Forum Post: [DELETED]
Posted 12 years ago on March 8, 2012, 11:13 a.m. EST by anonymous
()
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
[DELETED]
Public Forum
2 comments 3 weeks ago by gsw
1 comments 4 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 1 year ago by agkaiser
6 comments 1 year ago by grapes
15 comments 1 year ago by gsw
12 comments 1 year ago by BrentWeirick81
30 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
48 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
16 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
8 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by grapes
6 comments 2 years ago by haightashbury98
51 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
14 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
6 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
Wow, that was quite a rant. It is so sad that hate is taking over our country.
If Republicans take control of Congress and the Presidency, then I'm going to Canada.
I hear you. Canada has Bruce Cockburn :). Anyway, that is the most spot on thing I've read in years. Enjoy, people.
I'd just about throw the race to be rid of you.
Regardless, Canada, or even Siberia, needs you much more and would be a better match.
Canada doesn't want you either. and by the way Canada does have a conservative in power now. Maybe try Venezuela or Iran.
The best I've seen, Thank you, MaryS
Notice the new report on the explosive growth of Sovereign Citizen hate groups (SPLC) http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/z_Personal/Huus/Year%20in%20Hate%20IR145.pdf
Remember when the GOP went "ballistic" and got Homeland Security to pull theirs back. Don't want their team's tactics exposed I guess.
Thank you for the link! I will check that out.
Well said. Sinclair Lewis was right. So was Upton Sinclair:
"It is difficult to make a man understand a thing when his paycheck depends upon his not understanding it."
Apparently, we need more people with "Sinclair" in their names. ;-)
Tocqueville had a similar comment about where you paycheck comes from:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
He was paraphrasing Ben Franklin:
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
Ben's version is better for two reasons -- it makes a better point, faster.
That goes for both political sides. There are many guilty parties in this mess. while we can rant about wall street and republicans, don't forget what is happening in most cities. democratic party controlled city government trade bloated union contracts for their votes and campaign contributions. Both are not sustainable for the taxpayers. Get the money out of politics, that should be only focus.
http://www.change.org/petitions/pass-the-human-rights-amendment
It might be better to rename it so it is more recognized for what its purpose is, but I agree in principle with it. Thanks
I'm open to suggestions. Thanks to you, too.
Yeah, more old dead guys. They weren't too smart or they would still be alive.
So do we become slaves when we come depend on the government for our very survival? Do we then really have any choice when we go into the voting booth?
Governments are instituted among societies because anarchy leads to non-stop violence. Go to any place in the world at any time in history in which the rules of society broke down and lawlessness reigned and you will find a terrified populace jumping at their own shadows. People CHOOSE government because its better than the alternative. Now we turn to what type of government and that's where the struggle really lives.
Arguments over size of government and whether or not it has a right to exist at all are philosophical at best, utterly meaningless in the main. What type of government shall we have and how shall we place controls on it that force it to serve its main purpose with minimal infringement on our daily lives? Those are the real questions and the very questions addressed by the Founders. The government of a large, rich, powerful and complex nation is necessarily large. The real question is a matter of control. By what mechanisms are we managing the government? I'd be happy to have those arguments with a rational conservative if one ever showed up.
Conservatives want to re-prosecute the role of government entirely, proposing to eliminate whole cabinet-level departments while simultaneously forcing government deeper into homosexual sex lives and women's vaginas. You can't live up to your own principles because all of your most cherished principles are in conflict with each other: free market at all costs; pro-life even if mom has to die; government drowned in a bathtub; homosexuals must be punished; taxes are theft; military spending is unlimited; welfare queens suck; corporate welfare is necessary; protesting by occupiers is immoral; protesting by tea partiers is patriotic.
At every turn, the principle you currently stand on is inevitably conflicting with one to three of your other most cherished principles. Some know that and just play along because you chose your team and you're sticking with it. Some are getting paid and nothing else matters. And some are too stupid for words. I gave up trying to identify which of those three categories any given troll falls into so now I just assume all three.
Nobody has a monopoly on the truth. Anyone who was sincere would be taking the time to really educate him or herself on the issues and the history of how we got here, not trying to convince well-informed people that a failed ideology is still really and truly, cross my heart, the best medicine. It isn't and the recklessness of myopic conservative slash-and-burn politics is coming home to roost. Look at the melee in the GOP primary. It's getting ugly and it's far from over. Good times! ;-)
Excellent post. I suggest that the reason Right ideology seems so contradictory is because it is composed of two fundamentally different factions. The Evangelicals, who sustain it with their votes and the 1% who sustain it with money. Each faction ultimately gets what it wants, or the promise of it at least, and each faction is careful not to step on the others toes. For fear of endangering this fragile relationship and exposing the other side to criticism that would harm this symbiosis.
The Evangelicals are promised "family values" and hope of overturning Roe. The 1%, get, well, the obvious.
As far as I can tell, it is the Religious Right/Evangelicals that really keep it going. They believe every right wing economic lie that is fed to them. In spite of factual evidence. The Religious Right isn't big on facts or logical thinking. It would destroy their faith. Their propensity for non-fact based thinking makes it that much easier for them to be manipulated. So really, all it takes is a few lies about economics, the promise of a government that will legislate "family values" and a Supreme Court appointment that will overturn Roe. And it's off to the races for the Republicans.
The current primary circus is the result of the the two factions actually exposing their contradictions. Since Romney only represents one side of the two factions. Instead of being part of both, which is the normal case. This primary is really the Evangelicals v. The 1%.
Priceless entertainment on so many levels.
Exactly, April, well said. And though some of the religious right probably do realize this now, their pride (and hate which I'm sure they don't recognize as such) prevents them from admitting they have been completely untrue to themselves. So what have they got, but a very unhealthy marriage. They need a divorce.
