected him to the US Senate. Well, of course, anything is possible, but for those interested in the evidence, the NYT reported that 130 times in his eight years in the Illinois State Senate, he voted "present", rather than take a position and actually represent his constituents.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us...s/20obama.html

    While voting "present" in the Illinois state senate is not uncommon, that's really the point. When one is casting about for a reason that explains a meteoric rise within a political machine that is notoriously corrupt, doing what is benignly and commonly done in office is inadequate as a reason. Doing what is beneficial for a constituency with a great deal of political influnece, such as the corrupt and powerful Chicago machine, is a much better candidate.But even here, if it were not for his deep involvement with organizations like ACORN, spiritual ministers like Jeremiah Wright, and political activists like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Doren, with whom he has both social and political links, I'd probably reserve judgment. Given those additional political connections, I can't help but form an opinion here that he is perfectly comfortable with an ends/means approach to almost any political problem that gets in the way of fundamentally changing this into a solidly socialistic nation.

    That said, I'm not trying to convict him of anything; simply explaining my personal opinion of the man and his administration.

  18. #38
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    381
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Party chances

    Cstamford,

    No, the case wasn't "effectively dismissed". Shabazz faced the charges.

    So you defend your "prediction" because Obama is both successful and from Chicago, but with no actual evidence of his own (or his campaign's) corruption? Just because some other candidates who promised "change" (which is an incredibly broad group of individuals) engaged in corrupt acts does not mean that Obama's campaign will. Since there were no recorded cases of Obama's campaign using corrupt tactics during the 2008 race, why would he bother using them in 2012?

    Thus, your argument seems to be similar to arguing that just because a shape has four sides (promise for change), it will be square (corrupt), which obviously makes little sense due to the existence of non-equilateral rectangles (ignoring the possibility of candidates who don't promise change being corrupt).

    Just because the journalist videotaped the Panthers doesn't mean he lodged a formal complaint- it's entirely possible that he didn't bother.

    Still, I concede your right to believe what you believe, and that it might be possible (although I doubt it).
    "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because they have to say something."-Plato

  19. #39
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Party chances

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLocke View Post
    No, the case wasn't "effectively dismissed". Shabazz faced the charges.
    In what meaningful sense did he "face the charges?" What was his punishment for his clear and blatantly racist-motivated intimidation at the voting booths? Was he charged with a hate crime, as a white person who engaged in that sort of behavior would have been? Was he sentenced to any sort of criminal or civil punishment whatsoever? Please provide the specifics. You can consider this a formal challenge.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  20. #40
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Party chances

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLocke View Post
    Cstamford,

    No, the case wasn't "effectively dismissed". Shabazz faced the charges.
    Shabazz was convicted in a default judgment. He was neither fined nor imprisoned nor placed on parole. Call it what you will. I'll continue to call it "effectively dismissed", and you can continue to fuss over the technical meanings as a way to ignore the substance of the case's conclusion.

    I notice you didn't mention anything about the testimony of the career lawyers who resigned over the political prosecution of this case; who testified under oath they had been told the Obama Justice Department was not going to be enforcing civil rights laws against minorities? Why was that?

    So you defend your "prediction" because Obama is both successful and from Chicago, but with no actual evidence of his own (or his campaign's) corruption?
    If all you've got as a come back is mischaracterizing what I've said, then I have to assume you've got zip. Here on planet earth, if you succeed in a den of thieves, and obviously do so with their political support, it's considered evidence the thieves find you useful for their purposes. You're suggesting, in effect, that Blago had no reason whatsoever to suppose he could sell the Obama's vacated senate seat in exchange for a position in Obama's administration, and I happen to think that sort of suspension of belief is absurd, given it includes your obvious ignoring of other people with political clout (or seeking it) in Chicago, like Ayers, Doren, Rezko, etc. What should be surprising is how much we know about Obama's unsavory associates, given the considerable effort expended to keep them from a full and open public scrutiny, abetted by a willing mainstream media to close one eye during the 2008 campaign.

    Just because the journalist videotaped the Panthers doesn't mean he lodged a formal complaint- it's entirely possible that he didn't bother.
    Possible, but even if true, the tape itself is the complaint, and the investigating agencies and the prosecutor, who both used it, are the representatives of the voters. When they complain the voters are complaining; which prompts the question: why are you grasping at such straws in some pathetic attempt to lodge the obviously false claim that no voters ever complained?

    Still, I concede your right to believe what you believe, and that it might be possible (although I doubt it).
    Thanks. I concede your right to disagree with my belief. Btw, it's "it might be true", or if that rankles, "it's possible", or even the more polemical "it's just possible". The phrase "it might be possible", referring to a proposition that is obviously both physically and logically possible, is simply redundant. After all, it's not like I'm predicting Obama will swim across the Pacific in less than ten minutes, or cause the proposition, "If all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is moral" to become false.

    Now that we've got all that out of the way, what was your real issue you wanted to bring up; you know, the one you haven't mentioned so far?

 

 
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •