I love it, point out nearly 200,000,000 deaths caused by people who refute the existence of God, and it isn't the ideology's fault, they're mad men. But religion caused all the other stuff.
Or, just maybe, there's a problem whenever anyone follows a blind ideology to the point where the ideology itself becomes more important to them than the people that ideology is supposed to serve. Whether that's Catholicism, Islam, Communism, Fascism, White Power, or Puff-for-Presidentism is irrelevant and immaterial -- anyone who takes any ideology to the point of killing others in order to impose it needs to maybe think twice.
And also, there's the issue that things done "in the name of X" are often done for totally different reasons...
|
Tue enough. That being said preaching that all people of notr white skin are the descendants Of Ham son of Noah who's descendants were cursed to be slaves and servants for all eternity is completely fine and healthy yup for sure :). What also is fine and not prejudice at all is saying that all none believers in Islam are infidels and must die in fact you will have a greater reward in Heaven for killing as many as you can. Another thing that is just great is saying that Homosexuals are an abomination unto god so we must do everything we can to stop them at every turn since we can't lynch and kill them like we used to and get away with it. Yup religions great and has no problems and it's atheists who started it all :)No, Jeremy, you're missing a major point here. First off, I'm not religious, definitely not "Christian" (I use quotes because most "Christians" are clueless about anything their greatest prophet said or meant), and couldn't give a s**~ less about offending people who believe whatever.
What pisses ME off is hypocrisy. Frankly, the "anti-Christian" or "anti-religious" crowd are just as intolerant, just as unwilling to see anyone else's perspective, and just as likely to violently suppress opposing views as anyone else. Or, even worse, they'll suppress the views and not care about offending one religious group, but will gleefully allow another group to just say whatever they want because they are, somehow, victims.
You can sit there and gleefully cap on Christians all you want, make fun, condemn, whatever, but remember, you're just as petty, shallow and, ultimately, meaningless in any conversation that might help people find common ground as extremists on the other side. You are a bigot, but your bigotry is politically acceptable at the moment, so you can take comfort in that, I suppose.
I do have friends who are christian, as well as muslim, and hindu friends. I do not oppose religion frankly if someone takes peace in a faith and lives happily and peacefully thats absolutely fine. But I do take issue with and actively oppose people like Fred Phelps .
|
I love it, point out nearly 200,000,000 deaths caused by people who refute the existence of God, and it isn't the ideology's fault, they're mad men. But religion caused all the other stuff.Or, just maybe, there's a problem whenever anyone follows a blind ideology to the point where the ideology itself becomes more important to them than the people that ideology is supposed to serve. Whether that's Catholicism, Islam, Communism, Fascism, White Power, or Puff-for-Presidentism is irrelevant and immaterial -- anyone who takes any ideology to the point of killing others in order to impose it needs to maybe think twice.
And also, there's the issue that things done "in the name of X" are often done for totally different reasons...
That's what I was trying to say, only much more calmly stated.
|
|
I love it, point out nearly 200,000,000 deaths caused by people who refute the existence of God, and it isn't the ideology's fault, they're mad men. But religion caused all the other stuff.Or, just maybe, there's a problem whenever anyone follows a blind ideology to the point where the ideology itself becomes more important to them than the people that ideology is supposed to serve. Whether that's Catholicism, Islam, Communism, Fascism, White Power, or Puff-for-Presidentism is irrelevant and immaterial -- anyone who takes any ideology to the point of killing others in order to impose it needs to maybe think.
And also, there's the issue that things done "in the name of X" are often done for totally different reasons...
Kirth, I think you know me well enough to know what I'm saying. Basically, assmunchery is pandemic, and not limited to one group.
Oh, and I corrected your post with the bolded work above.
1. Assmunchery is pandemic. 2. Oh, and I corrected your post with the bolded work above.
1. QFT. If only the munchers in question could perceive the taste of the excrement in their mouths...
2. Your correction is spot-on.
He tries to be a proselytizing atheist.
Maher is agnostic. "I'm not an atheist. There's a really big difference between an atheist and someone who just doesn't believe in religion. Religion to me is a bureaucracy between man and God that I don't need. But I'm not an atheist, no. I believe there's some force. If you want to call it God... I don't believe God is a single parent who writes books."
and
"I'm not an atheist, though, because the belief that there is no God only mirrors the certitude of religion. No, I'm saying that doubt is the only appropriate response for human beings."
|
|
Maher echoes a lot of my centiments in the movie about how religion functions, but he came off as an unwarranted jerk during the course of the movie. That really surprised me as well; i've seen him act hard and close minded but this was almost, for lack of a better word, religious!
He says he's not an Atheist or Theist... He religiously takes to the idea that mankind can think for itself, however. Its kind of clear he cannot seperate his own beliefs from his attempts at logic. That's sad. I was really hoping he'd take a more philisophical take on religion than to just go out of his way to bash it.
He religiously takes to the idea that mankind can think for itself, however.
Are you saying that mankind can't think for itself? That's a rather depressing view.
|
Maher used to have insightful comments, unfortunately he is just a bitter old man now groping for his final 15 minutes of fame. Nothing useful or insightful about the movie, he just complains and tries to make others seem idiots with the same fervor he is disdaining. He needs to crawl back under the rock he was hiding under, HBO.
|
|
He religiously takes to the idea that mankind can think for itself, however.Are you saying that mankind can't think for itself? That's a rather depressing view.
Actually, I think what the bird is trying to say is that Mr. Maher believes that religion destroys people's ability to think for themselves. At least that is what I got from the statement.
|
|
He religiously takes to the idea that mankind can think for itself, however.Are you saying that mankind can't think for itself? That's a rather depressing view.
What I am saying is that a person can make up their mind, but that a self reinforcing group will have trouble coming to a different conclusion than that which they've already decided. Take the Flat Earth Society for instance, they won't change their view despite tons of scientific data to the contrary. They won't even consider it.
I'm gonna have to place Maher in a similar category. He won't change his views because there are enough people who agree with him. That's a pretty large logic fallacy right there for someone who wants others to think properly.
What I am saying is that a person can make up their mind, but that a self reinforcing group will have trouble coming to a different conclusion than that which they've already decided.
Ah, agreed. Every world view has its orthodoxy.
Personal anectode follows, which may offend some -- read only if interested. If not, no hard feelings -- you didn't miss anything of importance.
** spoiler omitted **
Your Easter friend sounds like he must be a gnostic Christian with all this nonsense about how someone needs to teach you the "hidden meanings" of the bible. HIGHLY unusual. Do not take this at all to be correct.
AFAIK, the only denomination that espouses anything like this are Catholics, who traditionally told the flock to let the priests interpret for them, as they are incapable themselves of understanding the bible. I don't know if this is the currently held view of the vatican.
Your Easter friend sounds like he must be a gnostic Christian with all this nonsense about how someone needs to teach you the "hidden meanings" of the bible. HIGHLY unusual. Do not take this at all to be correct.
Thanks! That's the conclusion I'd come to as well, but it's nice to have someone else jump in and agree -- in fact, you might find some interesting points on the "civil religious discussion" thread, if you haven't already checked it out.
|
|
Name me one scientist who believes science has definitively explained or understood everything about the big bang. Naturally scientific knowledge grows and expands as more evidence is discovered through experiments, theories, and debate. Indeed scientific growth stands in stark contrast to the typically static and conservative nature of organised religion.
It was inevitable that all would be proven wrong...
- String Theory Invalidates Religion and Evolution.
- The Universe is debris of change in Possibility.
- Time is continuous change in Possibility.
- Singularity is point of change in possibility.
- Only Life can create change in Possibility, and only from outside the limits of the Universe, because life is superpositional and exceeds the limits of possibility.
Surprisingly this gets the fanatical contempt and hatred from those who worship science like it were a religion...with similar zeal and hatred.
"...life is superpositional and exceeds the limits of possibility."
Surprisingly this gets the fanatical contempt and hatred from those who worship science like it were a religion...with similar zeal and hatred.
Not surprisingly at all. Your statement contradicts the holographic principle: for a black hole, the principle states that the description of all the objects which will ever fall in is entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the event horizon. Living things could fall in, therefore are discernable in the horizinal fluctuations, and therefore must be describable with string theory unless the said theory itself is badly broken, in which case its assertions can be given little credence. To counter this with the argument that there would be no way to discern the life/death state of the body falling in is simply to play tired old Shroedinger's Cat games with space explorers.
My religious/spiritual beliefs can be summed up with this:
1. I acknowledge that I was given consciousness by something, be that a deity or some force in the universe. But I don't claim to know what that force is, and to me, it isn't really relevant.
2. I don't accept that any one path is better than any other. If a person is Atheist, Buddhist, Agnostic, Christian, Muslim, etc., it doesn't concern me, so long as it isn't used as a reason to inflict harm on others. Killing in the name of religion in inexcusable.
3. I believe humanity has a greater purpose, which is to rise to the challenge and test our limits. We should be focused on ever increasing our knowledge of the universe around us and improving humanity's overall quality of life and chance of survival (colonizing the Solar System for example). If theology helps comfort people and further these ends (as well as help establish moral guidelines for our civilization), more power to it.
4. Many organized religions have exploited people into sacrificing their daily lives (and sometimes, their well-being and goals) to perpetuate archaic beliefs that our world is ending some time in the near-future. This seriously needs to stop.
I've seen a lot of people, common and famous, handle this very professionally. The two best examples to me would be Arthur C. Clarke and James "the Amazing" Randi. Bill Maher comes across as both angry and arrogant on the subject of opposing religion, as if he has a bone to pick with his childhood or something. I will say that certain individuals like Fred Phelps and his cult tend to bring out such outrage in people.
|
|
I love it, point out nearly 200,000,000 deaths caused by people who refute the existence of God, and it isn't the ideology's fault, they're mad men. But religion caused all the other stuff.
I love hypocrites, y'all are fun!
So then if can we hold religion accountable for this or just some madman who gained power?
"Hence today I believe that with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." -Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.
|
|
I love it, point out nearly 200,000,000 deaths caused by people who refute the existence of God, and it isn't the ideology's fault, they're mad men. But religion caused all the other stuff.
I love hypocrites, y'all are fun!
So then if can we hold religion accountable for this or just some madman who gained power?
"Hence today I believe that with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." -Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.
All I am saying is that with any ideology, whether it is religious or otherwise. Promoting hatred or intolerance against an entire group of people is crossing into being ignorant, intolerant, hatemongers, and lastly eventually dangerous. And yes this includes form of atheism. Atheists who are intolerant or hold hatred toward religious individuals are no better.
|
|
I love it, point out nearly 200,000,000 deaths caused by people who refute the existence of God, and it isn't the ideology's fault, they're mad men. But religion caused all the other stuff.
I love hypocrites, y'all are fun!
So then if can we hold religion accountable for this or just some madman who gained power?
"Hence today I believe that with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." -Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.
Dude, what I'm saying is, if you're going to say "my side is better", make sure it is before hand...
I'm neither a Christian (or a follower of any of the Abrahamic religions) nor an atheist, and, frankly, neither of those two "philosophies" or "doctrines" or whatever, have much to brag about...
|
|
I love it, point out nearly 200,000,000 deaths caused by people who refute the existence of God, and it isn't the ideology's fault, they're mad men. But religion caused all the other stuff.
I love hypocrites, y'all are fun!
So then if can we hold religion accountable for this or just some madman who gained power?
"Hence today I believe that with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." -Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.
Dude, what I'm saying is, if you're going to say "my side is better", make sure it is before hand...
I'm neither a Christian (or a follower of any of the Abrahamic religions) nor an atheist, and, frankly, neither of those two "philosophies" or "doctrines" or whatever, have much to brag about...
See my previous posts that was my final verdict on it. I basically said that no ideology has tidy hands all have shed their fare share of blood.
While I concede that people of all faiths (or lack thereof) have done terrible things, very bad things are often done for religious reasons, a claim that I don't think can be made about atheism. The fact that one may not agree with all the things done in the name of a faith doesn't change the fact that they were done.
It's hard to do things in the name of a higher power when the whole point of your idelogy is that there is no higher power...
|
|
While I concede that people of all faiths (or lack thereof) have done terrible things, very bad things are often done for religious reasons, a claim that I don't think can be made about atheism. The fact that one may not agree with all the things done in the name of a faith doesn't change the fact that they were done.
One of Communism's pillars is institutional atheism. Many of the victims of the purges in Russia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc, ad nauseum, were targeted for being religious.
You can try as you might to divorce atheism from culpability, but the last part of your post applies to institutional atheism as well.
And, I hate to break it to you, but since 1900, far more people have died from purges committed on the religious by atheists (in this case, in Communist countries), than have been killed in any religious conflicts.
While I concede that people of all faiths (or lack thereof) have done terrible things, very bad things are often done for religious reasons, a claim that I don't think can be made about atheism. The fact that one may not agree with all the things done in the name of a faith doesn't change the fact that they were done.One of Communism's pillars is institutional atheism. Many of the victims of the purges in Russia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc, ad nauseum, were targeted for being religious.
You can try as you might to divorce atheism from culpability, but the last part of your post applies to institutional atheism as well.
And, I hate to break it to you, but since 1900, far more people have died from purges committed on the religious by atheists (in this case, in Communist countries), than have been killed in any religious conflicts.
So, I just did some reading. It turns out you're right. I stand corrected.
It's hard to do things in the name of a higher power when the whole point of your idelogy is that there is no higher power...No, in Communist atheism, the "higher power" is the State.
I never really thought of it that way...thank you for pointing that out. That's twice in one day...maybe I should quite while I'm behind. ;-)
P.S. I have dispatched the atheist goons to silence you. :)
|
|
So, I just did some reading. It turns out you're right. I stand corrected.While I concede that people of all faiths (or lack thereof) have done terrible things, very bad things are often done for religious reasons, a claim that I don't think can be made about atheism. The fact that one may not agree with all the things done in the name of a faith doesn't change the fact that they were done.One of Communism's pillars is institutional atheism. Many of the victims of the purges in Russia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc, ad nauseum, were targeted for being religious.
You can try as you might to divorce atheism from culpability, but the last part of your post applies to institutional atheism as well.
And, I hate to break it to you, but since 1900, far more people have died from purges committed on the religious by atheists (in this case, in Communist countries), than have been killed in any religious conflicts.
Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight. I just couldn't sit back and watch the Christian bashing (mostly over things that happened before the Age of Reason and the Reformation, frankly, most European/American sins past that point were secular, not religious, sins) by people that may not understand Marxist doctrine, vis a vis atheism and the attitude towards religion.
NO belief system is sans reproach when it comes to evil committed in its name.
|
|
It's hard to do things in the name of a higher power when the whole point of your idelogy is that there is no higher power...No, in Communist atheism, the "higher power" is the State.
I never really thought of it that way...thank you for pointing that out. That's twice in one day...maybe I should quite while I'm behind. ;-)
P.S. I have dispatched the atheist goons to silence you. :)
Don't worry, I have a Wicker Man ready to sacrifice your goons to my Goddess ;)
The crop will be plentiful this year!
Blessed Be!
|
|
It's hard to do things in the name of a higher power when the whole point of your idelogy is that there is no higher power...No, in Communist atheism, the "higher power" is the State.