Agree, it is a very bizarre marriage! I would say dysfunctional, but it has really functioned quite well for a long time.
I don't think the Religous Right will ever realize. Those are minds that will not be changed. They will always vote based on social issues to impose their moral values. Not facts and logic. Because, clearly, their God and their religion is "right". They need to "save" the rest of us from ourselves and our ignorance. They're doing God's work.
I think maybe some of the mainstream Republicans/Conservatives are starting to realize that there are some real problems with their party. These are minds that can be changed. But they have a long way to go and a lot of work to do to wrestle control of the party from the Evangelicals. For the politically active Evangelicals, their activism is a calling from God.
Look at Romney. It takes alot of money to beat the Christian Evangelical's God. He's far out spent his opponents and still only manages to pull in 40% of the popular primary vote. Winning by just 3% points in his home state and less than 1% in Ohio.
So long as our country allows religion to be part of politics, the Religious Right will continue perverting elections and government with their religion. Trying to impose their moral values through legislation. They don't believe in the separation of church and state.
Unless it's another religion. Like Mormon.
The Republicans are experts at perversely using religion, the Christian God, for their political advantage (ie: Santorum, GW Bush).
It is a circus but the clowns are the evil Stephen King kind of clowns. I think that whole system is falling apart, it's just hard to say when or how.
Excellent analysis. And you're right, even though it's low-brow, this GOP primary season is some seriously high quality entertainment.
40 % of Americans describe themselves as conservative another 35% as moderate. About 33% of the folks describe them selves as evangelical and 1/3 of them are black. So it would seem that there is a pretty big block of people, about 30%, that do not fall into your two-faction division (these are also probably the folks that actually determine election outcomes). Have folks in that group developed a sort of a hybrid approach to the appropriate role of government in our lives?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx
http://isae.wheaton.edu/defining-evangelicalism/how-many-evangelicals-are-there/
Who cares who describes themselves as what? I don't care if they describe themselves as Mexican Midget Porn Stars. The point is - it is the Evangelicals/Religous Right and the 1% who are driving the Party. They're driving the bus. They're steering it. The rest are just along for the ride. Going where ever the bus takes them. Even if it's right off a cliff. Even after it's gone over the cliff and crashed to the bottom of a canyon. No matter. The Evangelicals have their "faith" and the promise of "family values" legislated. And the 1% continue to profit. The rest are promised everything will be fine if we just cut taxes.
(btw- Evangelicals make up roughly 50% of the Republican primary voting electorate).
If you were right I would not expect that Romney would currently have three times the number of Santorum delegates. It looks like a large number of the folks in the middle of the Rep Party (along with some evangelicals) are choosing the more moderate candidate.
You're joking me right? Who cares about the delegate count. My point relates to the popular vote. Romney has out spent Santorum by leaps and bounds. And still, can do no better than a 3% point victory in his home state, and less than 1% in Ohio! Laughable!
Romney has just 40% of the popular vote. Because 50% of the primary electorate will not vote for a Mormon! They say he's not "conservative" enough. That's just code for "he's not Christian". Who do they think they're fooling?!! It's really quite hysterical. lol.
He has to spend so much money just to get an edge on the Religious Right and eek out 40% of the popular vote!! lol! The Republicans and the Religious Right are really too funny.
The best entertainment that the 1% can buy!! lol lol lol!
Romney (the moderate in the field) has almost twice the number of delegates as the sum of the two conservative candidates.
A better read might be that moderate folks in party are trying to pick someone that better matches their views and most likely to win the election in Nov.
http://www.cbsnews.com/primary-election-results-2012/scorecard.shtml?party=R
Hooray for the waffling flip flopper!
Sometime waffling works. Waffling could be interpreted as having an open mind willing to consider other opinions when new evidence surfaces.
Unless the "waffler' is perceived as a liberal, then the "right wing" screams and yells about the waffling.
Double standards all the way home.
I don't know, they are beating up Romney pretty good on the flip-flop stuff.
Romney (the moderate in the field) has almost twice the number of delegates as the sum of the two conservative candidates.
http://www.cbsnews.com/primary-election-results-2012/scorecard.shtml?party=R
Which shows you where the real power is.
The power does not seem to be with the Evangelicals. They would prefer Gingrich or Santorum. Is the power with the top 1 % of wealthy Americans? Are they somehow swaying 50 % of Republicans to vote for Romney?
They're keeping Gingrich afloat to divide the evangelical vote and put Romney over the top. It's working really, really well.
Besides that, Santorum has alienated the "snobs" who want higher education: http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2012/02/28/jon-stewart-defends-barack-snoboma.html
I'm pretty sure Santorum will find a way to alienate his wife and kids by the time all is said and done. Good clip.
It does not seem to matter whether Gingrich is there or not. Romney has twice the delegates of Gingrich and Santorum combined.
There must be some other explanation for what is going on.
Out of replies below.
1) It doesn't take a Jon Stewart sketch to make Santorum's brand of crazy apparent to even the most casual observer. 2) Missouri's vote didn't count for delegates and there are other weird things as a result of everyone trying to shift the calendar this year. 3) No I am not interested in the internal machinations of the GOP -- why would I be surprised by a corrupt process in a corrupt party?
Folks spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year trying to understand why people vote the way that they do. With that understanding comes the power to predict what works and does not work in the election process. Corrupt or not understanding it is not only interesting it's vital; it wins elections.
Well, you let us all know when you find it. ;-)
Do you believe that evangelicals are not voting for Santorum because of something that they heard Jon Stewart say? Most probably don't know who Stewart is, and if they do it would be a badge of honor for Santorum.
The delegate numbers don't add up. Aren't you curious why ?
Agreed. The best entertainment that 1% money can buy.
It's probably just that santorum is such a weak candidate that even some of the evangelicals can't stand him. And now the women can't either.
I agree. He is getting some of the evangelical vote in spite of being a Mormon. It appears that many folks look at the field and Romney appears to be the more reasonable candidate. Romney also seems to have some business acumen that could help with economic issues.
Romney is getting some Evangelical voters. The racist and birther crowd.
Why do you think that evangelicals are racists?
After loving their god the second most important rule for them is to love their neighbors.
I live near a town in PA called Nickel Mines. There is a Christian sect living there that are evangelicals on steroids. They shun things modern, do not use electricity or automobiles, and prohibit shirt buttons in pursuit of humility. They are the Amish.
A few years ago a non-Amish milk truck driver with a wife and child from a nearby town went berserk, took a rifle into the Amish school house in Nickel Mines and shot ten little girls in the head. Five of the girls died and gunmen killed himself.
Do you know what the Amish parents of those little girls did? They went to the shooters funeral.
Do you know why they went to the funeral? To console shooters the wife and child.
If the world were filled entirely with evangelicals we would have few problems.
You should go to those Amish parents, look them in the eye, and explain to them how it is that they are racists.
Exactly. Poor babies, it's so confusing for them, huh.
Confusing for the evangelicals?
I'm surmising that there are racist Evangelicals. Because there are still lots of racist people in this country. It's hard to imagine that Evangelicals are racist free. And there are lots of crazy conspiracy theorists out there still trying to uncover evidence that Pres. Obama is an illegal alien. I'm sure there are some of these in the Evangelical crowd too. Who would rather vote for Romney, because he is their best bet, than have a black illegal alien in office for another 4 years.
That's a really sad story about your Amish neighbors. They obviously have very big hearts with an enormous capacity for forgiveness. Should we all strive to be so forgiving. Of course. But I don't want Evangelicals shoving their morality into government telling me to do it. These Amish people did it out of the kindness of their hearts. Which is the way it should be. Not because it was legislated. Which is what the Evangelicals in politics want. They wouldn't be neck deep in politics if they didn't want to legislate their morality.
I admire the Amish people. I'm not aware of the Amish distorting politics and making a disgusting mockery of the separation of church and state like the Religious Right do.
Rick Santorum will be ranting away with his God talk from now until the end of the primary. It's disgusting and perverted. It has nothing to do with the business of government. Do you think that the Evangelicals that make up to 50% of the Republican primary electorate are in so deep because they are concerned about the economy? Financial reform? Tax policy? Energy and the environment? Globalization and international trade maybe? Think again lovebug. Instead of taking on any one of these issues in any serious way Rick Santorum will be ranting away about God and religion. Because that's all that the Evangelicals need to hear. They mark their ballot for the politician who has been annointed by God.
And apparently God likes to hedge his bets because he told Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum that it was His Will that they should run for President. Evidently God changed his mind about Cain and Bachman. Actually I think the Herman Cain thing was God showing His Sense of Humor. So now there is only one true God candidate left. The ballot will read: Rick Santorum- endorsed by God. God gets to do that kind of thing. Because he's God.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/06/god_caught_backing_multiple_go.html
"I believe in a President who's views on religion are his own private affair. Neither imposed upon him by the nation, nor imposed by him upon the nation." Pres. John F. Kennedy
According to Rick Santorum, Pres. Kennedy's views on politics, government and religion are disgusting. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-santorum-slams-jfk-20120228,0,4346020.story
If the world were filled with Evangelicals we'd have fewer problems?? You cannot possibly be serious. Wars of religion and religious zealots have been cause of human suffering throughout history. We need more religious zealots?
I would say we need more people like the Amish who keep their religious views private. So should Rick Santorum, instead of perversely using God to get votes.
The Amish are religious zealots. Extreme Christian zealots, and their views are on public display every day as they block the public roads with their wagons. If you or I did that we would be arrested. They erect roadside billboards quoting scripture and opposing abortion.
Do you believe that President Obama ignores his religious beliefs when he makes decisions? Much of his public policy strategy is rooted in his Christian faith.
A good rule of thumb about accusing a large group of people of some heinous trait like racism, sexism, homo-phobia, etc. is to go and meet a number of people in that group equal to 1% of the total. Learn their names and after talking to them convince yourself that they are guilty of the accusation.
If you follow this rule you can still only be sure about 1% of them. That means that you could be wrong 99% of the time when you accuse someone of a particularly dastardly belief.
The Evangelicals power has been somewhat limited because they are split between Gingrich and Santorum.
The Republican establishment and money is behind Romney. They know he is the only viable candidate (somewhat moderate and centered) in a general election. They served up Romney and will make sure the Evangelicals don't spoil their plans.
But even if you add the Gingrich and Santorum delegates it is only half what Romney has. It must be something else.
"most laws are the imposition of someone’s values on others that may or may not have been successfully persuaded."
Hopefully our laws are those things that have been successfully persuaded and agreed by the majority. It should represent our values. Values that are generally accepted by the majority, for the good of overall society. Religion may be the root for some, while others may arrive at the same conclusion, regarding the same subject, by using other means, facts or logic.
But like Sen. Kennedy said, religion should not be a substitute for facts. We should strive as an electorate to use facts, and fact based logic for our politics and policies.
No. That one quote should not disqualify a person from public office. We have freedom of speech and freedom of religion. So long as in the full context, full public debate, faith was not being used as a substitute for facts and other persusive arguments and reasoning. Using faith as a substitute is a violation separation of church and state.
The person that said those words was the president, and in his official capacity of office was participating in the performance of a religious (specifically Christian) service. There was a definite co-mingling of church and state at Gettysburg. Lincoln invoked God in his speech as the overriding authority for the nation. "One Nation Under God" and "In God We Trust" are still in our Pledge and on our currency.
Would you vote for him today? Even though he was a Republican?
Dr. Martin Luther King was a Baptist Minister (and another Republican). That was his job. He had a PhD from BU in Theology. Would he be disqualified today from becoming president? I bet he'd make a great one. He had the gift of persuasion. The most important ability of a leader.
There are 300 million people in this country. It is rare that we ever get close to a majority of people to agree on a particular law. That is what is useful about representative democracy. Some horse-trading has to go on in order to get things done.
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote." Pres. John F. Kennedy.
BIG BIG difference between the Amish and Evangelical Christians. The Amish tootling around in horse and buggies and placing billboards on the side of the road is not violating the separation of church and state. Evangelicals are highly political. They do not believe in the separation of church and state.
No one should ignore their faith when examining their conscience in making a decision. We all bring our individual experiences, biases, including faith, as part of decision making. But part of examining our consciences is being able to identify religious biases. And be careful how those biases are applied to keep them out of government. That's why we have separation of church and state.
“Candidates do not have to check their religion at the door of the offices they seek. But they need to understand that they serve people of other faiths and of no faith. Resorting to religious language that sets people of faith against each other harms political discourse and sows religious discord,” said J. Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/religion-politics_n_1291624.html
Politicians and elected officials should be judged based on their policies and results. Not their church attendance. Not that they wear their religion on their sleeve. Voters should be basing their decisions on facts. Not God talk and bible quotes.
"...in applying religious values, we must respect the integrity of public debate. In that debate, faith is no substitute for facts." Sen. Edward Kennedy
"The separation of church and state can sometimes be frustrating for women and men of religious faith. They may be tempted to misuse government in order to impose a value which they cannot persuade others to accept. But once we succumb to that temptation, we step onto a slippery slope where everyone’s freedom is at risk." Sen. Edward Kennedy
"The real transgression occurs when religion wants government to tell citizens how to live uniquely personal parts of their lives." Sen. Edward Kennedy
"The proper role of religion is to appeal to the conscience of the individual, not the coercive power of the state. " Sen. Edward Kennedy
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/tedkennedytruth&tolerance.htm
If you don't see that Rick Santorum and Christian Evangelicals/Religious Right makes a disgusting mockery of the separation of church and state, then I don't even know what else to tell you.
I agree with your position, however most laws are the imposition of someone’s values on others that may or may not have been successfully persuaded.
Should the following public quote made only months prior to an election disqualify this person from becoming president?:
" -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
The 1% are supporting Romney with money. Romney spends the campaign funds to get the moderates to the polls to offset the 50% Evangelical vote.
Money from the 1% can change the votes of 2/3 of the Republican primary electorate? That seems like a stretch.
I think we're saying the same thing. But describing it a little differently.
Roughly (popular vote): I see it as the Evangelicals (50% split between Gingrich and Santorum) v. the 1% (50% Romney).
I agree that the Romney voters are moderates. But Romney is supported by the 1% and the Republican establishment. Romney has to outspend Santorum to get the moderates to the polls.
But by definition there are not enough of the 1% to make a difference.
Some evangelicals are pretty big on facts and logical thinking.
Keeping and open mind about people and avoiding group stereotypes, (especially groups of ~ 100 million people) helps to better understand both motivations and more importantly, actions.
http://biologos.org/blog/kathryn-hayhoe-evangelical-christians-climate-scientist
http://curiouspresbyterian.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/scott-mclemee-on-american-evangelical-scientist-francis-collins/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheist-hitchens-credits-evangelical-francis-collins-for-cancer-hope-49615/
Halle-freaking-lujah! You just identified two scientists that are also Evangelicals. Who are both vilified by fellow Evangelicals for their preference for facts and logical based thinking.
"She explains that admitting her identity as a Christian scientist can be uncomfortable." " -- many people in the church have a misguided view of the subject and do not look kindly at her career choice."
My point exactly. Evangelicals are uncomfortable with science in general. Science is rooted in facts. This makes most Evangelicals very uncomfortable.
Francis Collins - he is vilified for his scientific work by other Evangelicals as well. "That he accepts evolution provokes the suspicion that he is under the devil’s influence". And his worst hate mail comes from fellow Evangelicals!
Holy crap! I wonder how they treat non Evangelical scientists.
So if we can just convince the rest of the Evangelicals out there to accept scientific facts and use logical thinking skills, we might begin to make some progress.
Secondly, the rest of the Republicans will need to be deprogrammed from their Grover Norquist Mind Control.
I just can't paint millions of people with such a broad brush. You are talking about over 100 million people. They can't all be as un-complicated as that. Stating that they all vilify scientists and are all uncomfortable with science does not seem like a realistic conclusion.
Mind control for the other 50 or so million people? There would have to be some clear evidence before I would go that far.
Also, much of the scientific work in the western world since 1500 was done by scientists that believed exactly what the present day evangelicals believe. How do you explain their accomplishments?
Wake up cupcake. I agree. It's a little broad. But, in general, this is the way it is. Are there some exceptions - of course. But your articles prove my point. Those scientists are vilified by other Evangelicals because they believe in science.
I'll concede that there are varying degrees of sky creature worship by Evangelicals -Traditionalists, Fundamentalists, Centrists, Modernists. It's like porn. There's hardcore and softcore. On a broader religious spectrum, Evangelicals are hardcore.
Honestly, I couldn't care less what anybody's religious beliefs are. Christian Evangelicals can hate on people while singing Kumbaya all day long for all I care. So long as they keep their junk out of politics and government legislation.
The problem with Evangelicals/Religious Right is that they don't believe in the separation of church and state. And they are an increasingly powerful force in politics. In an attempt to legislate their morality.
"The Christian activist right is the largest, best-organized and, I believe, the most powerful force in American politics today," said Rob Stein, a Democratic strategist who recently provided briefings on the constituency to wealthy donors on the left. "No other political group comes even close."
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/10/nation/la-na-adv-christian-right-20110911
Yes. Grover Norquist Mind Control. Brainwashing. What else would you call it? That Republicans continue to believe the lies. The rich are job creators. Higher taxes will kill jobs. Despite all evidence to the contrary. The rich have never been richer. So where's all the jobs? We should be drowning in jobs. Taxes were lowered 30 years ago, and lowered even more. Instead of getting jobs, we got 30 years of middle class wage stagantion, the highest level of wealth inequality since the Gilded Age, and the highest levels of poverty in the history of the census. So wtf? The fact that anyone goes to the polls to vote Republican is beyond all rational explanation as far as I'm concerned.
Bruce Bartlett believes the right wing brainwashing is a result of Fox News.
http://billmoyers.com/segment/bruce-bartlett-on-where-the-right-went-wrong/
How do I explain the accomplishments of scientists that are also Evangelicals? I suppose they are better at compartmentalizing. I'm just speculating. It's a personal thing. How any religious person is able to separate and/or rationalize their faith which has zero empirical evidence.
I agree with you about poverty in America. By every metric I can find it is increasing. The question is what to do about it? After 50 years there war on it did not seem to work.
End the corruption of government. So the governemnt is representing everyone equally, not just the inerests of those who buy and pay for it.
Overturn Citizens United. A disasterous decision made by Republican nominated Justices.
We should have public financed elections. Favored more by Democrats than Republicans. Only one Republican is in support of the Fair Elections Now Act. Republicans only endorse increased transparency. Which will only serve to make more visible who is legally bribing them.
End the destructive Republican tax policies. That have helped to create 30 years of middle class wage stagnation. And the dangerous level of wealth inequality. Between 1945 and 1980, top tax rates were between 70% and 91%. During that time we paid Great Depression and WWII debt down from 120% of GDP to around 30%, built a nationwide infrastructure, put men on the moon, had a huge thriving middle class and the longest sustained period of stable growth in history.
Invest in public education. Our education system is only average compared to the rest of the industrialized world. Our higher education system is still one of the best but the cost is increasingly out of reach as it has increased over 1000% since 1980. Education will lead to innovation which will lead to jobs.
We need a new approach to reducing poverty. Clearly more of the same input will only produce more of the same result.
Education:
In cost per student for primary and secondary education the US is among the top three nations in the world. We rank 27 th in math and science. This result is not average, it is failing. This statistic is even sadder when we realize that the poorest among us are subject to the worst schools. The rich can afford private schools that go out of business if they do a lousy job (The Obama children go to Sidwell Friends at $32k per year) . On the other hand we have the best colleges and universities. Why? Because they have to compete for students. The problem is not the amount of money spent, it is how we spend it.
Keep gov funding of schools but hire private (non-profit if you like) organizations to run them. If they fail to succeed, fire them. Start with the worst schools now. This problem will take 20 years to fix because we have already ruined a generation (or 2, or 3).
Einstein found evidence for God in his scientific work. He was a believer and also pretty bright from what I hear.
Einstein believed in the impossibilty of a non created universe. I'm not aware that he found empirical evidence of God.
Einstein once said in defending his objection to the theory of quantum mechanics that "God does not throw dice". It tuns out that he was wrong about QM but used his belief in God to make the scientific conjecture.
So what you're saying is that - what Einstein couldn't prove scientifically, he filled in the gaps with God. That's not evidence. Like you said, it's conjecture. Einstein knew this. You said above that Einstein found evidence. He didn't. He used conjecture to explain what he could not explain with science. And was later proven wrong.
Seems Einstein fell into the the same trap. The God of the Gaps. He mistakenly fell back on religion instead of sticking to his scientific principles. He used conjecture, a belief in something that cannot be proven or disproven.
A scientific theory cannot be proven, only disproven. The same could be said about the existence of God.
Evidence can be found to support a scientific theory. Einstein found evidence for God in his work. The evidence was the mathematical proof by Heisenberg that he at first rejected. The proof that that some things are unknowable. If there are some things that we can never know, like the simultaneous position and velocity of a particle, but in fact the particle must possess, then the proof is evidence that there are some things that are beyond human understanding. Things that are unknowable. Things like God.
US productivity rose 3 % in the last 3 years. That translates almost one-to-one to employment. Would anybody be crying right now if the unemployment was 5%? Should we blame the lack of jobs on Americans that work too hard?
No. We probably wouldn't be here now. And wealth inequality would continue getter dangerously higher like it has been for the past 30 years. If unemployment had been 10% 10 years ago, we probably would have started dealing with the wealth inequality problem a little sooner.
We should blame the lack of jobs on destructive Republican policies. And the Democrats have pretty much been dickheads too.
I agree with you. It is not a Dem - Rep thing. Education is fixable, but it will require the displacement of entrenched institutions like school-boards, teachers unions, and the public school monopoly.
Education is fixable. There are a few things that are not fixable.
Here is what I can tell you about creating employment opportunities. In my job I have to hire people. It is a big deal if I make a hiring decision and that person turns out to be a dud. The most important factor in determining the success of a business is its workforce.
Over the years I have had a lot of training (both academic and the Hard-Knock varieties) and have seen the results of what does and does not work.
The first thing to do is to remember the goal. The goal of a business is to make money. Creating jobs is just a means to that end. So the hire must meet that goal. Since a hire is a long term decision (average in my business is 4 years) the hire must meet the long term goal.
