What you are about to read if you choose to is my personal perceptions. They are in no way indorsed or necessarily reflect the views of the DNC, GOP, FEMA, FBI, CIA, CDC, NFL, MLB, NBA or any other member of the alphabet soup brigade.

At the start of this year I had pretty much made up my mind that for the first time in my voting history I was willing to disregard the GOP out of hand. I personally feel that this administration will need to have 2 or 3 administrations completely tank it sometime in the future for them to fight their way out of the bottom 5 worse presidents in history. Up until the run up for the congressional elections a couple of years ago the GOP was pretty much rubber stamping whatever Bush asked for. The GOP has had the White House for 20 of the last 28 years and they have controlled congress for most of the last 17 years. I feel that the party has gotten away from what I thought was some of the core beliefs that I happened share. I’m not going to get bogged down in these because as I said at the outset this is my perception and it really has no relevance to the thoughts I am putting forth here. Besides, as I continue on you may get an idea what some of them are.

I felt that the GOP was bound and determined to continue marching to the beat of the drummer from the far right. They had only one guy on the ballot that I could see myself voting for and his chances of getting the nomination were about as good as Edwards getting the Democratic nomination. To my shock he wound up taking the nomination. Now I had to go back and rethink this.

At this point I was looking at this as a can’t lose election from my point of view. Let’s face it; the bar with Bush in office is not set very high. I also think that as much as we as a country believe we drive world events I think that some of these events are going to be driving us no matter who is in office. Both of these men in my opinion were qualified to be president and although they have differing views to achieve the same goals I see the possibility that we can take two different roads to get to the same place. I don’t think that one path is the path of destruction anymore than the other is the path to success. I think that with Iraq in particular we will have to revaluate what we will consider to be a successful end from what we would have at the beginning of war no matter who is our president.

John McCain is a man that I admire greatly. His service to our country is above approach. The courage and skill he has shown in dealing with the challenges in his life through all these years deserves to be respected by each and every person that calls this country home.

On issues that he has not agreed with in the past he has split with his party and held to these convictions. One of main reasons (by is own admission) for electing him this year was one of the main reasons he couldn’t get the Republican nomination in 2000.

As more time elapsed between when McCain had sealed up the nomination and the republican convection I was mulling this over again and then McCain made my decision for me. He chose Palin as his running mate.

I do understand the decision. In order to get elected he was probably going to need more support from the parties right. Some idiot thought that they could take away some of the Clinton voters from Obama and shore up support from the right. For me this was his first big test of the type of decision making we can expect as president. He failed miserably. I could have accepted a running mate from the far right. After all you have to get elected before you can do anything and Lieberman or Ridge was not going to get it done for him on Election Day. But damn, they couldn’t find someone from the far right who was even slightly qualified to be vice-president let alone being ready to assume the duties of the president? Mayor of a town of 6000 and a couple of years as the Governor of Alaska doesn’t even come close. Even Alaskans themselves know that they face very different challenges than most of us in the lower 48. My state has over 3 times the population. 4 international ports, 2 of them major, a much larger economy and our governor has been in office for 4 years and state government for many years before that and I wouldn’t want her as a vice presidential running mate either. I will however vote for her reelection.

The few times that the campaign has let Palin say anything outside of scripted campaign rallies I have found her downright painful to listen to. She talks in circles. She doesn’t seem to have a clue about what she is saying if it’s anything other than how John and her are “Mavrick’s” that are going to shake up Washington. The campaign has her playing cheerleader. She has said nothing that I’ve heard of any substance that would make me think I may be wrong about her qualifications. Tina Fey’s impression of her is more coherent than listening to her. I’m not even going to get into the troppergate thing that may or may not be anything. But in my opinion it shows me McCain’s decision process is flawed if they really think this is the best they could do. I do think that she may have a very bright future ahead of her. Maybe even on fox news or on a national ticket at a later date. I think that the next time we see her on the national stage after this election she will be much better than she is now. She needs more time in the minors before she is ready to step up to the majors. Providing of course they lose this election.

I’m also disturbed by McCain’s own admission that the economy is not his strongest area of expertise. This in itself wouldn’t be as big of a deal if I felt he had someone on his team that this was a strong suit but I’m not so sure he does. I found his statement a couple of months ago that the economy was strong quite telling. I know that the crises we now find ourselves in now caught just about everyone off guard. While no one should escape blame this was a house of cards that has been building up before Bush. But deregulation of the banking industry got the sub-prime mortgage off the ground that in turn spawned one of the biggest contributors to this mess the selling of “derivatives”. Guaranties that even these loans that never should have been made should default will they will be repaid if the mortgage company bought these “directives”. Now that sounds a lot like insurance to me but they couldn’t call it insurance because then a) it would be regulated and b) then they would have had to have the funds set aside to cover them. While deregulation in some industries has worked and worked well in this case unlike many of the others we had no way to protect ourselves. It’s not the same as moving to a different phone company or picking a different airline.

As someone who makes somewhat less than $250,000 a year and not currently paying taxes on my medical coverage I personally will come out ahead on my taxes with Obama’s plan as it is now. Having said that if paying some higher taxes now will take some of the burden off my son and then his kids I would pay them. We are in the hole. It needs to be paid for. What’s why we are into China for $500 billion now and the deficit that was such a bad thing during Regan and is acceptable to Bush keeps climbing. I am not an economist by any stretch of anyone’s imagination but even I know something has to give if you make $100 but your expenses are $150.

Prior to G.W. Bush I though that the GOP was the stronger party for foreign policy issues but not anymore. I think that if we are going to hold ourselves up as world leaders we need to conduct ourselves as such. The Bush policy of if your not with us your against us has turned both friends and foes against us or if not against us then keeping their distance.
I don’t think that McCain would be as woefully bad has Bush has been but I think that Obama will have a better chance of helping to heel this rift we have built for ourselves with a large part of the world over the last 5 or 6 years. Even Regan figured out that nothing changes if you just keep the status quo. We cannot be engaged in what is an ever shrinking world if we cannot understand that just because we want someone to act in a certain way it may not be right for them. We stand a better chance of making the changes we would like if everyone can be partners in the process and are not being dictated to. Just read the reactions in this forum when some of this gets heated. It quickly slides to name calling, labels and people get defensive. Do you think its any different when dealing with entire nations?

This same line of thinking has been spread by a small percentage of GOP members towards our own citizens. Some of these people feel that if some of us don’t see things as they do then we are un-American. I would love to know who and when we made this very small percentage of people the countries consciences. I personally resent this. To the best of my knowledge we live in a country of free speech and the free flow of ideas I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. I don’t expect everyone to even respect my views. I do expect the respect of my right to have my own views.

Finally, I just see more upside with Obama. I didn’t vote for Regan in his first term but even though I didn’t support him I could see why he was so widely supported. He was eloquent and you could tell that be believed everything he was saying even though you may not agree with all of it. His vision of what America could be again showed that the country needed change after the Carter years. I hoped his message would come true but I voted John Anderson at the time. After he showed that he could walk the walk as well as talk the talk I voted for him in his second term.

In hindsight most of Regan’s vision was correct. At that time a movement to the right was probably the right thing for our country. The nation was too far to the left and the Democratic Party found itself out of step. This time I don’t know if our nation has been moved too far to the right or if the Republican Party just made the wrong choice the last 8 years but I think it now finds itself out of step just as the democrats did in 1980.

Before Obama I have not seen anyone even close to Regan as far as being able to convey the sense of hope and change that resonates with as many people. While I have no doubt that McCain would do a better job than Bush he is too close to the status quo. With McCain’s very poor decision of a running-mate I’m willing to roll the dice on my gut.

As you listen to the stump speeches and the political pundits tell you what their man is going to do for you over the next 4 to 8 years remember that George W Bush stated in one of the debates prior to his first term that United States was not going to be involved in “nation building”. Well, I think that world events conspired to flush that one down the toilet. Neither of these men will be able deliver everything they are promising. Neither of these men is going to be the total disaster we have already endured in the last 6 years or so. None of us is going to get everything we want from either of these men. Nor will we ever no matter who is running.

All though I think that Obama is the right choice now if this was 2000 and not 2008 I could see myself voting for McCain easily. If he can somehow pull this off I won’t be considering it a defeat either personally or for the nation. But other than McCain’s family and friends few people in this nation will be praying for his survival more than I.

Obama is a :q:q:q:qing MARXIST. It's not difficult to understand unless you have your head up your ass!!!!
KS

Obama is a :q:q:q:qing MARXIST. It's not difficult to understand unless you have your head up your ass!!!!
KS

Ah yes, A careful well reason response to my thread. And here I thought all I would get is garbage. Well done.

Thank you maverick - that is just "maverick-y" to quote tina palin...:)

So, it looks like in the past you have voted GOP?

I do think it odd that everyone is so afraid of change - when obviously after the 20 out of 28 years in the white house and 17 out of 19 years controlling congress it is pretty obvious we need change, and not someone who really is just preaching 'status quo' except on a couple of very tiny things (earmarks - which make up .5% of the budget, and maybe something else).

This same line of thinking has been spread by a small percentage of GOP members towards our own citizens. Some of these people feel that if some of us don’t see things as they do then we are un-American. I would love to know who and when we made this very small percentage of people the countries consciences. I personally resent this. To the best of my knowledge we live in a country of free speech and the free flow of ideas I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. I don’t expect everyone to even respect my views. I do expect the respect of my right to have my own views.

The right has been taken over by a small elitist group that does think they have the right to dictate to the rest of the nation how we should 'be'. The party has bowed to those few, and it really needs to figure out what it really stands for. Is it the party of William Buckley and Ronald Reagan, or is it the party of Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin?

I respected the party of Bill Buckley and Reagan (although I didn't agree with them), the new GOP is too much of a contradiction when compared to that buckley/reagan standard for me understand where it really 'stands' other than to attack us with the politics of fear and hate.

And to quote Carville - "It's the economy stupid". This election it really is all about the bottom line. It took a liberal democrat to get us out of the last mess. I think it will take another one to get us out of this mess.

Again - thanks :)

Puting my dislike and mistrust for blacks aside, My true gut feeling is that Obama is not qualified to be president.
The upside for Obams is at leaste what knowledge he lacks in foreign affairs, his running mate is well versed.
I don't think the short time he has been a senator, and hardly showing up to vote on issues or, voting "present," which is like not voting at all, doesn't qualify him to lead the country.
On the flip side of that, McCain's running mate is equally unqualified.
So now, we voters must make a bad circumstance better.
It isn't going to happen, no matter who is elected.
The democratic leadership in both the house and senate will stagnate any meaningful advancement of prosperity in this country for years to come.
I think had Hillary or Romney been chosen, the chances of some real progress would have been realized.
We are at a point where we must choose the best of the worse.
This is unfortunate with all the capable people that could be running for the presidency.
As discouraging as it is, we still must do our civic duty, and elect one of these two men.
Voting still does give us the right to complain, and if we choose not to excersize that right, then we get what we deserve.
Bob.

Thank you maverick - that is just "maverick-y" to quote tina palin...:)

So, it looks like in the past you have voted GOP?

I do think it odd that everyone is so afraid of change - when obviously after the 20 out of 28 years in the white house and 17 out of 19 years controlling congress it is pretty obvious we need change, and not someone who really is just preaching 'status quo' except on a couple of very tiny things (earmarks - which make up .5% of the budget, and maybe something else).Not all change is good, and we've seen the "benefits" of "change" under Presidents like Jimmy Carter (Misery Index, anyone?) and Clinton (Assault Weapons ban, anyone?), and we don't want Obama's kind of change that equals more government control and less freedom.

I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand.

Well at least Carter managed to get Egypt and Israel to sign a peace treaty.
Things were good under Clinton although it could be said the luck of the times had a lot to do with that.
We had the 10 years between the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of Al Quayda.
Gas was historically at it's adjusted for inflation lowest price ever at 1 dollar a gallon for regular.
The artificial housing bubble was just starting to grow and there would be many years of profits.
And Clinton was an intellectual policy wonk with an equally capable wife.
Bush had much more challenging times and being an anti intellectual ex party boy, made many blunders, relying on his new found faith and his simple convictions to guide him.
People are tired of the Republicans and their strict simple ideologies.
My support for McCain is only based on lower taxes which are really selfish motives.
I don't want to pay more taxes but in light of the staggering total US debt, more taxes and less spending are
inevitable whomever gets elected.
I don't want Roe v Wade revisited as to the majority this matter is settled.
Therefore I want more liberal judges on SCOTUS, people who are aware of the modern times we live in and not people stuck in the 18th century with their strict interpretation of the Constitution.
I don't want anti intellectual, anti science, simple minded superstitious people being the "leaders" of the US.
Since when has it become better to elect Joe Six Pack president than someone of a higher pedigree?
There has been a dumbing down of America under the Bush administration.
There is a real yearning for change in the air.
I'm afraid that eratic McCain and not ready for prime time Palin aren't the change the independant and young voters are looking for.

Well at least Carter managed to get Egypt and Israel to sign a peace treaty.

How many other peace treaties did he get Israel to sign?

How's that working out for them these days?:rolleyes:

Meanwhile, Carter couldn't even get our own hostages back from Iran.

Probably better than having no treaty.
And of course we paid off both sides to accept.
We give Egypt 3+ billion a year, only a little bit less than Israel.

Fact is, Israel got bullied. Everybody knows they could crush Egypt if they wanted to, and THAT is the only reason Egypt hasn't attacked Israel directly. Instead, they worked through their proxies such as the PLO, led by the Egyptian terrorist Yasser Arafat, one of Jimmy's bestest buds.

I don't want Roe v Wade revisited as to the majority this matter is settled.
Therefore I want more liberal judges on SCOTUS, people who are aware of the modern times we live in and not people stuck in the 18th century with their strict interpretation of the Constitution.
I don't want anti intellectual, anti science, simple minded superstitious people being the "leaders" of the US.
.
This is why the GOP had to have someone from the far right on the ticket. McCain has said repeatedly that the abortion issue is one that he thinks should be up to the states and not to the federal government. While it’s not the same as coming out for Roe v. Wade it’s as close as you are going to get from a GOP candidate in these times. I think this would be in the front of his mind IF he is the one selecting the next Supreme Court judge.

John McCain also has acknowledged that a lot of the world’s climate change issues are in fact man made and need to be addressed. With each passing day as more studies are conducted and concluded we get closer to this being is the world flat or round type argument. Even the guy’s with their heads in the sand that we have in office now are starting to come around.

He also has come out for stem cell research. Now he would like some limitations to this but I don’t believe it’s enough that it will discourage research in this area like we have now. If that’s what it takes to get the balls rolling again that’s fine by me.

These are the primary reasons that the extremist on the far right were so dead set that he not get the republican nomination. If any of the 10 to 15% of the undecided independents are reading this and you are making your decisions based on the support of these issues I don’t think you will be too disappointed in McCain. Then again he did let them dump Palin in his lap. The wild card in all this is IF he gets elected they almost immediately get into reelection mode and he may be dragged kicking and screaming further right.

I like to pop into some of these forums from time to time to see how others with differing points of view and from other parts of the country see things. I was reading one a while back and I’m not sure but I think it was here. But anyway one of the members from the far right said something to the affect that if McCain wins the nomination then they were sitting out the election. Once again, none of us are going to get everything we want from either of these candidates.

Fact is, Israel got bullied. Everybody knows they could crush Egypt if they wanted to, and THAT is the only reason Egypt hasn't attacked Israel directly. Instead, they worked through their proxies such as the PLO, led by the Egyptian terrorist Yasser Arafat, one of Jimmy's bestest buds.

It's an imperfect world and a stalemate is the best that can be expected in the Arab Isreali conflict.

The Egyptian doctor Al Zarhawi (Al Queda #2 guy) was so upset with the treaty he assasinated Sadat.
Obviously he felt bullied too.
The treaty is a fragile and duplicitious thing.
At least it's still in place 30 years later.
You don't think Reagan would have tried to broker a treaty
if Carter hadn't succeeded in doing so.

I don't want Roe v Wade revisited as to the majority this matter is settled.

That is vague...what do you mean "as to the majority"? The majority of people in this country? You are assuming that. There is no accurate evidence of that. Any statisticial and/or political scientist who know how to read stats will tell you that there is no way to conduct an accurate poll on this issue. Because of the nature of the issue (defined by their spin), any question you ask is going to be leading on way or the other. It is called systematic measurement error.

Roe v. Wade is bad law. There really is no disputing that one. It is blatant judicial activism that has no textual basis in the constitution. Really, it should be put up for a vote as an amendment to the constitution, not decided by judicial fiat.

...I don't want anti intellectual, anti science, simple minded superstitious people being the "leaders" of the US....
...People are tired of the Republicans and their strict simple ideologies...


These statements are pretty obvious distortion and mischaracterization. Care to try and back them up?

Since when has it become better to elect Joe Six Pack president than someone of a higher pedigree?


What qualifies a person of "higher pedigree" more so then a "Joe -six pack"? This is a pretty blatant elitist argument.

A "higher pedigree" [higher education] doesn't mean that they are in any way wiser. In fact, with today's schools, it could be argued that a higher education works against that. For the most part, all a higher education means is that you are more well read. It doesn't mean you are wiser. That is dependant on the character of the person, which the college atmosphere can actually work against. Critical thinking is so subjectively applied at colleges that it is more used to indocrinate then anything else.

It is rather clear, that you are buying into certian leftist talking points without examining them. You are buying into a strawman mischaracterization and oversimplification of conservatives and conservatism (perpetrated by the left and echoed by the MSM). You might wanna take another look at those views...

This is why the GOP had to have someone from the far right on the ticket.

Bush is hardly "far right", given his actions when it comes to spending, perscription drugs, immigration, school reform, the bailout, etc. etc. McCain is hardly a conservative either (though he is most likely more fiscally conservative then Bush, at least on spending). The problem with the GOP is not the "religious right" or "Joe-six pack" conservative, it is the country club republican's looking to moderate the party. They got their candidate in McCain and he has been shown to be a weak candidate.

Foss, I don't think all change is good, and certainly change for change sake isn't good either...

But, at this point status quo (basically what I believe McCain is going to give us) is far worse than the changes Obama wants to make.

They got their candidate in McCain and he has been shown to be a weak candidate.
Thanks to evangelical Huckabee who torpedoed Romney's campaign by purpously staying in the republican race after he had no chance of winning.
If Obama wins there is some irony here.

It's an imperfect world and a stalemate is the best that can be expected in the Arab Isreali conflict.No it isn't. In an imperfect world, allowing one side to actually win DOES resolve conflicts. Keeping them at bay only prolongs the conflict. History is replete with examples of this.



Those who cling to the untrue doctrine that violence never settles anything would be advised to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon.

Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.

- Robert A. Heinlein

No it isn't. In an imperfect world, allowing one side to actually win DOES resolve conflicts. Keeping them at bay only prolongs the conflict. History is replete with examples of this.

In 1947 Israel did not have the forces to run off the Arabs who happened to be living in Palastine.
As such circa 1961 they started calling themselves the "Palastinian"
nation wheras this notion or sentiment was not to be found before the modern state of Israel.
Massive force and violence works well at the right time and place when there are favorable circumstances.
In my parents home country of Ukraine, Stalin deported all the Polish people from Galacia, a territory both Ukraine and Poland claimed as their own for a long time.
This has settled things and there is no longer a conflict over this piece of geography although I think Poland got a piece of Chechoslovakia in exchange.
During a larger hot conflict Israel may be able to run off the "Palastinians" into the neighbouring Arab countries for national security reasons,
but can't do it under the current "peaceful" circumstances.
If the Arabs were to launch a hot war then that would present Israel the opportunity for this kind of ruthless manouver.

Ah yes, A careful well reason response to my thread. And here I thought all I would get is garbage. Well done.

Not a response, but an extension, from a somewhat different observation point, of your own comments. Nice-y, nice-y won't work with someone like BHO, who's full of platitudinous ponderosities that on exploration mean nothing but sound so wonderful that they create great excitement in the low end of the intellectual scale.

Back up, do some analysis, and ALSO explore all B. H. Osama's said over his public life. Then examine his personal life, his antecedents, and those who were in a position to influence him.

He's a Marxist; to think otherwise is to have your head up your ass!!!

It's been suggested that your comment is sarcastic. To state that you might not be capable of such subtlety may be thought of as an ad hom attack, so I won't say it.
KS

Not a response, but an extension, from a somewhat different observation point, of your own comments. Nice-y, nice-y won't work with someone like BHO, who's full of platitudinous ponderosities that on exploration mean nothing but sound so wonderful that they create great excitement in the low end of the intellectual scale.

Back up, do some analysis, and ALSO explore all B. H. Osama's said over his public life. Then examine his personal life, his antecedents, and those who were in a position to influence him.

He's a Marxist; to think otherwise is to have your head up your ass!!!

It's been suggested that your comment is sarcastic. To state that you might not be capable of such subtlety may be thought of as an ad hom attack, so I won't say it.
KS
I’m sorry, being at the low end of the intellectual scale I must have been mistaken about how this works. I thought that I wrote something and then others would come in and write a response or comment on what I had wrote. I had no idea that the idea was to write extensions of others thoughts. I guess I should give this up now because I don’t have the ability to read minds and I don’t have a crystal ball.

I do want to thank you, I didn’t know the meaning of a couple of the multi-syllable words you decided to use so I had to go find the dictionary in the computer I was using. I never had to use it before so it was good to learn how it works. I guess that if I’m going to be interacting with the intellectually superior I should get accustom to it.

In my first sentence I clearly wrote that if you chose to read what I was writing it was nothing more than my perceptions. I thought it was clear anyway. From what I have seen here I thought that was permissible. I didn’t know that I had to be able to write a biography of both the candidates before I was allowed to express my opinion on this site. Someone really should write down these rules somewhere. Being a posting amateur I’m sure that would have helped me out a lot.

I did manage to pull my head out of my ass long enough to look at exactly what the definition of Marxism was. Being at the low end of the intellectual scale and to compound things its been a very long time since I was in school with my intellectually superiors I wanted to make sure I understood it correctly. As it turns out this must have been the only thing I had right. Unfortunately after looking into this I was unable to find what it is that makes him a Marxist. Oh well, I guess I will continue on in my ignorant bliss.

By the way, a fine tip sharpie will work very well at filling back in that comma key when the paint wears off.

Sorry again about not understanding how all this works. I hope my limited IQ didn’t drag down the forums average to far.

Thanks to evangelical Huckabee who torpedoed Romney's campaign by purpously staying in the republican race after he had no chance of winning.
If Obama wins there is some irony here.

Frankly, the best candidate the GOP had, IMO, was Thompson. We didn't have much to choose from. The MSM wanted McCain for the pick because they assume he would be easier to beat. And he is a weak candidate. The fact that the polls are so tied is at least as much attributable to Obama being a weak candidate as it is to McCain. If Obama were running against a strong GOP candidate, this would be no contest.