I never really thought of it that way...thank you for pointing that out. That's twice in one day...maybe I should quite while I'm behind. ;-)
P.S. I have dispatched the atheist goons to silence you. :)
Which is why I said that any ideology that would teach or indoctrinate you to be intolerant, or hate another group of people is dangerous. This certainly includes atheism. I have met dangerous atheists before and frankly they scare me, just like I've seen scary religious people who can also be dangerous.
|
|
Which is why I said that any ideology that would teach or indoctrinate you to be intolerant, or hate another group of people is dangerous. This certainly includes atheism. I have met dangerous atheists before and frankly they scare me, just like I've seen scary religious people who can also be dangerous.It's hard to do things in the name of a higher power when the whole point of your idelogy is that there is no higher power...No, in Communist atheism, the "higher power" is the State.
I never really thought of it that way...thank you for pointing that out. That's twice in one day...maybe I should quite while I'm behind. ;-)
P.S. I have dispatched the atheist goons to silence you. :)
I agree completely, I just saw the debate getting kind of one sided, so I had to jump in with some reality to balance the scales...
Was an awesome movie. Bravo Bill Maher for finally saying what a lot of people needed you to say. Seriously he blatantly pokes fun at how made up and fictional religions are including the bible. And now there'sa huge uproar because he made the movie. It's so funny that when you agree with religion you get no backlash but when you disagree you get bashed to nines so much for freedom of speech huh.
Miss CA got burned for her religious beliefs. It was ok, she has the right to believe whatever she likes. But she isn't free from backlash for it, neither is Bill Maher.
How come I can't take the guy seriously though. The first movie I ever saw him in was something about an Avacodo Jungle or some such. So long ago, such a silly movie. Anyway it usually works both ways.
|
|
Was an awesome movie. Bravo Bill Maher for finally saying what a lot of people needed you to say. Seriously he blatantly pokes fun at how made up and fictional religions are including the bible. And now there'sa huge uproar because he made the movie. It's so funny that when you agree with religion you get no backlash but when you disagree you get bashed to nines so much for freedom of speech huh.Miss CA got burned for her religious beliefs. It was ok, she has the right to believe whatever she likes. But she isn't free from backlash for it, neither is Bill Maher.
How come I can't take the guy seriously though. The first movie I ever saw him in was something about an Avacodo Jungle or some such. So long ago, such a silly movie. Anyway it usually works both ways.
Maher is a vile, smug, self important hack. He (and others on both sides of similar "virtue") are indicative of how ridiculous the "debate" in this country has become. Idiots on both sides shouting slogans and talking points, instead of listening and finding common ground. Meh, like the man said, "people get the government (and political discourse) they deserve". The American people who subscribe to either major party are pretty much sheep, leaving us in the middle to laugh and cry intermittently at how badly they screwed up this country...
Or, just maybe, there's a problem whenever anyone follows a blind ideology to the point where the ideology itself becomes more important to them than the people that ideology is supposed to serve. Whether that's Catholicism, Islam, Communism, Fascism, White Power, or Puff-for-Presidentism is irrelevant and immaterial -- anyone who takes any ideology to the point of killing others in order to impose it needs to maybe think twice.
People look for simple answers in a complex universe. Unfortunately, humanity tends to overlook true simplicity in its quest to "make" the universe conform to its desires.
|
|
As an atheist I do not believe in a god, but I realize that someones beliefs are very important to them. So in that spirit ladies and gentlemen I give you Journey .
|
|
The American people who subscribe to either major party are pretty much sheep, leaving us in the middle to laugh and cry intermittently at how badly they screwed up this country...
Often those who stand idly by have themselves to blame. I think it takes a lot to volunteer to change things or to want something better. If you think something is a good idea then you should do something about it lest someone else make the decision for you. Those people left in the middle who don't do anything are just as bad as the other sheeple.
|
|
The American people who subscribe to either major party are pretty much sheep, leaving us in the middle to laugh and cry intermittently at how badly they screwed up this country...Often those who stand idly by have themselves to blame. I think it takes a lot to volunteer to change things or to want something better. If you think something is a good idea then you should do something about it lest someone else make the decision for you. Those people left in the middle who don't do anything are just as bad as the other sheeple.