I hire based on how that person can meet my goal. That includes all of the costs associated with the hire. Goals must me measureable, achievable, realistic, and timely (this applies to everything in life, not just business).
Next, divide characteristics of the hire into two piles:
Things that are changeable (training, skills, education, etc. These are the technical requirements for the job and are knowable.)
Things that are unchangeable (These are the most important and listed in priority order. These are the unknowable characteristics. The best you can hope for is a good feel by looking at the evidence and speaking to references. My favorites are references from references and common vendors. Vendors have nothing to gain by lying to you about a hire. ):
a. Get-it-done-itude (can the person execute) b. Enthusiasm c. Intelligence d. Honesty e. Personality (no jerks allowed, they poison the entire workplace)
I don’t worry much about Item 1 (hires can be filtered by a quick resume review), the focus is on Item 2. It would be nice to get a hire that scores 100% on all five categories, but it is rarely possible and they are not all equal.
So how is all of this relevant to this conversation?
Item 2 is the most important thing to an employer. How do we get more people to score 100% on these traits? If we can figure this out America would have the most powerful workforce on the planet. Fix this and I bet my house that you will end poverty in America.
The problem with America is not too many rich people, the problem is that we have a gross miss-understanding about why we have poor people.
this is who we hire mumbled numbers
no one passes
people are poor
Most legislation is someone's morality imposed on others. In a democracy it just the morality that the majority of folks agree on.
I would characterize this as social norms that are generally accepted as being beneficial to the overall interests of society.
The absense of certain morality in society can lead to breakdowns that require more legislation and regulation.
Evangelicals are not socially normal. They are a minority. Yet they wield an inordinate amount of political power. They don't believe in the separation of church and state. And they seek to legislate their narrow minority views of morality.
There are 100 million of them. That is a pretty huge minority.
Not sure where you're getting your number. That sounds way too high. Evangelicals are 26% of the population. Other Christian (Protestant/Catholic) is 50%. Unafilliated is 16%, all else is 8%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States
Again, I don't really care what they do or how many there are. The point is - they need to keep their religious beliefs out of politics and government. They can do what they need to do in their church, at the airport, door to door, or on the street corner.
Gallup puts the number at ~ 1/3 of the population.
http://isae.wheaton.edu/defining-evangelicalism/how-many-evangelicals-are-there/
There is a lot in what you wrote. Do you have a punch list?
In order of relevance (number of people affected) and impact (how much does it affect them) what are the top two things that represent:
Too much government.
Too little government.
No such thing as too much or too little "government." What you're really asking is too much or too little regulation, too much are too little being taken out of paychecks, too much or too little of a police state, etc etc. Each of those questions is related but none of them can be properly defined by "government." It's not the size of government that matters, but it's powers, it's ability to function and the control the citizens can exert on it.
Has it not occurred to any social conservatives that if government was small enough to drown in a bathtub, there wouldn't be any money to enforce legislation forcing women to have vaginal probes? That there wouldn't be any money to spend on abstinence-only sex ed? Or enforcing prayer in schools? This is the kind of thing April was talking about above. It would be so much more amusing to watch if you people didn't have voting rights. ;-)
You nailed it again. Thanks for saying what I think also. Better than I could have said it.
Government intrusion is simply not a problem so long as it is religious based. The 1% of the Republican party accept this because it makes the Evangelicals happy.
Nevermind that little thing called the First Amendment and the separation of church and state. That just means the separation of "other" churches. Like Mormon.
The 1% have an entirely different religion. Money. Which means small government for everything else. Less regulation, less oversight, less taxes.
God forbid we try to pass some financial regulations. That's just way out line! Or talk about raising taxes on the wealthy. Whoa whoa whoa!! Now you're really messing with the religion of the 1%.
And you know it's their religion because they only ever talk about "morality" when it comes to mortgage defaults.
Exactly. And too big to fail. Lol.
Which regulations would you like to eliminate and which would you like to keep (or maybe add to)?
And is the government always the best for the regulation job? Maybe the government should make the laws and hire companies to do the actual regulation? At least that way we can fire (or sue) them if they do a poor job.
You mean like Blackwater or the Federal Reserve or the Parking Violations Bureau in NYC or the Joint Underwriters Association in New Jersey? How many times do you have to see private companies with public authority get embroiled in corruption and scandal before you understand that corporations aren't run by angels?
As for which regulations, sure, I'll just bust out my list of 62,347 regulation adjustments I believe need to be made at the Federal level.
Good grief.
What are your top two?
I'll give you three. 1) Eliminate the Fed and Federal Reserve Notes, re-charter the US Central Bank and mint our own US Bank Notes interest-free. 2) Scrap all "free trade" agreements and go back to bilateral agreements only. 3) Replace the universal minimum wage with an enterprise-specific floating wage ratio phased in over five years.
That should keep you busy for a while. ;-)
Agree completely with 3). Limit 2) to the top five trading partners; that is 90% of the problem and also an easier horse to eat. I don't know enough about 1) to comment, but while 2) and 3) might have a chance of happening the hurdle for 1) must be huge.
Scrapping NAFTA and CAFTA is more than five bilateral agreements on their own. Nothing is an easy lift. But implementing those three things would not only boost the economy, but it would effectively end the artificial "business cycle" permanently. That isn't to say there wouldn't be rises and dips, but the extreme swings would be a thing of the past. The problem the Fed was originally supposed to solve, by the way, was what was described back then as the "boom-bust cycle." Bang-up job! Alan Greenspan should be serving life in prison (which I say even as I watch his wife on MSNBC!).