Quote:
...I don't want anti intellectual, anti science, simple minded superstitious people being the "leaders" of the US....
...People are tired of the Republicans and their strict simple ideologies...

These statements are pretty obvious distortion and mischaracterization. Care to try and back them up?

Sarah Palin's War on Science

The GOP ticket's appalling contempt for knowledge and learning.

http://www.slate.com/id/2203120/

By Christopher Hitchens

Posted Monday, Oct. 27, 2008, at 11:43 AM ET

In an election that has been fought on an astoundingly low cultural and intellectual level, with both candidates pretending that tax cuts can go like peaches and cream with the staggering new levels of federal deficit, and paltry charges being traded in petty ways, and with Joe the Plumber becoming the emblematic stupidity of the campaign, it didn't seem possible that things could go any lower or get any dumber. But they did last Friday, when, at a speech in Pittsburgh, Gov. Sarah Palin denounced (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/24/palin_details_special_needs_po.html?hpid=topnews) wasteful expenditure on fruit-fly research, adding for good xenophobic and anti-elitist measure that some of this research took place "in Paris, France" and winding up with a folksy "I kid you not."

It was in 1933 that Thomas Hunt Morgan (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1933/morgan-bio.html) won a Nobel Prize for showing that genes are passed on by way of chromosomes. The experimental creature that he employed in the making of this great discovery was the Drosophila melanogaster, or fruit fly. Scientists of various sorts continue to find it a very useful resource, since it can be easily and plentifully "cultured" in a laboratory, has a very short generation time, and displays a great variety of mutation. This makes it useful in studying disease, and since Gov. Palin was in Pittsburgh to talk about her signature "issue" of disability and special needs, she might even have had some researcher tell her that there is a Drosophila-based center for research into autism at the University of North Carolina. The fruit fly can also be a menace to American agriculture, so any financing of research into its habits and mutations is money well-spent. It's especially ridiculous and unfortunate that the governor chose to make such a fool of herself in Pittsburgh, a great city that remade itself after the decline of coal and steel into a center of high-tech medical research.

In this case, it could be argued, Palin was not just being a fool in her own right but was following a demagogic lead set by the man who appointed her as his running mate. Sen. John McCain has made repeated use of an anti-waste and anti-pork ad (several times repeated and elaborated in his increasingly witless speeches) in which the expenditure of $3 million to study the DNA of grizzly bears in Montana was derided as "unbelievable." As an excellent article (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mccains-beef-with-bears) in the Feb. 8, 2008, Scientific American pointed out, there is no way to enforce the Endangered Species Act without getting some sort of estimate of numbers, and the best way of tracking and tracing the elusive grizzly is by setting up barbed-wire hair-snagging stations that painlessly take samples from the bears as they lumber by and then running the DNA samples through a laboratory. The cost is almost trivial compared with the importance of understanding this species, and I dare say the project will yield results in the measurement of other animal populations as well, but all McCain could do was be flippant and say that he wondered whether it was a "paternity" or "criminal" issue that the Fish and Wildlife Service was investigating. (Perhaps those really are the only things that he associates in his mind with DNA.)

The Republican War on Science

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/the_republican_war_on_science1/

PZ Myers (http://pharyngula.org/index/member/1/) •
Chris Mooney is trying to kill me.
It's true. He sent me this book, The Republican War on Science that he knew would send my blood pressure skyrocketing, give me apoplexy, and cause me to stroke out and die, gasping, clawing in futile spasms at the floor. Fortunately, I've been inoculating myself for the past few years by reading his weblog (http://www.chriscmooney.com/blog.asp), so I managed to survive, although there were a few chest-clutching moments and one or two life-flashing-past-my-eyes experiences, which will be handy if I ever write a memoir.
If you enjoy the thrill of flirting with danger, there is a website promoting the book (http://www.waronscience.com/), and you can also read a substantial excerpt (http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10084) to get a taste. Or just take the plunge and buy it when it becomes available in September—trust me, it's good, and it probably won't be quite as traumatic to most people as it is to me. It's always disturbing to see the president, the house, the senate, and the entire danged Republican party targeting one's own occupation for destruction.
And that's really what the book documents: a pattern (and so far, a frighteningly successful pattern) of corrupting the science establishment in America by the Republican party. This is not to say that the Democrats are entirely innocent (NCCAM (http://quackfiles.blogspot.com/2005/03/alternative-universe-by-wallace.html) comes to mind), or that individual Republicans cannot be conscientiously pro-science, but the convergence of the conservative/religious social interests and the well-monied Big Business interests that has driven Republican electoral success is also a perfect formula for driving attacks on the integrity of science and science policy.
Good science needs to be independent of and unfiltered by desired outcomes; it aims to describe the world as it is, not how we wish it would be. This often conflicts with short term economic interests, who want that drug they've spent a billion dollars developing to be effective and who want that rare species living on their proposed factory site to be gone and who want those lawsuits charging them with unsafe practices or marketing dangerous products to go away. Much of Mooney's book describes how business gets its way. They found "think-tanks" that flood a topic with pseudo-science, confusing the issues. They dump money on hired gun lobbyists and our representatives, cleverly gutting the legislation that would allow us to act on scientific recommendations. They work to discredit principled scientists who oppose them.
Religious conservatives have a dogmatic vision of how the world must be, a vision based on 'revealed knowledge' and antique sources that often contradicts empirically determined reality and reason in the grossest way. It's not at all surprising that they directly attack science; what's truly weird, though, is how often they also don the trappings of science, attempting to assume the mantle of scientific authority, in confused efforts to "prove" religious beliefs. That's a pernicious strategy that is also undermining science; when creatures like George Gilder or Bruce Chapman declare their version of creationism a science, they are poisoning minds with false ideas of how science actually works.
Mooney does a phenomenal job of documenting the sins of the corporate opportunists, the incompetent hacks, and the sanctimonious culture warriors who are perpetrating this assault on science. He also explains what it is costing us: the sacrifice of international competitiveness, the blown opportunities to invest in the future, the squandering of our resources and the wasteful poisoning of our environment. This is stuff we need to act on now, if it is not already too late.

I have to give away the ending of the book. Forgive me, but really, this is the kind of book where the journey is the reward anyway, and long before it gets there you know how it is going to wind up. Mooney concludes with suggestions about what we need to do—encourage the non-nutball wing of the Republican party, shore up legislation to create safeguards for objective science advising, and get scientists out in the streets with local activism for science (we really suck at that, I know). He also forcefully damns the far Right extremists who dominate the Republican party.In this context, and considering its track record, we have no choice but to politically oppose the antiscience right wing of the Republican Party. This does not necessarily entail an outright partisan agenda. Encouraging the electoral success of Republican moderates with good credentials on science [oh, [I]rara avis!—pzm] could potentially have just as constructive an effect as backing Democrats.

But if we care about science and believe that it should play a crucial role in decisions about our future, we must steadfastly oppose further political gains by the modern Right. This political movement has patently demonstrated that it will not defend the integrity of science in any case in which science runs afoul of its core political constituencies. In so doing, it has ceded any right to govern a technologically advanced and sophisticated nation. Our future relies on our intelligence, but today's Right—failing to grasp this fact in virtually every political situation in which it really matters, and nourishing disturbing anti-intellectual tendencies—cannot deliver us there successfully or safely. If it will not come to its senses, we must cast it aside.
I think there is still a reservoir of respect for science in the US, and we need to capitalize on it before it is corrupted further. Republicans belong to the anti-science party; Inhofe and Coburn and Frist and yes, George W. Bush have made ignorance the party line. It's long past due that we call them on it. And of course, we also have to police the Democratic Party, and make sure they don't also slide into this garbage in their rush to emulate the Republicans.

We Can't Afford McCain and Palin's Anti-Science Beliefs
By John Tirman (http://www.alternet.org/authors/9876/), AlterNet (http://www.alternet.org/). Posted September 23, 2008 (http://www.alternet.org/ts/archives/?date[F]=09&date[Y]=2008&date[d]=23&act=Go/).

http://www.alternet.org/environment/99558/we_can't_afford_mccain_and_palin's_anti-science_beliefs/?page=entire

Their combined anti-science positions may be devastating for the economy, the environment and our health.

One of the peculiar oversights of the Sarah Palin media blitz is her strong anti-science views. In keeping with her Pentecostal faith and alignment with the far right of the Republican Party, Palin is opposed to stem cell research, declaims evolution, and believes global warming to be a hoax. Of her many controversial qualities, this anti-science ideology may be the most troubling -- in fact, devastating -- for the economy, ecology, and health.
If the McCain-Palin ticket is elected, we would have the prospect of an administration constantly at odds with scientific advance. As vice-president, Palin would not only be the proverbial "heartbeat away" from the presidency, but the leading contender for the top spot eight years hence.
McCain himself shows some worrisome tendencies as well, supporting the teaching of "intelligent design"-- the beard for anti-evolution propaganda -- in schools, for example. Overall, the prospect of 8-16 years of this kind of bias sends a chill through the science community, even after years of dealing with the Bush anti-science agenda.
The Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent watchdog group, has documented dozens (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/a-to-z-guide-to-political.html) of cases where the U.S. government has interfered with, undermined, or falsified science in public policy over the last seven years. It is a shocking record, revolving mainly around environmental issues but ranging from abstinence-only AIDS prevention (shown repeatedly to be ineffective) to phony information about breast cancer. Bush cut funding for the National Institutes of Health and the Center for Disease Control, among other science agencies, in his final budget. Overall, he has starved non-defense R&D at a time when China, the EU and other rivals are investing vigorously.
More of the same, and possibly worse, is likely to be in store if Republican rule continues. The right-wing hostility to science is a mystery. Some years back much skepticism about scientific progress came from the left, ire focused on the way science was used to further corporate priorities. But an attack on science per se is now the province of the right wing, partially based on religious dogma (itself reserved to a tiny minority of the fundamentalist churches) and partly another way to divide the political culture into an us (small-town just folks) versus them (pointy headed intellectuals). But whatever the reasons, this steady assault on science is alarming. Why?
Science and engineering remain America's most powerful assets in the world economy. As we have lost steel mills and other hard-hat industries, innovation has become the font of prosperity. Without a robust scientific community, hopes for creating the new technologies and processes that fuel sustainable economic activity will surely decline.
Equally important, science offers solutions to urgent problems. The climate change threat is most obvious in this regard. We need to do more than burn less fossil fuel; we need to find ways to increase efficiency and develop new kinds of fuels to reverse the trends of global warming. Yes, we can do a lot with stronger political will to put in place what we already know about energy efficiency in particular. But given the scale of what we face-including the immense problems stemming from rapidly growing India, China, and other developing countries-new technology has to be a big part of the solution. Science and engineering is what will take us there.
Or consider stem cell research. The potential for developing medicines and other therapies from this research is virtually unlimited. Diseases and disabilities like diabetes, arthritis, heart ailments and other maladies that affect tens of millions of Americans are likely to be cured or their severity greatly lessened as a result. Yet stem cell research is now blocked and would face the prospect of further interference from an anti-science government. The Republican Party platform passed this month states that "we call for a ban on human cloning and a ban on the creation of or experimentation on human embryos for research purposes."
The best young researchers facing this harsh prospect would be better off going to Britain or Germany or Singapore or the many other places where their research can thrive, and where governments recognize its value. New talent in the form of graduate students from Europe and Asia particularly (and my campus is loaded with such young brainiacs) would likely choose other universities to earn their PhDs if their biological research would be constrained here.
In computing science, another field potentially buffeted by McCain/Palin's cluelessness, the "five-year stay rate for Chinese students with temporary visas who received [science and engineering] doctorates in 1998 was 90 percent. It was 86 percent among Indian students," says Computing Research News. Some of these numbers declined as a result of harsh homeland security barriers, sending a cascade of foreign students to non-U.S. grad schools. The increase in recent graduates seeking employment outside the U.S. jumped by 67 percent in 2004 from 1997 levels. With an anti-science government in Washington, the stay rates and new applications both will surely erode further.
This is not a flashy issue, needless to say, for the pyrotechnic campaign we're now witnessing. It is, however, the meat and potatoes of governing. There are certain things government can do to gainfully affect our lives, and promoting science, science education, research, and a spirit of discovery are high on that list. The McCain/Palin shakiness on science issues is not just another occasion for SNL skits or jokes about the U.S. being the laughing stick of the world. They're life-and-death issues for global health and ecology, as well as our own well being.
So we have both an economic liability and a moral deficit resulting from anti-science policies. The economic problem is that the U.S. will lose, possibly forever, its competitive edge in innovation. The moral setback is that we are unable, as a science community or as a nation, to help those most in need of these scientific advances. And of course the immense challenge of global warming-creating sustainable economic growth and equity-needs U.S. technological leadership.
Scientists, who are generally apolitical, are reluctant to call out the Republican establishment on its anti-science bias. But it is time for this to become a campaign issue, because the anti-science jeremiad could actually ruin the country that all the candidates profess to put first.