No, the people who keep voting over and over for the same douchebags in the major parties are insane (definition: doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result). Keep voting Republican and Democrat, electing the same crap year in and year out, and keep telling me I'm wasting MY vote by voting third party.
Believe it or not, voting for "the lesser of two evils" is still EVIL. Enjoy the grass you're grazing...
So, I just did some reading. It turns out you're right. I stand corrected.While I concede that people of all faiths (or lack thereof) have done terrible things, very bad things are often done for religious reasons, a claim that I don't think can be made about atheism. The fact that one may not agree with all the things done in the name of a faith doesn't change the fact that they were done.One of Communism's pillars is institutional atheism. Many of the victims of the purges in Russia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc, ad nauseum, were targeted for being religious.
You can try as you might to divorce atheism from culpability, but the last part of your post applies to institutional atheism as well.
And, I hate to break it to you, but since 1900, far more people have died from purges committed on the religious by atheists (in this case, in Communist countries), than have been killed in any religious conflicts.
Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight. I just couldn't sit back and watch the Christian bashing (mostly over things that happened before the Age of Reason and the Reformation, frankly, most European/American sins past that point were secular, not religious, sins) by people that may not understand Marxist doctrine, vis a vis atheism and the attitude towards religion.
NO belief system is sans reproach when it comes to evil committed in its name.
Also I think people need to make the distinction between things that are done for religious reasons and things done for other reasons that are then "justified" with religious reasons.
|
|
Also I think people need to make the distinction between things that are done for religious reasons and things done for other reasons that are then "justified" with religious reasons.So, I just did some reading. It turns out you're right. I stand corrected.While I concede that people of all faiths (or lack thereof) have done terrible things, very bad things are often done for religious reasons, a claim that I don't think can be made about atheism. The fact that one may not agree with all the things done in the name of a faith doesn't change the fact that they were done.One of Communism's pillars is institutional atheism. Many of the victims of the purges in Russia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc, ad nauseum, were targeted for being religious.
You can try as you might to divorce atheism from culpability, but the last part of your post applies to institutional atheism as well.
And, I hate to break it to you, but since 1900, far more people have died from purges committed on the religious by atheists (in this case, in Communist countries), than have been killed in any religious conflicts.
Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight. I just couldn't sit back and watch the Christian bashing (mostly over things that happened before the Age of Reason and the Reformation, frankly, most European/American sins past that point were secular, not religious, sins) by people that may not understand Marxist doctrine, vis a vis atheism and the attitude towards religion.
NO belief system is sans reproach when it comes to evil committed in its name.
Same goes for atheism.
Funny, slightly on topic picture
Reminds me of this classic video.
|
|
No, the people who keep voting over and over for the same douchebags in the major parties are insane (definition: doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result). Keep voting Republican and Democrat, electing the same crap year in and year out, and keep telling me I'm wasting MY vote by voting third party.
Huh, I hadn't realized just how cookie cutter the world is. How absolutes always control my every action and make me do the same thing or nothing at all. Nothing's fresh, everything's been done. </snark>
Believe it or not, voting for "the lesser of two evils" is still EVIL. Enjoy the grass you're grazing...
That is an incredibly bleak outlook. Way to lump me in with the sheep there, though you have no actual clue who I am do you? Complaining is changing things for the better in your case yes? No, well I'm sorry to hear that.
I'm an independent, I vote for whoever I think will do a good job representing me. That means I'll vote third party (though I live in Missouri and getting a 3rd party candidate on the ballot often involves shooting off a foot here). Its not just people who are the problem its the laws. If your only two options are evil, do you really think that picking the greater evil is the same?