PS - Admit I was expecting more contrarian argument from you. Happy to have a legit discussion instead. Thanks. ;-)
“What better way to enslave a man than to give him the vote and tell him he’s free.” -Albert Camus
Alec ju st lost pepsi coke & kraft
I certainly don't hate America. I can't imagine living anywhere else. I love American music, American movies, American cities, American cities and most of all the American people, but I can't say that I think much of the corporatist imperialist American nation state, its major political parties or its current executive leadership. I know that many people who contribute to this forum do not agree with me, but I truly can't understand how anyone who says they are supportive of OWS could possibly be supportive of this reactionary and imperialist administration that has turned assassination into an official instrument of American military policy, whose ecoomic advisors are drawn almost exclusively from Goldman Sachs, whose domestic advisors are drawn largely from the Chicago Democratic machine and whose foreign policy advisors are largely Clintonistas, By no means, how ever, should this be construed either as an endorsement of the Republican Party which is even more reactionary or of some inconsequential so-called third party, As small and fragile as it is OWS is our last best hope,
Hahahahah... That is one of the best things I have ever read. Hahahah...just great!!!
I don't think it will do much for helping to unify this deeply divided nation, and it was somewhat primitively and entertainingly expressed, but I think some of the key message points are pretty much undeniable.
The author also mentions "code words" being used, and that reminded me of this leaked info that shows just how concerned/frightened they really are:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/watch-this-leaked-republicans-scared-of-occupy-wal/
I bet you if Jesus came down from heaven right now and came to the United States, he would be persecuted by the 'Jesus loving' Christians for being a Muslim because of the color of his skin. Most pictures I've ever seen as Jesus portray him as a white honky-tonkin' American, with a propensity for small children.
Jesus is actually Chinese and he did teach congress what to do with page boys.
YOU SONOVABITCH! I'm Japanese and if you ever call me a one of those again, you'll relive our page boy scene right before we devised the bi-party scheme and you were cast out.
Thank you for posting this MaryS. Says what a lot of us are feeling.
Thanks. I know.
The funniest one is .... the guy who hates homosexuals, Muslims, immigrants, minorities, women, unions, etc. ... but then in the next breath says, I love Jesus.
Yeah really. Wonder what Jesus thinks of them. Not much, I suspect.
[Removed]
This was brilliant MaryS. If I havent said it already I'm saying it now!!!
Thank you, GK. Kudos to that guy. It’s interesting to see the reactions to the post and one thing I would want the people to think about who are offended, ask yourself why and then ask again. People tend to get into their comfort zones way too easily so they can have everything sewed up nice and tidy. They identify others as “puppets” but don’t see they might be themselves. The thing to do is keep an open mind, keep listening, learning and questioning always. Don’t get too comfortable. To me that really is radical.
Yes, keeping an open mind is radical. Being able to alter your beliefs based upon new evidence and an understanding that life is in flux is truely radical. But it might not be entrely appreciated:)
I don't like Obama because he bombs brown people in countries that didn't attack us. War crimes are crimes against humanity.
It's weird how everyone hated Bush for this. But now that a democrat is doing it... it's not a problem for you.
War crimes are never okay. Not when a republican does it. And not when a democrat does it.
Obama is a pro-war politician with Goldman Sachs in his back pocket.
There are more options than Mittens and Obama. Check your ballot. Stop supporting pro-war politicians.
It's ignorant to lump such a broad group of people into such a category the way it was done here. It reminds me when all the republicans called us unpatriotic and said we didn't care for the country when we opposed Bush.
The GOP is never the answer. But if democrats were smart they would have supported Dennis Kucinich back in 2008. The ONLY democrat to try and impeach Bush.
After the way congress and the past 2 presidents have acted, I can't call myself a democrat or a republican. Both parties are deeply flawed and they both work for the 1%
Trevor no offense but is there anyone on here who hasn't heard this a thousand times. I think most people on here are independent like me but I would never say these two parties are the same, to me there is a world of difference aside from the funding issues you mention. And who says war is not a problem for me / us or whoever you're addressing this to? I don't believe Obama can even come close to being the kind of leader he might have been had he not stepped into a shitstorm. I recommend reading "The Obama Hate Machine" for another point of view.
I never said they were the exact same. I did say they both bomb people in countries that didn't attack us and are not a threat to us. I did say they are both deeply flawed. I did say they both work for the 1%.
If you don't want to believe that then why was Goldman Sachs Obama's number 2 highest bidder in 2008? Why didn't the democrat impeach Bush? They had 8 years and mountains of evidence. Both support wars and the oppression of people for the profit of the elitists at the top of corporations.
Bravo.
WoW!
I am impressed.
That must have felt really good to let go of.
I don't think that there are many who could argue with the content either.
Bravvo!
Talk about a coherent venting.
I know it felt really good reading it :). Thx
Well Done! Brava!.. And Mary, when you get a Second Breath.. Could you do one on
..... Fox ( entertainment) News??
Just thought I'd ask..
Marlow
( DKA Sent me here to read your topic, and THANKS DK!!)
Here's a few for you:
http://journowatch.com/2011/02/19/freedom-of-the-propagandist/
http://journowatch.com/2011/03/05/we-report-you-decide/
http://journowatch.com/2011/03/12/fair-and-balanced/
TY so much.. saving these for later...
Haha. I'm not the author of this but I wish I was. I would dearly love to do one on Faux news...
Hey that shouldnt stop you or ANY one with 2 brain Cells to rub together to do a perfectly hilarious piece on those Goobers..
I know there is a Pulitzer out there just Waiting for it! ;^)
No thank You. That was great! It is what I think many people would like to shout out at full volume in a governmental setting or anywhere in public for that matter. That was quite a dam burst.
The author is "MinistryOfTruth" on Daily Kos. It's like the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it any more" moment. Definitely a keeper.