The disdain of religion towards science goes back to Galileo.
Einstein said religion was a childish product of the weakness of man and wishful thinking.
We need an administration that will move science forward if we are to remain
competitive with the rest of the world which doesn't seem to suffer from this religious handicap.

Scientists, who are generally apolitical....

:bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl:

That is one of the most absurd statements I have read here is a long while! Thanks for the laugh...;)

Well we'll see who will be laughing next week :D

I’m sorry, being at the low end of the intellectual scale I must have been mistaken about how this works. I thought that I wrote something and then others would come in and write a response or comment on what I had wrote. I had no idea that the idea was to write extensions of others thoughts. I guess I should give this up now because I don’t have the ability to read minds and I don’t have a crystal ball.

I do want to thank you, I didn’t know the meaning of a couple of the multi-syllable words you decided to use so I had to go find the dictionary in the computer I was using. I never had to use it before so it was good to learn how it works. I guess that if I’m going to be interacting with the intellectually superior I should get accustom to it.

In my first sentence I clearly wrote that if you chose to read what I was writing it was nothing more than my perceptions. I thought it was clear anyway. From what I have seen here I thought that was permissible. I didn’t know that I had to be able to write a biography of both the candidates before I was allowed to express my opinion on this site. Someone really should write down these rules somewhere. Being a posting amateur I’m sure that would have helped me out a lot.

I did manage to pull my head out of my ass long enough to look at exactly what the definition of Marxism was. Being at the low end of the intellectual scale and to compound things its been a very long time since I was in school with my intellectually superiors I wanted to make sure I understood it correctly. As it turns out this must have been the only thing I had right. Unfortunately after looking into this I was unable to find what it is that makes him a Marxist. Oh well, I guess I will continue on in my ignorant bliss.

By the way, a fine tip sharpie will work very well at filling back in that comma key when the paint wears off.

Sorry again about not understanding how all this works. I hope my limited IQ didn’t drag down the forums average to far.

I just wiped out several sentences I'd written in reply to your attempts at sarcasm. I realized that my comments were too close to 'kicking a man when he's down'. However, you must accept that this is a forum in which your words on the screen form the picture of you which is the foundation from which we judge what you have to say. The, ahh, 'elisions' you offer us seem, in my view, to fit well with your statements.

You are trying to play poker when you only have about forty cards.

I'd be happy to have coffee with you, and argue all these subjects face to face. I live in Metro Detroit.
KS

The disdain of religion towards science goes back to Galileo.
Einstein said religion was a childish product of the weakness of man and wishful thinking.
We need an administration that will move science forward if we are to remain
competitive with the rest of the world which doesn't seem to suffer from this religious handicap.
As a scientist, my life is a refutation of your premise. You've made the mistake of fuddling 'some' and making it 'all'. Thus your generalization won't hold up.
KS

As a scientist, my life is a refutation of your premise. You've made the mistake of fuddling 'some' and making it 'all'. Thus your generalization won't hold up.
KS

Good point.

I think the idea that the right is "anti-science" was dispelled in the "Expelled" thread, and has also been done in numberous discussions here on global warming.

the right isn't "anti-science", it simply doesn't have absolute faith in science; like many on the far left do. The right doesn't view science and scientists as "beyond self interest", corruption or other negative (or potentially negative) influences.

Science at it's best is an incredible tool for discovering (or at least pointing us in the right direction of) the truth through empirical means. But, being created and conducted by humans, it is open to flaws and corruption (both intentional and unintentional). Certain theories can make assumptions (like methodological naturalism) that take them away from being empirical and turn them into fallacious circular reasoning. Any research on that theory is thus a self fullfilling prophacy. Also, when the federal government and politicians hold the purse strings to the vast majority of research grants, science and scientists become inherently political. They have to justify getting grants to make money to live (self interest). So research into ideas based mostly on fear mongering are funded and become a cash cow for scientists.

There is a reason that Ike warned of the "scientific-technological elite" in his farewell address (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html):
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

There is a huge difference between keeping science in perspective (and recognizing corrupting influences and agendas when they are present) and being "anti-science". 04SCTLS, your argument and the articles you cite over simplify and greatly mischaracterize conservatives on this. At best you can say we are, by and large, skeptical of science.

I'll stick with Einstein as part of those "some"

Good point. I think the idea that the right is "anti-science" was dispelled in the "Expelled" thread, and has also been done in numberous discussions here on global warming.

the right isn't "anti-science", it simply doesn't have absolute faith in science, like the left. The right doesn't view it as "beyond self interest", corruption or other negative influences.

Science at it's best is an incredible tool for discovering (or at least pointing us in the right direction of) the truth through empirical means. But, being created and conducted by humans, it is open to flaws and corruption (both intentional and unintentional). Certain theories make assumptions (like methodological naturalism) that take them away from being empirical and turn them into fallacious circular reasoning. Any research on that theory is thus a self fullfilling prophacy. Also, when the federal government holds the purse strings to the vast majority of research grants, science (and scientists) often becomes inherently political. So research into ideas based mostly on fear mongering are funded and become a cash cow for scientists.


There is a reason that Ike warned of the "scientific-technological elite" in his farewell address (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html):Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.


Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.


Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
There is a huge difference between keeping science in perspective (and recognizing corrupting influences and agendas when they are present) and being "anti-science". 04SCTLS, your argument and the articles you cite over simplify and greatly mischaracterize conservatives on this.

You can dance around this all you want Shag, but the perception is that Conservatives are anti science because it intereferes with their religious views.
Nobody is accusing the Democrats of being anti science.

the right isn't "anti-science", it simply doesn't have absolute faith in science, like the left. The right doesn't view it as "beyond self interest", corruption or other negative influences.

thanks for editing your post Shag - this is how I copied it - as I was getting to really give you a bad time about the bolded text...

your new edit is much better ;)

You can dance around this all you want Shag, but the perception is that Conservatives are anti science because it intereferes with their religious views.

I am not "dancing around" anything. I think you know that. What you are doing is echoing a dishonest attempt to marginalize conservatives.

That perception you cite as proof of you point is foster by the strawman mischaracterization you are echoing here. It does not reflect the truth, and is ultimately circular reasoning.

Are you more concerned with perception based on specious arguments and circular logic or the truth?

If all you have as proof is that public perception supports you, then you have no argument.

Nobody is accusing the Democrats of being anti science.

No, people are accusing them of being anti-religion and specifically anti-christian.

While this is somewhat of an exaguration, the reason for it is the athiest and anti-christian wing of the left that does put absolute faith in science. Science is effectively put on a pedastal and above criticism, then that view of science is used as an intellectual blugdon to force their views and agenda on society while stifling desent.

If anything, conservatives are against that infallible view of science. It is a very dangerous thing to make policy on.

Science should be looked at with skepticism, not as infallible.

I'll stick with Einstein as part of those "some"

Appeal to authority? i assume you ment that in jest.

I think the voters are going to marginalize the conservatives and put them out to pasture for a while.
To me this would be an overall good thing.
I have faith in science but not in religion.
Science isn't perfect but there is observation and results and data that can be analyzed and acted upon to satisfy curiosities.
There are discoveries in science that when applied in the real world add to the ease and quality of life.
What has religion ever discovered that has been helpful to mankind.
Since religion has no discoveries or critical thinking it doesn't add anything new and better to society overall.
Religion tells you to believe it's fantastic tall stories on nothing more than faith.
This is comforting to some people because they don't have to do any critical thinking. It's all laid out for them.
I'm with Einstein when I say I agree with the "some" who consider religion a product of the weakness of man.

I have faith in science but not in religion.

You might wanna reconsider that statement. You are admitting that you trust science beyond what reason and common sense would dictate. That is inherently irrational.

Science isn't perfect but there is observation and results and data that can be analyzed and acted upon to satisfy curiosities.
There are discoveries in science that when applied in the real world add to the ease and quality of life.

No, it isn't perfect. So why assume science (in a broad sense) is perfectly trustworth beyond what reason would dictate?

What has religion ever discovered that has been helpful to mankind.
Since religion has no discoveries or critical thinking it doesn't add anything new and better to society overall.

That is a pretty obvious smear. I will let fossten rightly tear you a new one on that, though.

I will say that religion has historically been the greatest force for good in the world.

Religion tells you to believe it's fantastic tall stories on nothing more than faith.
This is comforting to some people because they don't have to do any critical thinking. It's all laid out for them.

Another specious mischaracterization. religion and critical thinking are not mutually exclusive. You are creating a false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)

In fact what you claim people are doing with religion (trusting in religion to avoid critical thinking), is what you just admitted you are doing with regards to science. Thank you for demonstrating my point.

I'm with Einstein when I say I agree with the "some" who consider religion a product of the weakness of man.

Thank you for showing your ignorance, intolerance and arrogant condescension.;)

People with ignorant, vindictive and elitist views of religion like you are why the left is viewed as anti-religion.

Oh the Joy's of the Political Forum ....

"You might wanna reconsider that statement. You are admitting that you trust science beyond what reason and common sense would dictate. That is inherently irrational."

You're putting words in my mouth.
I said I trust science but you added the not beyond what reason and common sense would dictate.
Nor did I say science was perfectly trustworthy either.

Religion has never discovered anything because that is not part of it's mission.
It already has all the answers (like the sun revolves around the earth which is the center of the universe from Galileo's time) so it is not on a quest for newfound knowledge because that may undermine it's authority and power.
Religion in and of itself may be good for those that want or need it but the competition of various religions has visited a lot of misery upon the world.

"In fact what you claim people are doing with religion (trusting in religion to avoid critical thinking), is what you just admitted you are doing with regards to science. Thank you for demonstrating my point."

Science is critical thinking and religion is faith in the incredible and supernatural so I don't see myself demonstrating your point here.

Einstein did call religion a product of the weakness of man so I don't see where the ignorance, intolerance and arrogant condescension come in.

From previous posts it's obvious I'm anti religion.

We've even all agreed believers and non believers that radical Islam- an organized religion, is a threat to the free world.

Obama says he's a religious person but doesn't invoke it much,wear it on his sleeve, or call himself blessed or say that God told him to run.

This is as much religion as I want to see from a candidate.