There are lots of people who actually think things are changing for the better. Apparently they wanted something new because fourteen years of Republican control congress has just switched to being democratically controlled. I agree, the nation's been pretty polarized, but don't make the mistake of thinking that always taking the middle road will solve all your problems.
|
|
No, the people who keep voting over and over for the same douchebags in the major parties are insane (definition: doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result). Keep voting Republican and Democrat, electing the same crap year in and year out, and keep telling me I'm wasting MY vote by voting third party.Huh, I hadn't realized just how cookie cutter the world is. How absolutes always control my every action and make me do the same thing or nothing at all. Nothing's fresh, everything's been done. </snark>
Believe it or not, voting for "the lesser of two evils" is still EVIL. Enjoy the grass you're grazing...That is an incredibly bleak outlook. Way to lump me in with the sheep there, though you have no actual clue who I am do you? Complaining is changing things for the better in your case yes? No, well I'm sorry to hear that.
I'm an independent, I vote for whoever I think will do a good job representing me. That means I'll vote third party (though I live in Missouri and getting a 3rd party candidate on the ballot often involves shooting off a foot here). Its not just people who are the problem its the laws. If your only two options are evil, do you really think that picking the greater evil is the same?
There are lots of people who actually think things are changing for the better. Apparently they wanted something new because fourteen years of Republican control congress has just switched to being democratically controlled. I agree, the nation's been pretty polarized, but don't make the mistake of thinking that always taking the middle road will solve all your problems.
Oh, the way I prefer is far from the middle road. The point is, we elected a president this time who is beholden to a different set of criminals than the last one was. Only difference. The new guy's cabinet is nothing "new". And the new guy spent more in his first 100 days than the last guy did in his first four YEARS (and the guy before didn't veto any of the crap his own party passed, so he can't claim any high ground at all).
No, apparently the consumerist "I want it now" American public who seems to think it's ok to try to buy houses they can't afford and run up credit card debts they'll never be able to pay down WANT our government to do the same thing. Fine, if you're cool with stealing from our children to satisfy your immediate (and unnecessary) needs, so be it.
I'm not cool with it.
As far as my having a "bleak" outlook, well, I haven't seen any "change" I believe in, I've seen a lot of business as usual, just with a much bigger price tag than before.
Myopia is easy to cure. Just open your eyes...
The point is, we elected a president this time who is beholden to a different set of criminals than the last one was.
You're quoting Maher, the arrogant, smug and vile? I thought your hilarious, irony-laden posts were unintentional but now I'm not so sure. Just another thing that my closed, sheep eyes can't figure out I guess.
You raise an interesting point by stating that the lesser of two evils is still an evil. However, putting the choice of a lesser evil on par with the greater evil is ignoring the entire idea behind such a choice. I've a couple more phrases for you to chew on: how about "necessary evils"? Or, for that matter, "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't"? It's all well and good to say that you intend to take the moral high ground - just be aware that you are identifying yourself as an idealist (as opposed to, say, someone who actually lives in the real world).
|
|
Oh, the way I prefer is far from the middle road. The point is, we elected a president this time who is beholden to a different set of criminals than the last one was. Only difference. The new guy's cabinet is nothing "new". And the new guy spent more in his first 100 days than the last guy did in his first four YEARS (and the guy before didn't veto any of the crap his own party passed, so he can't claim any high ground at all).
No, apparently the consumerist "I want it now" American public who seems to think it's ok to try to buy houses they can't afford and run up credit card debts they'll never be able to pay down WANT our government to do the same thing. Fine, if you're cool with stealing from our children to satisfy your immediate (and unnecessary) needs, so be it.
I'm not cool with it.
As far as my having a "bleak" outlook, well, I haven't seen any "change" I believe in, I've seen a lot of business as usual, just with a much bigger price tag than before.
Myopia is easy to cure. Just open your eyes...
You're comparing the start of presidency in the middle of an economic crisis to a president who started with the largest surplus in history? I'm sorry, but I don't think I am the one with my eyes closed here.
America isn't the problem, neither is it the parties. You cannot blame a person with a family for wanting a better place to live. You cannot point the finger at a representative for doing what his constituents ask. You seem to want immediate and drastic change, but America is not designed to do that. The Constitution is meant to prevent change, and its pretty good at it. Don't blame anyone now for the short comings of ink and paper.