Here is to hoping that it is shared everywhere. I know I will.
"I don't think that there are many who could argue with the content either."
It doesn't surprise me at all that you think this,or that MaryS would post it either. You both probably only find yourself among ideological sympathizers and Drones of the same make and model. You all need a reality check.
I actually consider myself an independent but have strayed to both sides of the fence so I think I know what I'm doing. There isn't anything to fight about in this post, just a man having a nice cathartic moment of truth. Don't fight it, just enjoy it, lol. lots of simple wisdom there.
If you think that rant is a "moment of truth" then you don't really know what you're doing and you aren't a real "independent",you are simply another one of the many propagandized Leftists that need a reality check.
What makes you so certain you are not the propagandized one? I am probably a quarter of a century older than you so I've had a little time to think about my views. Mmmkay? Sounds like the post touched a nerve.
These trolls get very touchy when their agenda is exposed. Like injured animals, they bite when one is helping them.
Thanks, MaryS, for the post.
:). My pleasure. This forum is not for the faint of heart, hehe.
" I am probably a quarter of a century older than you"
Then you know what happens when you assume.....mmmkay?
I don't know what kind of America the author is talking about. Obama despises the Constitution and kills US citizens at will.
Short list of Constitutional violations (within the past year):
This rant is a great example in the cognitive dissidence of Obama supporters.
to all anarchists - read this - and think
This is the best post I have seen in quite awhile here. It is the simple, unvarnished, truth. We are all sick of people who do nothing but hate. They want to make life a hell so they can drag us all into the hell of their own inner-world. I'd rather be dead.
[Removed]
[Removed]
"I think you hate gays, Obama, black people, poor people, all of us, women, atheists and agnostics, Latinos, Muslims, Liberals, all of us, I think you hate every one who isn't exactly like you"
It's funny, you listed these groups which are the groups of people being segmented by the media, and pandered to by the politicians as "special interest groups"
Wake up people. WE ARE NOT PEOPLE TO THEM. We're numbers. Tax paying units. And they own our stupid asses every time we vote the same bullshit politicians back into office. Republican and Democrats are the same. They are the puppet masters. Dance puppet, dance.
[Removed]
there are some blanket statements in there. I dont love this country. I only love it in as much as its occupiers do what is right, and when they dont, i love it less. Although I may hate gay soldiers, and sure wouldnt want me children see two men kissing on my television especially, I hate the wars equally for they are illegal. No man has asked my permission, and they say we the people rule? When did congress ever declare war on any of those countries, since vietnam, korea, afghanistan, iraq? Or did we just throw out our laws, and become a dictator state? Blacks I feel sorry for, cause the hypocrate white men have hated them and despised them for a century now, and they need to forgive and play catch up. I know what its like to not own land, my family hasnt for 3 generations now, (5 on my mothers side). But until blacks lower their criminal stastics of crime against whites, and violent crimes in general, its not going to help their cause.
I would say that I am becoming racist against americans. I hope the prediction in the mormons book of mormon comes true where the current occupants will one day be swept off the land, even as the indians were, as told in the narrative voice of the Lord Jesus Christ, in 3rd nephi chapter 22. This I would welcome, as then the land would be inherited by the people, and no longer in the hands of the elitists.
Does this sound credible?
How could this person constantly meet people that hate:
Obama, gays, Muslims, black people, immigrants, women, labor unions, being called racist or a bigot, socialism, social justice, regulations, taxes, spending, the government, science, math, and also hate everything else.
Sounds demographically impossible.
Also, how is it possible to maintain your sanity when constantly meeting people like this? I would hate that.
I live in New York. I meet every type of person there is to meet every week, by chance, at random, on the subway.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
BTW, is it ok to hate anything? Genocide, rape, torture, murder, racism, bad Theater, Brussel sprouts, anything?
No, you must love all things at all times. Be in a constant state of love. Love is all you need. She loves you, yeah. Money can't buy me love. The long and winding... oops, sorry. And I Love Her. Love Me...
Even Brussel Sprouts? You sound like my Mom, and you left out my favorite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlShC-GxFNw
But is it possible that you meet them and get to know them well enough to discover that they hate:
Obama, gays, Muslims, black people, immigrants, women, labor unions, being called racist or a bigot, socialism, social justice, regulations, taxes, spending, the government, science, math, and also hate everything else?
Yes, all things are possible at all times. Don't you know anything about physics?
Possible, but unlikely, and also not very pleasant.
"From: Daily Kos:"
That says all anybody needs to know about the veracity of this piece of hate propaganda.
the left hates Christians, white males and conservative blacks and women. And conservatives are allowed to not like a president like Obama because of his policies not because of his race. Look how Bush was hated horribly by the left (much worse than any Obama opposition from the right), was it because he was white (well for a few maybe) no its because they didn't like his policies.
Nice try, parasite. But no. We are not so tolerant of the intolerant and that's what pisses you off. Don't forget to claim benefits this week!
so if you are intolerant of the intolerant , doesn't that make youintolerant? Sounds like justification of hate. A third grader could take apart the illogical above rant. Melting pot but multi-cultural, how can you be both at the same time? And i know you don't understand that, its ok, conservatives are smarter than liberals but you will catch up. How do you handle minorities like Senator Rubio, Congressman Allen West? must blow your liberal mind, minorities but conservative, does not compute,does not compute!
Your best Socratic method is meaningless to me. Why didn't you start with Justice Pubic Hair? Your token minorities don't impress their own communities, let alone yours. Go ahead and pretend they're members of the club, we both know that's bullshit.
And if a third-grader could take apart the post, you seem to be getting your ass handed to you by a third-grader.
hahahaha
of course its meaningless to you, that's my point. Anyway good luck.