It's really looking like McCain and Palin are finished and the Republicans may even be routed in a humiliating defeat that will set a new tone for this country for generations to come.

I love the religion discussion.. funny how Christains can't accept other Christians ....

Sounds the same as Politics to me.. who's right who's wrong ... I doubt they'll ever agree. Got to love it...

You're putting words in my mouth.
I said I trust science but you added the not beyond what reason and common sense would dictate.

That is what faith is at it's core; trust beyond reason. I was trying to help you out; All you have to do is replace "faith" in your statement with"trust".:rolleyes:

Religion has never discovered anything because that is not part of it's mission.

Now you are changing the focus of your statement. Here is what you said:
Since religion has no discoveries or critical thinking it doesn't add anything new and better to society overall.
the part about religion having no discoveries is the premise! I am attacking the conclusion.

The fact is that the conclusion in that statement in no way follows that premise; it is an obvious non sequiter.

I was saying that your conclusion [religion...doesn't add anything new and better to society overall] is wrong.


It already has all the answers (like the sun revolves around the earth which is the center of the universe from Galileo's time) so it is not on a quest for newfound knowledge because that may undermine it's authority and power.

Actually, the idea of the sun revolving around the earth doesn't come from religion; it comes from the best empirical research and observations (science) of the time. You are once again making a specious argument; this time by attributing a wrong scientific view to religion.

Science is critical thinking and religion is faith in the incredible and supernatural so I don't see myself demonstrating your point here.

Science is not critical thinking. They are separate ideas. Now you are attempting to redefine science?! Another specious argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma).

Einstein did call religion a product of the weakness of man so I don't see where the ignorance, intolerance and arrogant condescension come in.

Einstein's views and what he said don't prove, in any way, that the view you expoused is not ignorant, intolerant or arrogantly condesceding. All it shows is that Eistein shared that view. Einstein could have been just as ignorant, intolerant and arrogant as anyone else in his views on religion.

From previous posts it's obvious I'm anti religion.

I never said you were "anti-religion". I said your views were ignorant, vidictive and elitist. That is rather clear from the posts you have made here. To imply that people of faith don't think critically is absurd, and insulting because it is condescending. You are smart enough to know that, yet you posted that. That action comes across as vindictive. Your views expressed here are also exceedingly ignorant, as demonstrated by you attributing of the idea that the sun revolves around the earth to religion.

I love the religion discussion.. funny how Christains can't accept other Christians ....

Sounds the same as Politics to me.. who's right who's wrong ... I doubt they'll ever agree. Got to love it...

You think different then I think so you must be wrong !
On top of that because you don't think as I do you will forever burn in hell !!!!!!!

The difference is in Politics you don't rot in hell if your wrong !:eek:
Unless you vote for Obama....he is a Muslim (http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_barack_obama_muslim.htm) .

Since religion has no discoveries or critical thinking it doesn't add anything new and better to society overall.

The fact is that the conclusion in that statement in no way follows that premise; it is an obvious non sequiter

You may not agree with my conclusion but I fail to see your contention that this is an obvious non sequiter.

"Has no discoveries" follows through to the conclusion "doesn't add anything new and better"

"Actually, the idea of the sun revolving around the earth doesn't come from religion; it comes from the best empirical research and observations (science) of the time. You are once again making a specious argument; this time by attributing a wrong scientific view to religion.

Well Galileo broke new science and was suppressed and imprisoned

Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime. The geocentric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric) view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle), and the controversy engendered by Galileo's presentation of heliocentrism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism) as proven fact resulted in the Catholic Church's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church) prohibiting its advocacy as empirically proven fact, because it was not empirically proven at the time and was contrary to the literal meaning of Scripture.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#cite_note-contrary_to_scripture-6) Galileo was eventually forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Roman Inquisition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Inquisition).

"Your views expressed here are also exceedingly ignorant, as demonstrated by you attributing of the idea that the sun revolves around the earth to religion"

You're making a false attack here as the church did suppress Galileo and my ignorance re sun revolves around the earth to religion does not invalidate my arguement

And I was refering to "some" people of faith and not "all" people of faith not thinking critically because they have it all laid out for them.

"I said your views were ignorant, vidictive and elitist. That is rather clear from the posts you have made here. To imply that people of faith don't think critically is absurd, and insulting because it is condescending. You are smart enough to know that, yet you posted that. That action comes across as vindictive"

So ignorant and vindictive don't fit but I don't mind being called arrogant and elitist.

To me it's much better than being a "Joe 6 Pack" no offense intended.

I don't have much of a dog in this fight, because generally I am not enamored with organized religion.

Jesus Christ Himself railed against organized religion, calling the Pharisees "hypocrites" and "vipers" and told them that their Father was the Devil.

That said, I'm not sure 04SCTLS (if that is his real name) understands the difference between organized religion and Christianity per se.

However, trying to compare science and "spiritual faith" is like comparing apples and oranges. They are two different animals. Putting all credence into one and not the other is a mistake and leads to an unbalanced outlook. I have a healthy respect for science, and I also have a strong faith in my God. It would appear that 04SCTLS has a disdain for people who have any faith in God. That's elitism, and as such is short sighted and sad. Science is not an end unto itself. It is a methodical way to explore and understand God's creation, not a way to deny it.

Anyone who has debated me on evolution knows that I don't make arguments that start with the Bible, but rather I use science to back up my assertions. This tends to go against the stereotype that what's-his-name is perpetuating, that Christians are a bunch of Bible thumpers who make their women wear long skirts and live like the Amish.

I’m sorry, being at the low end of the intellectual scale I must have been mistaken about how this works. I thought that I wrote something and then others would come in and write a response or comment on what I had wrote. I had no idea that the idea was to write extensions of others thoughts. I guess I should give this up now because I don’t have the ability to read minds and I don’t have a crystal ball.

I do want to thank you, I didn’t know the meaning of a couple of the multi-syllable words you decided to use so I had to go find the dictionary in the computer I was using. I never had to use it before so it was good to learn how it works. I guess that if I’m going to be interacting with the intellectually superior I should get accustom to it.

In my first sentence I clearly wrote that if you chose to read what I was writing it was nothing more than my perceptions. I thought it was clear anyway. From what I have seen here I thought that was permissible. I didn’t know that I had to be able to write a biography of both the candidates before I was allowed to express my opinion on this site. Someone really should write down these rules somewhere. Being a posting amateur I’m sure that would have helped me out a lot.

I did manage to pull my head out of my ass long enough to look at exactly what the definition of Marxism was. Being at the low end of the intellectual scale and to compound things its been a very long time since I was in school with my intellectual superiors I wanted to make sure I understood it correctly. As it turns out this must have been the only thing I had right. Unfortunately after looking into this I was unable to find what it is that makes him a Marxist. Oh well, I guess I will continue on in my ignorant bliss.

By the way, a fine tip sharpie will work very well at filling back in that comma key when the paint wears off.

Sorry again about not understanding how all this works. I hope my limited IQ didn’t drag down the forums average too far.

I just wiped out several sentences I'd written in reply to your attempts at sarcasm.

“Attempt” at sarcasm, this thing was dripping with it.

I realized that my comments were too close to 'kicking a man when he's down'.

You need to clear this up for me.Am I supposed to be down? Because I sure don’t feel like I am. In fact I’m real comfortable with my position.

However, you must accept that this is a forum in which your words on the screen form the picture of you which is the foundation from which we judge what you have to say.

Here was something else I didn’t know. I come onto an open political forum to express my personal perceptions and share a few of my reasons for them and you’re “judging” me. Agree, disagree, be indifferent I really don’t care. I haven’t asked for anybody on this forum to “judge” what I have to say nor did I know that was this forum’s purpose. If this is the purpose which of these statements that you made should I judge you by?

Obama is a ****ing MARXIST. It's not difficult to understand unless you have your head up your ass!!!!

Or maybe this one is the one I should use.

Nice-y, nice-y won't work with someone like BHO, who's full of platitudinous ponderosities that on exploration mean nothing but sound so wonderful that they create great excitement in the low end of the intellectual scale.

Just for giggles maybe I should use this one from another thread.

“Fox---
I can generally lump all the left-folk to be found here together simply by saying, "Nitwits with their heads in their asses, or those who simply hate this country.”

So if I was to “judge” you by just these three posts that you put up I could only conclude that you are a communist. After all it sounds to me you are advocating a one party system and if we don’t fall in line with your views we must hate our country. Now would any of that be anywhere near factual? I think not.

You have told me that because of my views I have my head up my ass, I’m a nitwit and by two posts that I have put up you have put me at the low end of the intellectual scale. So I’m supposed to read this and let it go unchallenged. You don’t know anymore about me than I know about you. I have no idea if you and I are any smarter or dumber than any one else on this forum. I have never met any of them or you for that matter. The only contact I have had is in this forum. I assume that very few of them live for politics. This is just a guess but I think there is a lot more to them than just their political views.

Here is a paragraph from the post I wrote to start this thread.

“This same line of thinking has been spread by a small percentage of GOP members towards our own citizens. Some of these people feel that if some of us don’t see things as they do then we are un-American. I would love to know who and when we made this very small percentage of people the countries consciences. I personally resent this. To the best of my knowledge we live in a country of free speech and the free flow of ideas I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. I don’t expect everyone to even respect my views. I do expect the respect of my right to have my own views.”

Keep in mind that the only thing I have been responding to here has been your personal attacks. Not your views. Some of which we may even share.

So, attack my views. Tell me you don’t agree them. You don’t even need to tell me why. They’re your views and you have every right to them. Attack me personally and I’ll have something to say about it. I expect my right to have my own views be respected just as I do yours.

My son is currently serving in the armed forces to help protect this right for both of us. He knows I love this country. He also knew when he enlisted that I think the current administration will go down as one of the worst in American history. He was 17 when he decided to enlist and that required my signature. I never once tried to talk him out of it. After making him think it over for a few weeks and having him talk to some friends of mine that have served I signed them without hesitation. That was 3 years ago now, when things were not in nearly as good of shape as they are now. Why? I love my son, I love our country and our country needs these brave men and women that have elected to serve.

I know that some in this forum think that these types of personal attacks are a perfectly acceptable way to present their views. I also know that some are willing to let it slide. Not me. In my view this “if your not with us your against us” or “you have your head up your ass” type of argument is at the root of a lot of our problems both at home and abroad. If you want to engage me on my views, go for it. Let me have it. If you want to disengage, fine by me. If you want to keep up this tit for tat, go ahead. I got game.

I'd be happy to have coffee with you, and argue all these subjects face to face. I live in Metro Detroit.

If you happen to make it to the Seattle area before I make it to Detroit I’ll be happy to meet you for coffee. I suggest the Starbucks store #1 down by Pike Place Market. Seattle may not know anything else but it knows coffee. Maybe we can agree on that.

"Has no discoveries" follows through to the conclusion "doesn't add anything new and better"

"Having no discoveries" does not logically follow through to "doesn't add anything new and better [to society]". That is a huge logical leap.

Making a discovery is not neccessary to improve society. What "discovery" did Lincoln or Reagan make? What about the Framers? name any historical figure who changed society for the better, and 9 times out of 10 it will not be because of a new discovery. Or, if you want to go broader, ideas and ideals that changed society; Democracy (didn't make any "discoveries"), Capitalism (again, no "discoveries"). You wanna compare religion; the Reformation, the Great Awakening various revivals, heck, America being colonized. I could go on...

the point is, you are saying that society cannot be changed without discoveries that only science can offer. History proves that to be false. Most changes and/or improvements in society don't come from "discoveries" of the type only science can offer.