Like I said before, there are many laws in place that prevent just the kind of change you're looking for. Its not the fault of anyone because no one person can work in a scope that controls access to all laws in this country: federal, state, and local. The kind of change you're looking for has to come from a movement, a popular change that cannot happen as long as people sit idly by and complain that nothing is better. Personally, I think the kinds of changes necessary can be made through one of the two main parties. If you disagree, that's yours to do as you see fit.
However, I would suggest that you find out how to contact your local government official, state representative, and your congressmen. At the very least you can voice your complaints and or solutions to them. You could also look for any groups or organizations that you think are on the right track and volunteer to help them. If nothing else it will probably make you feel better.
|
|
You're comparing the start of presidency in the middle of an economic crisis to a president who started with the largest surplus in history? I'm sorry, but I don't think I am the one with my eyes closed here.
Yeah, um, the new dude has, in the first 100 days, run up a deficit larger than anyone before him, combined. He could tax the top 1% 100% of their income for the next four years and not come close to balancing his budget plans. But then, everyone seems to forget Clinton HAD to submit a balanced budget. Congress threatened to shut down government until he did so. And even the new guy's own people told him massive infrastructure spending would do little to "stimulate" anything.
America isn't the problem, neither is it the parties. You cannot blame a person with a family for wanting a better place to live.
Not if they can afford it. If they can't, then, yes, I can blame them for all sorts of things.
You cannot point the finger at a representative for doing what his constituents ask. You seem to want immediate and drastic change, but America is not designed to do that. The Constitution is meant to prevent change, and its pretty good at it. Don't blame anyone now for the short comings of ink and paper.
Funny, but "immediate and drastic change" is what the new dude RAN HIS CAMPAIGN ON. And I think you have a very infirm understanding of what exactly the Constitution is meant to do, and exactly how far away from the principles the writers of the Constitution held (particularly Jefferson, who would be furious to see the Democrats continually invoking his name) our government has strayed.
Like I said before, there are many laws in place that prevent just the kind of change you're looking for. Its not the fault of anyone because no one person can work in a scope that controls access to all laws in this country: federal, state, and local. The kind of change you're looking for has to come from a movement, a popular change that cannot happen as long as people sit idly by and complain that nothing is better. Personally, I think the kinds of changes necessary can be made through one of the two main parties. If you disagree, that's yours to do as you see fit.
I don't think you understand something. The only "change" I want to see is that our government get back to actually FOLLOWING the Constitution, and living within their means.
Jefferson said "We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds... [we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers...And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for [another ]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery...And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."
However, I would suggest that you find out how to contact your local government official, state representative, and your congressmen. At the very least you can voice your complaints and or solutions to them. You could also look for any groups or organizations that you think are on the right track and volunteer to help them. If nothing else it will probably make you feel better.
Studpuffin, I've been a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party since I've been old enough to vote. I've been active in these issues since then as well. Sorry, but your "advice" is not required.
More Jefferson quotes for you, since you presume to know the mind of the authors of the Constitution:
"Delay is preferable to error. "
"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history,
whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."
"When the government fears the people there is liberty;
when the people fear the government there is tyranny."
"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain
men from injuring one another, shall leave them
otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of
industry and improvement."
And my favorite: "I predict future happiness for Americans
if they can prevent the government
from wasting the labors of the people
under the pretense of taking care of them."
QED
|
|
The point is, we elected a president this time who is beholden to a different set of criminals than the last one was.You're quoting Maher, the arrogant, smug and vile? I thought your hilarious, irony-laden posts were unintentional but now I'm not so sure. Just another thing that my closed, sheep eyes can't figure out I guess.
No, I was paraphrasing Mark Twain, but, you know, whatever ;)
More Jefferson quotes for you
The priests of the different religious sects... dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live.
--Letter to Correa de Serra (April 11, 1820).The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
--Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-82).All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.
—First Inaugural Address (March 4, 1801).Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law” because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany (1819).