Your conclusion does not follow your premise. History has shown society to be changed for the better through means other then discovery, but your argument inherently excludes that possibility.

Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime. The geocentric view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle and the controversy engendered by Galileo's presentation of heliocentrism as proven fact resulted in the Catholic Church's prohibiting its advocacy as empirically proven fact, because it was not empirically proven at the time and was contrary to the literal meaning of Scripture. Galileo was eventually forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Roman Inquisition.

What you are citing an example of is the establishment refusing to change or confront new ideas, and instead simply trying to supress them. It is more analogous to modern day science refusing to question darwinism or accepting anthropogenic global warming as fact when it cannot be empirically proven.

The establishment at the time of your example just happened to be the Catholic church. The religion is that example is tangential at best.

It also doesn't show how the idea of the sun revolving around the Earth is religious-based.

You're making a false attack here as the church did suppress Galileo and my ignorance re sun revolves around the earth to religion does not invalidate my arguement

here is the original statement you made that started this part of the debate:
It [religion] already has all the answers (like the sun revolves around the earth which is the center of the universe from Galileo's time)
You weren't saying anything about the church supressing anything. You were claiming that the view that the geocentric view comes from religion. Nothing you have offered shows that. The closest you have come is to show that the Catholic Church at the time did justify the view through a certian interpretation of scripture, but that doesn't show that the idea came from religion. As your wiki(?) quote says, "The geocentric view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle".

The church was working to supress heliocentrism much as the scientific community is working to supress Intelligent Design and any opposing scientific views to anthropogenic global warming today.

I also never said (or implied) that your ignorance invalidated your argument. I attacked your arguement and then pointed out that it was very ignorant. That ignorance leads to a flawed argument but doesn't make the argument flawed in and of itself.

And I was refering to "some" people of faith and not "all" people of faith not thinking critically because they have it all laid out for them.

You might wanna communicate that better next time. Your original statement didn't include any qualifiers to indicate that, and you agreed to a statement by Einstein that didn't leave any room for "some", but pretty clearly ment "all". You claimed religion was a "handicap" on society.

The view spell out is rather clear. You view people of faith as "weak" and unable to think critically because of their faith. Religion is a handicap on society, in your view. That view is exceedingly ignorant of the facts (except for your cherry picked ones I am sure), and inherently arrogant and condescending. If anyone is unable to think critically here it is most likely you due to your apparent hubris (when it comes to religion) clouding your judgement (like most elitists).:rolleyes:

So, it looks like in the past you have voted GOP?

Sorry Foxpaws, I got a little distracted for a bit. To answer your question, yes. Regan’s “are you better off now than you were 4 years ago” when going for his second term is a classic. It’s a question that I looked at as our country in general and not necessarily just myself. The answer for both our country and my self was yes then and after opening my 401k statement, no now. It’s a gauge I use today to help me decide with whom to place my vote.

from shag "You weren't saying anything about the church supressing anything. You were claiming that the view that the geocentric view comes from religion. Nothing you have offered shows that. The closest you have come is to show that the Catholic Church at the time did justify the view through a certian interpretation of scripture, but that doesn't show that the idea came from religion."
"Actually, the idea of the sun revolving around the earth doesn't come from religion; it comes from the best empirical research and observations (science) of the time"
"The church was working to supress heliocentrism much as the scientific community is working to supress Intelligent Design and any opposing scientific views "

unfortunately shag, your view on suppression of intelligent design is wrong. science is not out to suppress it, merely to make it prove itself as a scientific claim, which it refuses to do. it keeps claiming it is science, without taking the steps necessary to fulfill the claim. in science, this is called bad science.

and the heliocentric view had been empirically proven at a time when christianity held to it's views. the sun around the earth is a religiously based view. read the book of enoch, and not just the parables. other societies had and accepted a heliocentric view well before europe, which was propogated by RELIGION.

a geocentric view comes directly from scripture and god and creation, which puts man and earth central to all. it was christianity within europe that perpetuated the myth when copernacanism came to light. and it was religious powers that supressed the truth.

since it's written in scripture, this has nothing to do with catholic. it is something inherent within scripture itself and old outdated ideologies of past.

and discoveries of lincoln or reagan or the framers. they were scientists? your path here is a red herring. or a non sequitur.

from fossten"Anyone who has debated me on evolution knows that I don't make arguments that start with the Bible, but rather I use science to back up my assertions"

an awful lot of failed science. as i showed in the last evolution thread.

"It would appear that 04SCTLS has a disdain for people who have any faith in God"

Appearances can be misleading.
I'm not disdainful of religious people who mind their own business.
My mother is very religious and I see the comfort and perseverence it gives her.
I'm disdainful of those who run for public office and try to get people to vote for them because of their faith.

For instance "vote for her because she's one of us"

Hail Sarah
Palin courts believers in Virginia.

By Christopher BeamPosted Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2008, at 2:17 PM ET

http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/123054/2180708/2201335/081028_POL_PalininVATN.jpg (http://www.slate.com/id/2203274/)Sarah Palin and her husband, Todd, greet supporters at a campaign stop in Leesburg, Va.

Sarah Palin's rally Monday in Fredericksburg, Va., began with a prayer. "Thank you for all you have given us," intoned Susan Stimpson, chairwoman of the county Republican Party. If she had really wanted to help, though, she would have prayed the polls are wrong.
A new Washington Post/ABC poll released Monday put (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/26/AR2008102602504.html?hpid=topnews) Barack Obama up eight points in Virginia, one for every day left in the election. His advantage is even stronger in Northern Virginia, where he outpolls McCain 2-to-1. In the southwest, which a McCain adviser recently called "real Virginia," McCain is still leading. He's also up among veterans and people who go to church at least once a week. But overall, the state looks dangerously close to seceding—this time from the South.
You wouldn't know it from McCain's schedule. He and Palin have logged a total of four visits to Virginia in the last month. Three of them happened yesterday—first in the Washington exurb of Leesburg (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200810u/loudoun-county) (enemy territory, according to the polls), then in the northern-ish town of Fredericksburg ("Don't call us north," pleaded a McCain supporter. "Please don't call us north"), and finally Salem, a town of 24,000 southwest of Richmond. And it wasn't McCain doing the visiting—it was Palin, solo.

It's no surprise the McCain campaign dispatched Palin, rather than McCain himself, to woo Virginia. She's been attracting bigger crowds—Fredericksburg drew an estimated 6,000 to the outdoor Hurkamp Park, and at least 10,000 people filled the Salem Civic Center (http://www.salemciviccenter.com/athletic.html), home of the Salem Avalanche. She's also better-suited to execute the strategy that's most likely to save McCain. The state's blueward swing owes much to demographic shifts, as immigrants and yuppies swell Northern Virginia's exurbs. Nor can McCain hope to match Obama's organization (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1849422,00.html). The campaign's Hail Mary strategy, therefore, appears to be based on mobilizing the conservative base.
Palin has enthusiastically risen to the task. Her message on Monday was the usual folksy populism on steroids. Obama won't just raise your taxes, he's a socialist. He's not just unready to be commander in chief, he'll invite an attack. He doesn't just have bad ideas about Iraq, he never uses the word "victory." "Joe the Plumber" made an appearance in Palin's speech; Tito the builder, the newest member of the campaign's middle-class everyman super team (which, with "Rose the Teacher," "Doug the Barber," and "Cindy the Citizen," is starting to sound a lot like a commune) was there in person. Palin's folksy one-offs have now been seared into her teleprompters: At two events, she said Obama was "just kinda flip-floppin' around there" on taxes. (If that wasn't enough, there were bails of hay lining the stage in Fredericksburg.) And she touched on the messy stuff: "It is not mean-spirited or negative campaigning to call someone out on their record, on their plans and their associations."

She's also what political nerds might call a "validator" for McCain—she lets people know it's OK to vote for him. Just as white union leaders make their members feel more comfortable with Obama, so Palin makes religious conservatives more comfortable with McCain. She also validates their doubts—which, at this stage of the campaign, are mostly about the polls. Palin dismissed the media and Democrats who say Obama has the race locked up. "I'll tell you something about polls," said state Sen. Richard Stuart as he warmed up the Fredericksburg crowd. He described how he was down in the polls a week before Election Day and still won. I heard someone else posit the theory that pollsters poll only Democrats, so of course Obama is winning. One voter, Lori Haimel of Boones Mill, assured me that polls are wrong because they rely on home landlines during the day, while professionals are at work.
There are plenty of reasons to doubt polls, and this election has enough X-factors—race and turnout among them—to justify healthy second-guessing. But there's a difference between skepticism and denial. Obama has been surging not just in Virginia but everywhere (http://www.salemciviccenter.com/athletic.html), thanks largely to the flagging economy. And it's pretty clear that the Republican leadership believes the polls: The RNC is now buying ad time in Montana and West Virginia.
Luckily for Palin, this denial is accompanied by enthusiasm—both positive and negative. The negative energy, which seems to fuse with evangelical fervor, is directed at Obama. Deborah Cleaveland, decked in fur and leopard-print gloves and flanked by her grandchildren, carried a sign to the rally in Salem with a line from Proverbs: "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when the wicked rule, the people mourn." She doesn't think Obama is the Antichrist, she told me. But there's a decent chance he's a prophet sent to announce the coming of the Antichrist. As for why God would allow Obama to get elected, "He may be drawing things to an end."
Campaign officials tend not to dwell on End Times for practical as well as symbolic reasons. "Morale is good," said Tyler Brown, a McCain spokesman in Virginia. "We're gonna keep fighting it out." I believe him. When Palin's motorcade breezed by the football stadium in Salem, the crowd screamed. One fan shook a sign: "Why vote for Sarah? Because she's one of us!" When Palin stood under the giant field lights, the crowd chanting her name, fans in the stands wearing coordinated colors to spell out "USA," I couldn't help but think we'd suddenly fast-forwarded to 2012.
__________________________________________________ _______________

Not exactly the rainbow coalition she's courting here.
Luckily the republican base will not be deciding the election.

Palin dismissed the media and Democrats who say Obama has the race locked up. "I'll tell you something about polls," said state Sen. Richard Stuart as he warmed up the Fredericksburg crowd. He described how he was down in the polls a week before Election Day and still won. I heard someone else posit the theory that pollsters poll only Democrats, so of course Obama is winning. One voter, Lori Haimel of Boones Mill, assured me that polls are wrong because they rely on home landlines during the day, while professionals are at work.


Palin must believe in polls thats why she is in Virginia.

OMG
Deborah Cleaveland, decked in fur and leopard-print gloves and flanked by her grandchildren, carried a sign to the rally in Salem with a line from Proverbs: "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when the wicked rule, the people mourn." She doesn't think Obama is the Antichrist, she told me. But there's a decent chance he's a prophet sent to announce the coming of the Antichrist. As for why God would allow Obama to get elected, "He may be drawing things to an end."

She is insane :rolleyes:

unfortunately shag, your view on suppression of intelligent design is wrong. science is not out to suppress it, merely to make it prove itself as a scientific claim, which it refuses to do. it keeps claiming it is science, without taking the steps necessary to fulfill the claim. in science, this is called bad science.

We have already had that debate in another thread. I am not going to go down that path with you here because it would distract too much from the focus of this thread.

But science is trying to supress ID and claim it is simply expecting ID to prove itself scientifically. They do so by raising the goalposts. They don't allow ID studies to be peer reviews, then claim that it is not proven science because it has not been peer reviewed. They redefine science to exclude ID then claim that that ID cannot meet the definition of science. These (and many other) tactics used by the scientific community effectively raise the bar to an unrealistic and unreachable level. It is a dishonest tactic that is ment to avoid any debate over ID and darwinism and to supress ID.

and the heliocentric view had been empirically proven at a time when christianity held to it's views. the sun around the earth is a religiously based view. read the book of enoch, and not just the parables. other societies had and accepted a heliocentric view well before europe, which was propogated by RELIGION.

a geocentric view comes directly from scripture and god and creation, which puts man and earth central to all. it was christianity within europe that perpetuated the myth when copernacanism came to light. and it was religious powers that supressed the truth.

Outside of your mere assertions to the contrary, nothing you cite in that post show that the geocentric view originated and was based in any religion. All that is shown is that it was supported by the Church and people in the Church worked to supress heliocentrism.

So you have demonstrated a corrupt church, congradulations. But you have yet to show that the geocentric view originated with religion, or even the institutions of religion. Considering that was the original claim, that is what you need to prove or disprove. Everything else is irrelevant to proving that and is a waste of time.

and discoveries of lincoln or reagan or the framers. they were scientists? your path here is a red herring. or a non sequitur.

Remember, I am attacking the conclusion, not the premise. You are focusing on the premise. The conclusion does not follow the premise, which is what I am pointing out. It is not a red herring or non sequiter to show how an argument is flawed. The other ways that the the conclusion can be reached without the premise are very relevant to showing that the conclusion does not follow the premise.

I also said that Lincoln Reagan and the Framers did not discover anything to change society. You are mischaracterising me.

Lets not get into another debate on darwinism vs. ID here (and the surrounding issues). Those tend to get pretty epic and belong in another thread. Besides, every thing that can and needs to be said on that issue in this forum has already been covered ad nausseum in the Expelled thread.

Appearances can be misleading.
I'm not disdainful of religious people who mind their own business.
My mother is very religious and I see the comfort and perseverence it gives her.
I'm disdainful of those who run for public office and try to get people to vote for them because of their faith.

It does look like you think of them as weak individuals and are condescending toward them. The Einstein quote you agreed to pretty well shows that. You called religion a "handicap". It is rather clear you view people of faith as having some sort of mental handicap.

There is nothing wrong with showing one's faith in a campaign. It is very telling about a person in a number of ways.

Besides, identity politics is pretty common today. Many women were supporter Hillary (and are now supporting Palin) due to her gender. The same is true for much of the black community in supporting Obama. And all those people are basing it on being able to identify with the candidate.

That is not neccessarily absurd, either. If a candidate has that in common for you, and that is an important issue for you, you are going to be more inclined to support them due to the fact that they are going to work to support issues favorable to that identification. Candidates with faith are generally not going to support legislation that restricts religion; Female candidates are generally not going to support any agenda restrictive to women; a black candidate is generally not going to support an agenda that works against blacks. Being a part of that community, they all have a stake in that community and are not far removed from it (as most politicians seem to be).

So it is not absurd to play up the faith angle in an election. Also, to remain competitive in an election you need to play up any positive angle, no matter how superficial. That is the nature of campaign's today.

Also, playing up faith for a candidate does give that candidate the appearance of being a moral person, even if it is only an appearance. It helps them seem more trustworthy. So it is not aburd or disdainful to play up faith.

Besides, identity politics is pretty common today. Many women were supporting Hillary (and are now supporting Palin) due to her gender.

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D rofl....

That is a good one shag...

So it is not absurd to play up the faith angle in an election. Also, to remain competitive in an election you need to play up any positive angle, no matter how superficial. That is the nature of campaign's today.

Also, playing up faith for a candidate does give that candidate the appearance of being a moral person, even if it is only an appearance. It helps them seem more trustworthy. So it is not aburd or disdainful to play up faith.

She already has the republican base vote locked up.
They're not the ones she needs to court.
Maybe she just loves to see herself applauded.
Your statement suggests you find her faith "superficial"
and that she only appears trustworthy.
I think she's the real thing and not just cynically conning the base by telling them what they want to hear.
I just think she puts too much faith in her "faith" to bring her votes
outside the republican base.
If anything it puts a lot of people off who may otherwise consider her.
Earnest but not particularly shrewd.

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D rofl....

That is a good one shag...

But true. Not all women are supporting either of them purely because of identity politics, and not all female hillary supporters are supporting Palin. But enough are, and enough, in both cases are basing their support, in large part on identity politics.

She already has the republican base vote locked up.
They're not the ones she needs to court.

Right now, it is as much about energizing the base as attracting new votes. In fact, this close to election day, I would say it is more about energizing the base so as to get out the vote.

the base of the conservative party has no love for McCain, so Palin is the one to energize the base; and she has done an exceptional job at that. That has been clear since her speech at the convention.

Your statement suggests you find her faith "superficial"
and that she only appears trustworthy.

Oh, no I think her faith is very real. She does come across in her words and her actions as, if nothing else, a very humble and genuine person. Two qualities that are almost always present in the Christians I know (pastors, and other parts of the church "elite" excluded). The Christian views she espouses are consistent with her actions as governor, so it doesn't seem that it is just for show.

The superficial comment is more directed at the many liberal politicians (and some republicans) who give lip-service to having faith but support policy that is antathema to religion. Religious gestures are token gestures at best for these people. So claims of faith by them are purely superficial, and ment as nothing more then self-aggrandizement.

I just think she puts too much faith in her "faith" to bring her votes
outside the republican base.
If anything it puts a lot of people off who may otherwise consider her.
Earnest but not particularly shrewd.

Actually, to many it is very refreshing. You hear and see superficial religious gestures from politicians who upon closer examination are clearly not religious people and share your condescending view of people of faith. Since most; elitists, the media, hollywood and college professors share the same view as you (though they would never admit it), so that view is what is echoed more and given more credence through shear verbosity.

However, most voters don't share that view of religion and don't view Palin's faith (or her playing up of that faith) as a negative. They view it as a neutral or a positive. Remember, the american voter is typically center-right.

Matters like this come down to perception.

While it is not overly logical in drawing a conclusion about the majority of the country, I will point out a personal fact...

The only people who I have met or talked to who don't like Palin for her faith (or the playing up of her faith) are people who are either ignorantly distrusting of religion in general, or are adamant athiests who hate religion and view people of faith as stupid and incapable of critical thought.

One of these athiests even made an argument to me (and has written papers in college) that it was immoral for churches to exist! He claimed he could morally justify killing Christians!!

Obviously a dispicable human being...

But true. Not all women are supporting either of them purely because of identity politics, and not all female hillary supporters are supporting Palin. But enough are, and enough, in both cases are basing their support, in large part on identity politics.

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Well, I know hundreds of hillary supporters - at least, and not one of the ones I know will be crossing to McCain/Palin

I heard of one, through the grapevine, that was going over to the other side because of Palin.

Someday you might get it - we weren't voting for hillary because she was a woman - we were voting for her because she was a good candidate. :p

As the SNL skit stated very well - "I didn't want a woman in the White House, I wanted to be in the White House," Hillary (Amy) to Palin (Tina)...

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Well, I know hundreds of hillary supporters - at least, and not one of the ones I know will be crossing to McCain/Palin

I heard of one, through the grapevine, that was going over to the other side because of Palin.

Someday you might get it - we weren't voting for hillary because she was a woman - we were voting for her because she was a good candidate. :p

As the SNL skit stated very well - "I didn't want a woman in the White House, I wanted to be in the White House," Hillary (Amy) to Palin (Tina)...

I never said that most female hillary supporters were supporting Palin; only that a lot of them were.

For instance "vote for her because she's one of us"

Hail Sarah
Palin courts believers in Virginia.

STUFF



Sort of like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOP18lYr7ms

1The book of the revolutions of the luminaries of heaven, according to their respective classes, their respective powers, their respective periods, their respective names, the places where they commence their progress, and their respective months, which Uriel, the holy angel who was with me, explained to me; he who conducted them. The whole account of them, according to every year of the world for ever, until a new work shall be effected, which will be eternal.

2This is the first law of the luminaries. The sun and the light arrive at the gates of heaven, which are on the east, and on the west of it at the western gates of heaven.

3I beheld the gates whence the sun goes forth; and the gates where the sun sets;

4In which gates also the moon rises and sets; and I beheld the conductors of the stars, among those who precede them; six gates were at the rising, and six at the setting of the sun.

5All these respectively, one after another, are on a level; and numerous windows are on the right and on the left sides of those gates.

6First proceeds forth that great luminary, which is called the sun; the orb of which is as the orb of heaven, the whole of it being replete with splendid and flaming fire.

7Its chariot, where it ascends, the wind blows.

8The sun sets in heaven, and, returning by the north, to proceed towards the east, is conducted so as to enter by that gate, and illuminate the face of heaven.

9In the same manner it goes forth in the first month by the great gate.

10It goes forth through the fourth of those six gates, which are at the rising of the sun.

11And in the fourth gate, through which the sun with the moon proceeds, in the first part of it, (76) there are twelve open windows; from which issues out a flame, when they are opened in their proper periods.

(76) Through which…part of it. Or, "from which the sun rises in the first month" (Knibb, p. 168).

12When the sun rises in heaven, it goes forth through this fourth gate thirty days, and by the fourth gate in the west of heaven on a level with it descends.

13During that period the day is lengthened from the day, and the night curtailed from the night for thirty days. And then the day is longer by two parts than the night.

14The day is precisely ten parts, and the night is eight.

15The sun goes forth through this fourth gate, and sets in it, and turns to the fifth gate during thirty days; after which it proceeds from, and sets in, the fifth gate.

16Then the day becomes lengthened by a second portion, so that it is eleven parts: while the night becomes shortened, and is only seven parts.

17The sun now returns to the east, entering into the sixth gate, and rising and setting in the sixth gate thirty-one days, on account of its signs.

18At that period the day is longer than the night, being twice as long as the night; and become twelve parts;

19But the night is shortened, and becomes six parts. Then the sun rises up, that the day may be shortened, and the night lengthened.

20And the sun returns toward the east entering into the sixth gate, where it rises and sets for thirty days.

21When that period is completed, the day becomes shortened precisely one part, so that it is eleven parts, while the night is seven parts.

22Then the sun goes from the west, from that sixth gate, and proceeds eastwards, rising in the fifth gate for thirty days, and setting again westwards in the fifth gate of the west.

23At that period the day becomes shortened two parts; and is ten parts, while the night is eight parts.

24Then the sun goes from the fifth gate, as it sets in the fifth gate of the west; and rises in the fourth gate for thirty-one days, on account of its signs, setting in the west.

25At that period the day is made equal with the night; and, being equal with it, the night becomes nine parts, and the day nine parts.

26Then the sun goes from that gate, as it sets in the west; and returning to the east proceeds by the third gate for thirty days, setting in the west at the third gate.

27At that period the night is lengthened from the day during thirty mornings, and the day is curtailed from the day during thirty days; the night being ten parts precisely, and the day eight parts.

28The sun now goes from the third gate, as it sets in the third gate in the west; but returning to the east, it proceeds by the second gate of the east for thirty days.

29In like manner also it sets in the second gate in the west of heaven.

30At that period the night is eleven parts, and the day seven parts.

31Then the sun goes at that time from the second gate, as it sets in the second gate in the west; but returns to the east, proceeding by the first gate, for thirty-one days.

32And sets in the west in the first gate.

33At that period that night is lengthened as much again as the day.

34It is twelve parts precisely, while the day is six parts.

35The sun has thus completed its beginnings, and a second time goes round from these beginnings.

36Into that first gate it enters for thirty days, and sets in the west, in the opposite part of heaven.

37At that period the night is contracted in its length a fourth part, that is, one portion, and becomes eleven parts.

38The day is seven parts.

39Then the sun returns, and enters into the second gate of the east.

40It returns by these beginnings thirty days, rising and setting.

41At that period the night is contracted in its length. It becomes ten parts, and the day eight parts. Then the sun goes from that second gate, and sets in the west; but returns to the east, and rises in the east, in the third gate, thirty-one days, setting in the west of heaven.

42At that period the night becomes shortened. It is nine parts. And the night is equal with the day. The year is precisely three hundred and sixty-four days.

43The lengthening of the day and night, and the contraction of the day and night, are made to differ from each other by the progress of the sun.

44By means of this progress the day is daily lengthened, and the night greatly shortened.

45This is the law and progress of the sun, and its turning when it turns back, turning during sixty days, (77) and going forth. This is the great everlasting luminary, that which he names the sun for ever and ever.

(77) That is, it is sixty days in the same gates, viz. Thirty days twice every year (Laurence, p. 97).

46This also is that which goes forth a great luminary, and which is named after its peculiar kind, as God commanded.

47And thus it goes in and out, neither slackening nor resting; but running on in its chariot by day and by night. It shines with a seventh portion of light from the moon; (78) but the dimensions of both are equal.





and if you follow this, you'd probably lend yourself to believe the world is flat. this is an excerpt from the book of enoch shag. shall i quote from the bible?

"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing"(Job 26:7).

"The LORD (JESUS) reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished (stabilized), that it CANNOT BE MOVED" (Psalm 93:1).

"Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved" (I Chronicles16:30).

Joshua 10:12-13
Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.
Psalms 19:4-6
yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.

Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.




quote from shag:Actually, the idea of the sun revolving around the earth doesn't come from religion; it comes from the best empirical research and observations (science) of the time. You are once again making a specious argument; this time by attributing a wrong scientific view to religion.


Outside of your mere assertions to the contrary, nothing you cite in that post show that the geocentric view originated and was based in any religion. All that is shown is that it was supported by the Church and people in the Church worked to supress heliocentrism.

You weren't saying anything about the church supressing anything. You were claiming that the view that the geocentric view comes from religion. Nothing you have offered shows that. The closest you have come is to show that the Catholic Church at the time did justify the view through a certian interpretation of scripture, but that doesn't show that the idea came from religion.


all these things are found in scripture, backed by the catholic church. ask fossten. the bible is truth. so a certain interpretation can only be the literal one, correct?

SHAG: But science is trying to supress ID and claim it is simply expecting ID to prove itself scientifically. They do so by raising the goalposts. They don't allow ID studies to be peer reviews, then claim that it is not proven science because it has not been peer reviewed. They redefine science to exclude ID then claim that that ID cannot meet the definition of science. These (and many other) tactics used by the scientific community effectively raise the bar to an unrealistic and unreachable level. It is a dishonest tactic that is ment to avoid any debate over ID and darwinism and to supress ID.



science isn't raising any goalposts. that's a fallacy that you keep perpetuating. it has certain procedures to follow that id refuses to oblige by. until it follows the guide lines of science, it will just be what it is. whacko science. or more politely, pseudo science.

just because they call it science, doesn't mean it is.

Ahh... the old hrmwrm wall 'o' text post....:rolleyes:

You are pretty good at taking quotes out of context. Besides, all you have shown is that there are scripture's that can viewed as supporting a geocentric view. It doesn't show that the idea originated from scripture.

Most all those quotes are simply using the nomenclature of the sun rising and setting that is still used today. Almost no one today believes in a geocentric view, but almost everyone describes the sun as rising and setting. Your making another specious argument.:rolleyes:

And if you want to debate ID, use the appropriate thread, we are rehashing the stuff here. But I don't see how the scientific community attempting to redefine science to exclude ID is not in some way moving the goalposts. Specifically it is setting up a false dilemma (through equivocation) to move the goalposts.

Have any of you seen hrmwrm and Mick Jagger in the same place at the same time? :shifty:

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Well, I know hundreds of hillary supporters - at least, and not one of the ones I know will be crossing to McCain/Palin

I heard of one, through the grapevine, that was going over to the other side because of Palin.

Someday you might get it - we weren't voting for hillary because she was a woman - we were voting for her because she was a good candidate. :p

As the SNL skit stated very well - "I didn't want a woman in the White House, I wanted to be in the White House," Hillary (Amy) to Palin (Tina)...You forget, there is an entire organization of Hillary supporters who are backing McCain, and no less than Lynn Forrest de Rothschild did the entire cable news circuit telling everybody why McCain was the right choice. So laugh it up all you want. :rolleyes:

Ahh... the old hrmwrm wall 'o' text post....:rolleyes:

You are pretty good at taking quotes out of context. Besides, all you have shown is that there are scripture's that can viewed as supporting a geocentric view. It doesn't show that the idea originated from scripture.

Most all those quotes are simply using the nomenclature of the sun rising and setting that is still used today.
And if you want to debate ID, use the appropriate thread, we are rehashing the stuff here. But I don't see how the scientific community attempting to redefine science to exclude ID is not in some way moving the goalposts. Specifically it is setting up a false dilemma (through equivocation) to move the goalposts.

quotes out of context?

that's your specialty shag.

and reading all that, without posting up the parts of the bible about the pillars and foundations(reference to flat earth), gates on the sides of the earth releasing the sun and moon WOULD leave one to believe a geocentric position. it refers to more than rise and set. as for originating from scripture, isn't that god's word and truth? ask fossten about that one. besides, you stated something totally different

"it comes from the best empirical research and observations (science) of the time. "

you have nothing to say it came from that either. there was heliocentric views at the same time as scripture was written. so it wasn't empirical research and observation of the time.

and i'm not here to debate id, merely to clear your spurious claims. id has had alot of years to put forward what is required to make it a scientific claim, but unfortunately their data is highly manipulated and lacking. science is still the same as it always was. it is not redefining itself to exclude id. you have that quite backwards. id wants to redefine science to fit it. and when you wish to back up your claim, you'd better provide unmitigating proof of claim. this is where id has failed and refuses to comply. those are the facts.

but you are allowed your OPINION, as that is all yours is.

and reading all that, without posting up the parts of the bible about the pillars and foundations(reference to flat earth), gates on the sides of the earth releasing the sun and moon WOULD leave one to believe a geocentric position. it refers to more than rise and set. as for originating from scripture, isn't that god's word and truth? ask fossten about that one. besides, you stated something totally different

"it comes from the best empirical research and observations (science) of the time. "

you have nothing to say it came from that either. there was heliocentric views at the same time as scripture was written. so it wasn't empirical research and observation of the time.

There may have been heleocentric views at the time that that scripture was written...so what? The generally accepted view long before scripture was even conceived was the geocentric one. That remained the case until it was eventually disproven and accepted by the elites in society.

And the geocentric view was based on the best empirical evidence at the time; which mostly amounted to direct observation as there were next to no tools to aid in observing anything. As better tools came along, the geocentric view lost credibility.

For your argument to be true, the scriptures that can be interpreted to support the geocentric view would have had to come about before man was able to look at the stars.

and i'm not here to debate id, merely to clear your spurious claims. id has had alot of years to put forward what is required to make it a scientific claim, but unfortunately their data is highly manipulated and lacking. science is still the same as it always was. it is not redefining itself to exclude id. you have that quite backwards. id wants to redefine science to fit it. and when you wish to back up your claim, you'd better provide unmitigating proof of claim. this is where id has failed and refuses to comply. those are the facts.

The movement to make methodological naturalism a part of the definition of science is the "redefinition" I am talking about. In regards to looking at the question that both Darwinism and ID try to answer, it effectively redefines the science so that it is unempirical, which is the cornerstone of what defines a science.

Word of advice: "let it go"

from shag "And the geocentric view was based on the best empirical evidence at the time"
"redefines the science so that it is unempirical, which is the cornerstone of what defines a science."

you seem a little confused even within the same post. unempirical(?) is the cornerstone of what defines a sciene? i don't quite know what your getting at here. maybe elaborate on your exact meaning of this.

"The movement to make methodological naturalism a part of the definition of science is the "redefinition" I am talking about"

and by this statement you admit that id is trying to redefine science to suit it's purpose, not that science is redifining itself to exclude id.

from shag "And the geocentric view was based on the best empirical evidence at the time"
"redefines the science so that it is unempirical, which is the cornerstone of what defines a science."

you seem a little confused even within the same post. unempirical(?) is the cornerstone of what defines a sciene? i don't quite know what your getting at here. maybe elaborate on your exact meaning of this.

"The movement to make methodological naturalism a part of the definition of science is the "redefinition" I am talking about"

and by this statement you admit that id is trying to redefine science to suit it's purpose, not that science is redifining itself to exclude id.


Not quite.

The scientific establishment is trying to redefine what qualifies as a science to include methodological naturalism. If that is part of the definition, then any study to discover how life (and various species) came to be is inherently not empirical anymore. Since empirical findings are necessarily at the core of what a science is, that makes any study into how life came to be, unscientific.

But, redefining science to include methodological naturalism would exclude ID as a science.

the scientific method has always been not to include supernatural causes in it's investigation of nature. it is not redefining itself to exclude id. science makes no assumption of whether there is or isn't divinity.this has been a ploy by id proponents to imply science is atheistic in nature.

id wants to redefine science to include supernatural causes within science's scope of understanding. so, you still have it backwards. id will not be accepted as a science if it allows supernatural causation. that is for religion, not science.

the scientific method has always been not to include supernatural causes in it's investigation of nature. it is not redefining itself to exclude id. science makes no assumption of whether there is or isn't divinity.this has been a ploy by id proponents to imply science is atheistic in nature.

ID doesn't assume supernatural causes, but it doesn't assume purely natural causes either, like methodological naturalism does. ID looks at things purely empirically.

And, no, the scientific method has not always functioned on the premise of methodological naturalism. That is something that has come up (relatively) recently in the scientific community in response to ID.

I haven't been to Seattle since 1945. At that time, as a child, I lived in Renton for several years. And as I remember the weather, I can't say that Seattle is high on my list of places to visit.

I won't bother to pick your statements apart. I'll only say, generally, "Non Sequitur". Let's just agree to disagree. I am truly sorry we're so far apart both philosophically and spatially. Starbucks would be good.
KS

"ID doesn't assume supernatural causes, but it doesn't assume purely natural causes either"

you keep arguing this fallacy. the man who started id, phillip johnson, has declared that his intentions were to put god back into creation.

but let's assume you're correct. then if it's not supernatural, then what is it? and what were it's beginnings? to be taken seriously, you have to have a starting point. there is no method, no modus operandi, no nothing. just i see intelligence in design. if it's not supernatural, then you'll have to state what the intelligence is.

and science looks at things empirically, without external influence(or not at least verifiable external influence). without a verifiable external influence, something that can be pointed to and said to be the mechanism of operation, then id is just a cult.

"ID doesn't assume supernatural causes, but it doesn't assume purely natural causes either"

you keep arguing this fallacy. the man who started id, phillip johnson, has declared that his intentions were to put god back into creation.

but let's assume you're correct. then if it's not supernatural, then what is it? and what were it's beginnings? to be taken seriously, you have to have a starting point. there is no method, no modus operandi, no nothing. just i see intelligence in design. if it's not supernatural, then you'll have to state what the intelligence is.

and science looks at things empirically, without external influence(or not at least verifiable external influence). without a verifiable external influence, something that can be pointed to and said to be the mechanism of operation, then id is just a cult.


Let. It. Go.